Hansard Transcripts 1982-Apr-29 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Samis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: A week ago the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and I raised several questions about a report from officials within the Ministry of Labour regarding hazards involving the approximately 13,000 vehicles in this province that were converted to propane. At the time, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) said he was not aware of the report, but he was rather upset by its contents.

In view of the serious nature of the allegations in that report affecting the health and safety of motorists in this province, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could use your good office to ascertain if the minister will report to the House on whether he has done anything as a result of the report, or whether he has decided not to accept the report. Surely, members of this House are entitled either to a statement or to a response from the minister in view of the seriousness of the allegations.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister will take note of the member's concern, and will respond as quickly as possible. I shall draw it to his attention.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I know that many of the honourable members have been following the issues raised in the last number of months concerning the Whitchurch-Stouffville landfill site operated by York Sanitation Co. Ltd. There has been a considerable amount of concern among residents of that community that the quality of their drinking water has been affected by leachate from the landfill site. While the public health concern is not supported by the evidence gathered in an extensive and far-reaching water quality monitoring program by my ministry, it does persist in the minds of the many residents. I believe their peace of mind will benefit substantially from three decisions I am announcing today.

First, the ministry's director of environmental approvals, after an extensive review with qualified technical advisers, has rejected a proposed expansion of the York Sanitation landfill operations.

Second, the director is preparing a notice to revise the certificate of approval for the existing operation. This will set stringent environmental controls, spell out the quantity of wastes that will be permitted at the site and serve notice to the owner that the site will no longer accept garbage after June 30, 1983. It will likely take a further six months to properly restore the site as part of the close-out procedure.

Third, my ministry is requiring the operator to provide water service from the Stouffville municipal system to the 12 homes closest to the landfill site.

As members know, following extensive hearings last year the Environmental Assessment Board recommended that approval be given to the application by York Sanitation to expand landfill operations into adjoining areas of their property. The director of environmental approvals, who is responsible for certification of waste management sites and other community services, reviewed this recommendation, all relevant documents and technical evidence and a continuing flow of scientific information from monitoring activities in the area. Based on this review and continuing consultation with qualified technical staff, he has ruled against the application to expand.

There are a number of technical considerations that are key to this decision:

First, the application for expansion submitted by the applicant is conceptual and lacks the necessary information and data required by the ministry to evaluate the proposal fully.

Second, the information that has been provided has some fundamental errors which make the proposal unacceptable since the site may create a nuisance and a health hazard. In addition, ministry staff and the director are not satisfied that the liner which York Sanitation proposed to use would provide the degree of protection required for the landfill operation.

Third, it is apparent from studies that the area proposed for expansion is significantly different and more sensitive than the areas which were previously landfilled. The northern portion is a significant source of necessary ground water recharge and therefore susceptible to contamination from filling the northern portion.

Fourth, the Ministry of Natural Resources has advised us that part of the proposed landfill expansion falls in a provincially significant natural bog area containing several regionally rare plants which would be adversely affected.

The existing landfill operations at the site have been conducted under short-term certificates of approval issued by the director while ministry staff studied all facets of the application and the operation of the existing site in relation to the extensive monitoring we are now conducting in the area.

To date, we have completed more than 25,000 analyses of some 2,000 samples of drinking water taken from wells in the area. Although all of the analyses to date have not detected levels of any hazardous contaminants in the local wells attributable to the landfill site, the disposal operation did produce detectable changes in some of the nonhealth-related parameters, such as hardness, sulphates and chlorides. While these upward trends are not significant in themselves, they must be considered in conjunction with the history of the site.

Therefore we have decided to take the additional two measures which I outlined for the long-term protection of the local environment and community health.

We will order the company to provide a municipal water supply from Stouffville to the 12 properties closest to the landfill site where the possibility of long-term effects, if any, are most likely to occur. The director of environmental approvals will issue a new certificate of approval governing the existing site and serve notice that the owner must not receive wastes after June 30, 1983.

During that time, the operator will be allowed to accept no more than 1,100 tons a day until an allowable final contour of the site is reached. This will bring the present site to capacity and provide sufficient time for York Sanitation to reallocate its operations to other locations without disrupting service to its clients.

The owner will be required to complete covering, contouring and landscaping necessary for the environmentally safe closing of the site. The close-out conditions will also require the company to design and develop long-term monitoring and environmental protection measures for the site's permanent security.

My ministry will continue to impose enforcement and application of all existing environmental protection measures at the site as a condition of continuing operation. This will include the ongoing ground water monitoring program conducted by the company and we will require substantial but fair financial security to be posted by the company to ensure the security of the site after it is properly closed.

Ministry staff will maintain our ongoing program of monitoring and water quality analysis to ensure no long-term problems arise from this site either before or after its closure.

In arriving at these decisions, all factors were carefully weighed and several regulatory options were considered by the ministry. All of the necessary resources of my ministry will now be applied to see that the course of action required is implemented by the company as quickly and as effectively as possible.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. He is under the gallery. Perhaps we could wait for a second until he takes his seat. Perhaps you could urge him.

Mr. Martel: He is coming on stage; he wants the cameras on.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps a drum roll would be in order. Do you have a statement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Later.

Mr. Bradley: Wait until the cameras are in place.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Too early.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me welcome the Minister of Health on his early arrival today. Perhaps he will be so kind as to bring the House up to date on the state of the negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association after his personal intervention, and let us know whatever information he has gleaned about the state of disruptions in the hospitals. I refer specifically to the number of cancelled operations and the state of the hospitals in this province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations were quite productive yesterday. It was a long and useful session. I had a chance to exchange with the members of the board of the OMA the government's views of the situation, to confirm our bona fides, our belief in the profession and our desire to arrive at a fair settlement. I explained to them why I thought the current proposal was fair, and they had an opportunity to explain to me why they thought their demands were reasonable. They also had an opportunity to explain just how angry they were, and why. All of that was useful to both sides.

Before we finished, after a long four and a half hours, we agreed that it would be useful for the negotiators to reconvene today. At the start of all this I said this was a situation which changed literally from hour to hour. The negotiators have spent many hours of many days looking at many proposals and, notwithstanding the fact that both sides expressed reluctance to send the negotiators back to the table if we did not feel there was some purpose to be served, it was agreed that the negotiators could perhaps do something useful today. As a result, the negotiators began meeting this afternoon at 1:30. I am awaiting word from our negotiators as to the progress of those negotiations. I hope they go well, once again, as I am sure the member does.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary question by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: This is not a supplementary; it is part of the original question. I asked the minister about the state of the hospitals in the province, how many cases of cancelled surgery there have been and what reports he is getting back about the disruptions and the possible threat they represent to the health care system in this province.

Mr. Speaker: That would properly be a supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: It is not. That was the second part of the original question, as you will recall. I am sure if you check Hansard, you will agree.

Mr. Nixon: I remember it clearly.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not remember that, but in any case --

Mr. Kerrio: That is a very convenient memory.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have a short memory.

Rather than list 250 hospitals, it might be helpful to provide the member with some breakdown by regions. This is as of yesterday.

In the eastern region there was no increase in emergencies. In fact some hospitals had a reduction in emergencies. In eastern Ontario, cancellations of elective surgery were about 40 per cent. Generally speaking, most physicians were available in most hospitals.

In the southwestern region, emergencies were about the same as usual, in fact also with some decrease. Elective cancellations were running between 60 and 80 per cent. Generally speaking, there were no serious problems reported by the hospitals in this region.

In the central west region, emergencies generally increased. Elective cancellations were about 15 per cent and no serious problems in general were reported.

In the central east A region -- I can break these out if required -- there was no increase in emergencies. Elective cancellations ran between 25 and 50 per cent. In general the hospitals reported no serious impact as a result of the job action.

In the central east B region, emergencies generally increased and elective cancellations substantially increased. But again, in general no serious problems were reported.

In the northern region, emergencies generally increased and elective cancellations substantially increased. However, there were no serious problems.

The foregoing is the general situation with the hospitals as learned from phone calls made and received by the ministry to and from all our area teams throughout the province. I can give the member some information with regard to some specific hospitals if he so desires.

Mr. Peterson: Given the already serious backlog in the system, albeit in some hospitals it is more serious than others, and given the compounding effect that these cancellations have on that, is it the minister's plan to now accept further job action next week or does he have an alternative to that?

Hon. Mr Grossman: Yes, I do have an alternative and that is a negotiated agreement.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the minister is still not able to say anything other than that, generally speaking, there have not been any problems. I am sure everyone regards that as about the most ominous thing he could say.

Can the minister give us an understanding of how many hospitals have replied to the telexes sent out on April 20? Can he tell us how many hospitals have replied indicating they were totally prepared to deal with a withdrawal of medical services and how many hospitals and which hospitals indicated they were not prepared for the walkout? Can he also tell us how many hospitals in the province are in a category for which the minister cannot say they are prepared or not prepared?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Subsequent to the telex, I believe my area teams have been in touch with each and every hospital in the province, almost all.

Mr. McClellan: Does the minister know or does he not know?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The captains of the area teams have reported to us that all hospitals have been contacted.

Mr. McClellan: Either he knows or he does not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have been in this House a little bit too long, unless I have seen details of the phone calls from 250 hospitals, to put myself in a position of allowing the member to stand up tomorrow on a point of personal privilege to say he has information from someone, who works as a clerk in someone's office in some hospital, that they were not contacted.

I can report to the member that my staff indicates every hospital has either communicated by letter or been spoken to by phone. Again, there may have been one or two missed, but I do not believe that is the case.

The process we used was so effective that where any deficiency was reported to the area teams and the ministry, we were able to work with the hospitals to make sure that the hospitals were satisfied they could meet their obligations under the Public Hospitals Act.

While I emphasize I believe job action should not have been taken, if the member will look at the hospitals across the province and what did happen during the last two days, he will note the hospitals were able to cope. With the cooperation of the physicians, they put in all standby mechanisms, in some cases increased the numbers of physicians on duty in emergencies where necessary; doctors did make their hospital rounds the way they are required; hospitals had put in sufficient mechanisms to ensure that where elective surgery either had not been scheduled or was cancelled for some people, appropriate steps were taken to ensure those operations were either proceeded with if they became emergencies, or rescheduled at a reasonable time.

If the member will look at the sequence of events over the past few days, when we have had a chance to analyse what happened in the hospitals I believe we will find that many of the procedures that would have been booked for Tuesday and Wednesday were booked on Monday, today and Friday, so that there was a longer use of the operating rooms during those three days. A great number of those cases that were cancelled were proceeded with some time this week. I cannot say all of them or the majority, but a great number.

Ms. Copps: Has the minister or a member of his staff been in contact with any of the support people involved in this moving around of elective surgery, for example the president of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, who believes that the nurses are already strapped to the limit in trying to cope with the increase in elective surgery on days not included in the doctors' walkout. If he has not been in touch with the RNAO personally, why not?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This morning, I spent the hour from nine to 10, not only with the president but also with the president-elect and 700 members of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, to whom I delivered a speech which the member will be delighted to know was warmly received and was interrupted by applause four times. The president had every opportunity to relay all her concerns to me.

2:20 p.m.

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister, I am sure, is well aware of the National Energy Board decision giving its approval to the General Public Utilities cable. It is now very clear that this matter is coming back into the minister's court with respect to his opinions and influence on the effects it will have on the environment if this project goes through.

Who is speaking for the environmental concerns on this issue? Is the minister prepared now to have an open environmental hearing on the matter so that we can publicly discuss all the questions attendant thereto?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that nothing has happened at the NEB hearing which in any way has brought it back into my court, I think was his expression.

The process, as he knows full well, is unfolding. The matter will be before the Ontario cabinet at the appropriate time. That has always been part of the process, and still will be. At this stage, as he knows, the matter is before the federal cabinet.

If he wants to know what influence is going to be brought to bear and what opinions I have on the matter, I do have some very strong opinions and they will be part of my submission and recommendations to my colleagues when the matter is before the Ontario cabinet.

Unlike the federal Minister of the Environment, I do not consider that my oath of office is such that I can discuss publicly at this point my recommendations to cabinet. I think the Leader of the Opposition will realize the degree of influence that the Minister of the Environment in Ontario has is probably more substantial than has been demonstrated by the recommendations of the federal minister to the National Energy Board.

Mr. Peterson: Let me warn my friend the minister about his declaration of the world unfolding as it should. Others have made that kind of statement in the past, and it has come back to haunt them.

The minister is aware of the legal opinion that was presented to Ontario Hydro, and I assume it is Hydro's official position that the government of Ontario retains the ultimate power over this project by virtue of sections 24 and 70 of the Power Corporation Act, both of which require an order in council before such a project can proceed; that clearly puts the ball in the minister's court.

I have heard, and perhaps the minister will confirm, that he was planning a special hearing on this matter but that the stronger voices of the Hydro interests in cabinet were able to suppress his environmental concerns. How can we be sure the minister has a strong voice when he is not prepared to discuss this publicly? Since this violates the entire spirit of the environmental legislation in this province, why can we not have an open hearing? The minister is no good behind closed doors.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I caution the Leader of the Opposition not to believe all the rumours he hears. I realize his desperate wish to understand environmental issues may lead him to be gullible at certain times, but that is a very dangerous area in which to unleash his gullibility. With respect to what goes on in cabinet, I do not think his sources are very reliable.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that he and the cabinet to which he now belongs are ready to repudiate the commitment given clearly and unequivocally by his predecessor, Mr. Parrott, on April 22, 1980, to the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), when Mr. Parrott said the project would be "subjected to the full environmental procedure under Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act"?

What has changed since that date to make the minister so wishy-washy at the present time? Does he not think the people of Ontario would be prepared to pay not only for full environmental assessment hearings but 10 cents a month to avoid the additional acid rain that will result and that will fall in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of a repudiation of anything that either my predecessor or I have said. I am not sure whether the answers to the questions on the Order Paper have yet been tabled; there are three legal opinions, one of which runs to something in excess of 50 pages, which are being tabled in the House and I would commend them for reading. They will answer the question in terms of the status of our Environmental Assessment Act in this particular instance.

I share a very deep concern about environmental matters with some of the interest groups in the province. One thing I am becoming increasingly impressed by is the fact that there are many people who are concerned about the environment, but they are very bad at arithmetic. If one looks at the available information on the existing regulation on Ontario Hydro, if one looks at the data with respect to the emissions that may be attributable --

Mr. Foulds: Just keep the promise.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I certainly am keeping the promise. Don't worry about that.

If the honourable member keeps repeating this assumption often enough, I am sure he will convince himself that there will be increased emissions, and increased contributions to acid precipitation. The fact of the matter is that is not correct; we are reducing them. One might also read the National Energy Board's decision, which includes some very significant comments on that very subject.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer the minister has given, and in view of the fact that the federal Minister of the Environment has opposed the recommendation of the National Energy Board which has no proper imposition of tough acid rain controls, will the minister now assure the people of Ontario that he will participate in and give them the opportunity to participate in environmental assessment hearings? Also, since the minister did not participate to any great extent in the National Energy Board hearings, will he indicate to the people of Ontario what is really going to happen because of the export of this power?

Incidentally, it is going to provide 500,000 more tons of acid rain over the 10-year period.

Will the minister now assure the people of Ontario that the Environmental Assessment Act will be applied so that everyone can have an opportunity for input?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that all of the environmental impact issues are being looked at in great detail and that the executive council of this province, when it discharges its responsibility under the Power Corporation Act, will be fully advised on all environmental aspects; and I assure him that will be a very important part of the consideration.

Once again, I would emphasize, and this is not to foreshadow in any way what the decision of the cabinet might be, that even if there were no further controls imposed upon Hydro, the assumption about the increased contribution to acid precipitation is still wrong. Whether this goes ahead or not, Ontario Hydro will be reducing its emissions by about 50 per cent.

Mr. Kerrio: Tell your American friends that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have. They are not as hard to convince as some of the sceptics on the other side of the House here. The honourable members not only blind themselves to the facts but they cannot add two and two.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to send over to the minister my $1.40, which will make up for the amount of pollution that will fall on my property; I am prepared to give him $1.40 to make up for that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The member for Port Arthur with a new question.

Mr. Foulds: I might remind the honourable member that we do have very effective pages who can do the job he has just requested.

2:30 p.m.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Minister of Health whether he can give us his categorical and absolute assurance that none of the cancelled surgery yesterday throughout the province, and in excess of 500 cases in Metro Toronto, was urgent? And can he assure us that there was not the slightest health risk involved in any of the cancelled surgery?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously I cannot give the honourable member a categorical assurance at 2:30 this afternoon about all the cancellations that occurred yesterday. He knew that when he asked the question. If a more reasoned and fair question were asked, such as whether we are going to be getting information from the hospitals that will allow us to review all those cancellations and ensure that proper action is taken in each and every case where there is the slightest risk to health, the answer to that question is yes.

Mr. Foulds: Maybe I can ask the minister, as rationally and calmly as I can, what he thinks the degree of risk should be for the patients of Ontario. What does he think the degree of risk is going to be next week during the three-day walkout? What level of risk for the patients of Ontario is he willing to tolerate before he takes action to end the walkout? How much gambling is he going to do with the health of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The simple answer is that I expect each and every physician in Ontario to meet the same standard of care for his or her patients that he or she maintained before the strike began. That is very simple and very clear. It is their obligation under the legislation and they cannot fail to meet that obligation. They have to decide how they choose to meet their obligations to their patients, as indeed they have to decide when they take a three-week holiday or a one-day holiday or when they happen to be sick themselves.

Whatever sequence of events and whatever causes their absence from their offices or causes them to have to cancel elective surgery, I expect them to be as careful and as cautious in the case of rescheduling or looking after their patients during job actions as they are when they are absent from their offices for other, more reasonable reasons. That is very simple.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that under the present circumstances, when a death occurs or a serious downturn in a patient's wellbeing occurs in the context of the strike, the family and friends and others will attribute the death or the downturn to the strike? Does he not recognize that it is going to cause severe problems for the medical profession, and indeed for the Ministry of Health, when we find out that across Ontario there are examples of people who, unfortunately, have had deaths and are going to attribute them to the doctors' strike, whether it can be proven or not?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member raises a very valid point, and I for one urged that message on the Ontario Medical Association in one of the private meetings I had prior to yesterday.

The member has heard me indicate that we believe it is important that all steps be taken to protect patients' health and welfare throughout this job action. He has also heard me indicate that I think the job action is inappropriate. He has also heard me say that I believe in some cases that, while health was protected, there are circumstances in which the job action presents a terribly unfortunate and in some cases tragic appearance surrounding it.

I say in all seriousness to the member, I could not have stated the case to the OMA with more urgency and emotion than I did. Not yesterday, but on a previous occasion, I indicated to them that regardless of how outraged they are at their current levels of income -- and I make it quite clear that I do not think they ought to be outraged at their current levels -- no matter how unhappy they are with their working conditions or their incomes, there are certain actions they have decided to take that will have certain implications for the general reputation and high degree of respect I believe the population still has for the profession which cannot be bought and never can be regained.

I said this with as much passion as I could, and I like to believe the OMA did not think I was saying it from the standpoint of a negotiating tactic, nor as the Minister of Health, but as a citizen of this province. I said they had to think very carefully about the implications of what they were doing, because certain perceptions would arise that would cause irreparable damage in some cases to the reputation and high regard we all hold for the profession. In politics, we know that the perception and the reality may not be quite together but that after a while the perception becomes very much a part of the reality in terms of things like regard and respect.

I make it very clear that I believe the government's offer, had it been even less fair or generous than it was, did not warrant the job action for precisely the reason the member points out. There is a price paid every single minute of every day when a job action is undertaken or even talked about, let alone in those circumstances where people will emotionally connect what has happened to them personally to the job action that is being taken. This can never quite be repaired.

The problem for government is that there is a temptation for us to do almost anything to stop that situation from developing, because we care, as all members of this House care, about the regard our citizens must hold for our profession in order to have the whole system work.

I regret that the doctors have decided to go ahead with it. I am aggrieved by some cases that have been brought to my attention. It is clear after thorough investigation that nothing could have been attributed to the job action; but none the less, the aggrieved families -- and certainly I would share that -- will feel that it was somehow related. It would be hard at this emotional time to disconnect them emotionally.

I have urged that position every time I have had an opportunity to talk with the profession. I suppose, because I am one of the people negotiating, it is seen not to be as sincere as I know the member's concern is. I hope the physicians are aware of all this and pray, as I do, that the instances in which that happens are minimal.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, leaving aside the secondary concern about the image of the profession, I would like to focus again on what I think is the central issue; that is, the degree of risk or threat to health care.

Since the minister has admitted in response to the question of the deputy leader of this party that he cannot tell us the degree of risk involved this week, he is therefore gambling that there is no threat to patients or of his being in default of his duties under the Health Disciplines Act.

Can the minister tell us how much more gambling he intends to do? Does he intend to permit the level of risk this week to take a quantum leap next week, with three days of back-to-back withdrawal of service, when he cannot assure us that there is no risk today?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in these circumstances I think it would be a little more appropriate for the honourable member not to take the time to set up a political scenario which will allow him to lay the blame on this minister or this government in the event that some physician or some hospital fails to meet their obligations.

2:40 p.m.

If the member will think about it for a second, that question could be asked of me whether or not there is a strike on. On any normal day of any normal month of any normal year, there are all sorts of things happening in the hospitals of this province. That is why we have hospital boards. That is why we have regulations in place calling for things such as medical advisory committees. That is why we have accreditation in place. That is why the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is well armed with legislation. That is why we have a variety of things in place.

He could ask the same kind of question literally on any day of the week. The answer to the question is simple. To the degree to which we must rely upon the hospitals, the physicians and everyone else in the health care system meeting their duties under the legislation, the risk is unchanged. Whether or not a physician is absent or many are absent for reasons related to strike action, those hospital bylaws are in place.

The medical advisory committees and the physicians have certain responsibilities. The only risk I take is that someone will suddenly decide to violate a hospital bylaw, to violate a regulation of the College of Physicians and Surgeons or suddenly to undertake medical malpractice or professional misconduct. That kind of risk is in the system every day of every year in every country, in every jurisdiction. That happens to be the fact.

To date, as one reviews the activities as they have been undertaken, the physicians and the hospitals have gone to great lengths to meet their obligations. Are they being met in every single instance? Obviously I cannot answer for every single instance, because we do not have all the information in yet. But I say to the member that if he had asked me this question last March, before the strikes were undertaken, I equally could not have answered the question, because it depends on everyone in the system exercising his responsibilities under the legislation.

We write the legislation, we pass the legislation and we enforce the legislation; but if someone is going to undertake medical malpractice or ignore the needs of his patients, that is on his shoulders. I do not believe they are about to do that.

Mr. Foulds: I am sure the patients of Ontario are glad to know all the regulations are in place. It is too bad the doctors have not been.

EQUAL PAY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my middle-aged adversary the Minister of Health with regard to the Gunderson report.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health?

Mr. Foulds: Pardon me; the Minister of Labour. Does the minister fully realize that his ministry recognizes as a matter of law that it is all right to pay women in Ontario less than men for work of equal value requiring equal skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions?

He will recall that on April 3 he said: "Within a few weeks I expect to release a report from Dr. Morley Gunderson of the University of Toronto. I believe that his latest findings will shed further light on the causes and possible remedies to narrow the gap between wages paid to men and women."

Now that the Gunderson study has been made public and in it he says, "Equal pay legislation in Ontario has not been able to reduce the earnings gap significantly," will the minister bring to the Legislature before we rise in June a bill requiring equal pay for work of equal value which will remedy the situation?

Hon. Mr Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the age factor that was brought up earlier, I had always thought the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) was much younger than I, and I had indicated as much, only to be told by the acting leader of the New Democratic Party that the member for Sudbury East was as old as I, or older.

Mr. Martel: Oh no. I used to listen to the minister when he was announcing. I was a kid. He used to announce hockey games in northern Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Now back to the question --

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Now back to the question: The answer to the acting leader of the NDP is no, I do not have any intention of introducing equal pay legislation before the end of this session.

Mr. Foulds: In view of the fact that the Gunderson report says the current legislation will never close the gap between the wages of men and women, can the minister assure us that will stop? What action is he prepared to take? Is he just going to tinker with the legislation? Is he going to fail to act on the Gunderson report after his implied commitment of April 3?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I expect to receive three more reports before the middle of June, including the report of the women crown employees office, which will be tabled in this House within the next couple of weeks, and the Ontario Status of Women Council report, which will be tabled shortly. In all, there will be three reports before the end of the year, and I would like to have the benefit of all three.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware of a further study which tends to bear out the findings of Professor Gunderson. I am referring to a study that was carried out under a grant to the Child in the City program. It contained a stratified random survey of more than 500 families, and the results confirmed Professor Gunderson's findings that female earnings are approximately 60 per cent of male earnings.

Given these findings and the fact that the Gunderson study for the ministry indicates that even the introduction of equal pay for work of equal value, while it would be helpful and useful, would not wipe out the discrepancy between male and female wage levels, will the minister now review his earlier refusal to begin requiring affirmative action programs rather than simply continuing to promote such programs, as he stated in his speech last Friday night? Will he review his earlier refusal, since the evidence shows the promotion of the affirmative action program has produced little, if any, result?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I think there are different ways of interpreting the Gunderson report. With respect, let me just refer to a couple of statements that Dr. Gunderson made.

The author notes that, generally, equal pay for equal work legislation is not portrayed as a powerful and important policy option and that its potential is limited. He also observes that "To the extent that it is successful, it runs the risk" -- and I believe this is most important -- "of reducing employment opportunities for females by raising the relative costs." In addition, he points to equally serious limitations in relation to equal pay for work of equal value.

In other words, after studying the Gunderson report, I truly have not read anything that would cause me to change my earlier opinions.

Ms. Copps: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that when the minister reads, he should not read selectively. He should read into the record the last paragraph of the Gunderson report, which puts the case for equal pay for equal value very clearly.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a point of privilege.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he will not bring in any new legislation in the equal pay field this session because he wants to wait for three new reports. Is he not aware of the statistics prepared by his own women's bureau, just this month, which show me that further reports are not necessary to prove the ineffectiveness of the present legislation? They show that the number of claims dropped from 223 in 1980-81 to only 96 in the last fiscal year and that only 48 employers were found in violation and were required to pay about $500 to only 600 employees. Does this not show the ineffectiveness of the present legislation and the need for immediate revision?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my information is that 1,057 have benefited in the total amount of $547,968 from equal pay investigations. I think that is a rather respectable and impressive figure.

COMPENSATION FOR UFFI HOME OWNERS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue regarding the decision of the Algoma assessment review court to decrease the assessment of 37 homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulated in that area on an across-the-board basis.

I remind the minister that earlier this month, in response to the 20 per cent across-the-board cuts in New Brunswick, he said, "To cop out of the problem arbitrarily, as New Brunswick has done, and come up with a figure may have some simplistic appeal to some members, but it does not to me." It apparently does to the review court in Algoma.

My question to the minister is this: Will he now move to establish a reduced assessment for UFFI homes across the province on a uniform percentage? Alternatively, will he establish test cases in communities throughout the province to determine a standard of reduction which can then be applied uniformly in those municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that is exactly the process that is now under way by the assessment review court. We suggested it go that route to see whether there is some pattern.

Twenty per cent across the board, as I think I indicated in discussion last week, would have been unfair to many of the home owners, particularly those who have already been adjudicated in Sault Ste. Marie. I think this proves that the approach we are taking is correct, fair and equitable.

After we have had decisions from many other municipalities throughout the province, we then may have some pattern to look at in assessment for 1982 and 1983 taxation.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, will the minister consider following the Metro Toronto procedure for deemed appeals and applying such a reduction to all UFFI home owners whether or not they went through the appeal procedure?

Second, will this government make a commitment to make up any shortfall in assessment revenue so that municipalities will not have to suffer the loss of what could be a drastic reduction in assessments and taxation revenues from the UFFI homes?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no. As I have indicated on more than one occasion, the situation vis-à-vis the changes in properties in the city of Toronto was a unique and isolated situation and will not be done uniformly throughout the province.

The answer to the second question, I think in fairness, is also no. If there is any kind of compensation due from any level of government back to the municipalities, it is at the level of government which caused the problem in the first place. It is domiciled in Ottawa and is called the federal Liberal government.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, even though these two members have asked the same question I asked two weeks ago, the minister still cannot give the right answer.

Does he not realize that what the assessment review court has done is directly contrary to what he said should be done, which is that a uniform reduction could not be given? In fact, they gave a uniform reduction of 50 per cent on all the residents, although the minister said that it would be unfair, that a conclusion to do so would be falsely reached and that it was simplistic.

Does the minister know that 113 homes in Sault Ste. Marie have been identified as having urea formaldehyde foam insulation; that probably at least 200 homes there were insulated with UFFI --

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently for the supplementary.

Mr. Swart: -- and that only 20 per cent of those will get a reduction in their taxes this year? How can the minister pass the buck to the federal government, when he has responsibility for assessment and does not deem that they have all appealed their assessments and are entitled to this reduction?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the honourable member does not like to hear an answer, that if it is not the answer he wants to hear then it is an incorrect answer. It is very difficult sometimes even to understand what his question is; so to come up with the right answer as he deems it is rather difficult.

I will repeat what I said a moment ago to the original question, because the member obviously was not listening or did not hear. What I said to him two weeks ago has been proven in what happened in Sault Ste. Marie. In the Sault the court deliberated on the cases before it, came across with a determination within that municipality based on the property values in that municipality and made a decision accordingly. The same process will be carried on in many other jurisdictions throughout the province. Whether this ends up being a pattern that is followed remains to be seen. The assessment review court is an impartial tribunal that will be hearing these cases in all fairness, and the decisions will come forth accordingly.

I have indicated before that part of the responsibility in an appeal is also on the appellant. Those who did not appeal may have felt they did not have a problem. It is amazing how the member has a crystal ball to know that there are some 200 homes insulated with urea formaldehyde foam in Sault Ste. Marie. There are probably not even 200 people who know they have such a home, but the member with the crystal ball does. That is very nice.

In fact, after the end of the appeal process, whether in Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Windsor, London or wherever, home owners who have a UFFI problem can make a case if they wish to approach their municipal councils and receive some tax relief under the Municipal Act.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the co-operation of all honourable members once more to limit their private conversations.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In answer to my first question today, the minister suggested that what he and his assessment review courts are now doing is having test cases around the province. Earlier, on April 16, the minister said:

"To assume everybody has had an equal change in the value of his property because of that foam insulation, I think is a decision that is falsely reached; the review process of the assessment review court will properly allow the evidence pertaining to each and every property to be brought before it."

Are we having test cases, or are we going to have reviews of each and every assessment appeal?

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, that is really not a point of privilege. I ask the minister not to reply to it.

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I think that in principle the minister's statement today on Stouffville was a useful one, but some specific concerns arise from it.

Will the minister tell us why, when the Environmental Assessment Board's hearings last May clearly established that there was only a year and a half left in the present dump site, he has now extended that year and a half to slightly more than two years? How did he or his staff pick the June 30 date, when all the information presented in the hearing indicated it would be finished this fall?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, waste disposal sites do not just automatically self-destruct at a given time. The estimate one makes of the time that remains in the life of a given site depends on a number of factors, one of which is the rate at which it is filled. We have not extended that in any way.

The simple answer to the honourable member's question is that the estimates which were presented before the hearing a year ago were based on a projection of a certain rate of filling. I understand the rate has not been as fast as was anticipated at that time. It is not a question of any more being allowed in.

3 p.m.

In order to tighten up the schedule so that there is a predictable and firm closing date, we have established a tonnage limit on a daily basis, plus a time limit that now fixes it firmly at a date after which, whether they have filled the site up completely or not, they can accept no more waste. In other words, there is some incentive for them to get on with the closing now that a new certificate has been developed.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, there are always a number of reasons why time frames can vary. Perhaps the minister can consider that the company used the year-and-a-half figure during the hearing in order to emphasize urgency in terms of the expansion proposal.

In the latter part of his statement the minister commented: "The close-out conditions will also require the company to design and develop long-term monitoring and environmental protection measures for the site's permanent security." Can the minister assure the residents of Stouffville that "protection measures for the site's permanent security" means a total containment system?

When the company has designed and made these proposals, can he assure the citizens there will be public hearings so that the public can be fully satisfied, in order to accomplish what he is trying to accomplish here for their frame of mind, that the site will be safe and that the proposals will do what they are supposed to do in containing the site?

Hon. Mr. Norton: There are times when I think some members would like to subject that community to endless agony. I can assure the member that the most advanced possible measures will be required. I do not yet know what they are. The specifics have to be worked out with consultants. That is part of what is now under way.

As far as assurances with respect to containment are concerned, I suppose no one can ever give an absolute assurance. Nothing in this world is absolute that I know of, except the mindset of the NDP. I can assure the member we will take every possible precaution to ensure that the close-out procedures are safe.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if he will be tabling a copy of the certificate of approval that will go out to the company, and advise us as to the conditions that will be laid down there, dealing with the amount of money to be contributed by the company to this fund he has made the statement about?

If a difficulty develops subsequent to the closure of the site, will the Ontario government meet any shortfall of money that may result from this fund not being substantial enough to rectify any problems that exist?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer to the last part of the member's question is it would have to be the responsibility of the government if that kind of thing ever happened.

With regard to the tabling of the information, as soon as it is available it will be tabled. Members are getting some advance information today. The actual certificate is not yet in the hands of the company. There will be some detail work to be completed after that. I can assure the members they will have copies as soon as they are available.

STOL SERVICE

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications --

Mr. Roy: Your first question of the cabinet.

Mr. Piché: I would like to remind the House that this is not my first question, but it might be my last.

The question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications and/or the Minister of Northern Affairs. The minister will be aware, after reading yesterday's Toronto Star, and other newspapers of course, that after considerable delay STOL service from the Toronto Island Airport using the Dash-7 aircraft is now expected to begin next year, linking Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa.

Not only will many passengers benefit from this service, but the purchase of the 50-passenger Dash-7 aircraft built here by de Havilland will also contribute to the creation of jobs and benefit Ontario's economy.

Mr. Speaker: Can I have the question?

Mr. Piché: The question is coming, Mr. Speaker.

As many as 11 aircraft will be needed, at a cost of over $80 million. Because of the Dash-7's ability to operate from short runways and its fuel economy, I would like to ask if the minister is now willing to establish a pilot project of STOL service from the Toronto Island Airport to northern Ontario communities. Would not such a service more adequately meet the needs of many people living in some northern Ontario communities?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the honourable member that certainly the Dash-7 is a very wonderful piece of equipment.

Mr. Haggerty: Better than that jet aircraft.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is an equivalent piece of equipment to a Challenger.

I will be glad to consult with the Minister of Northern Affairs, who is directly responsible for the operation of norOntair, although my ministry is involved very much with his ministry in the planning of norOntair expansions.

The problem that one deals with is the size of the Dash-7. It is a 50-passenger airplane, and the fact is that in many communities more frequent service with a smaller aircraft is more desirable. There are, no doubt, some routes the Dash-7 will grow into and, of course, I think that is what my colleague had in mind when he ordered two Dash-8 aircraft, which are an intermediate capacity transit system for northern Ontario.

I think the Dash-8 will be the ICTS of northern Ontario, and we will fill in that gap. There is no doubt that eventually, as the traffic grows, there will be a role for the Dash-7 aircraft as the member suggests.

Mr. Piché: The minister is also aware that since one of the companies that is heavily involved in this new project through one of its affiliates is the northern company Austin Airways, now is certainly the opportune time to give serious consideration to this much-needed service to northern Ontario -- something that many communities in the north have been working towards over the last few years.

Mr. Breithaupt: Don't you agree?

Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, the minister is aware of Austin Airways' involvement. We are all aware of the Deluce family, the old White River Air Services and Austin Airways, which has been a landmark operation in northern Ontario for many years. It is now a part owner of Air Ontario and of the proposed new partnership that will operate the STOL service between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

No doubt that operator has a great deal of experience and would be very much aware of the needs of the communities of northern Ontario.

3:10 p.m.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Copps: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Some of the members may recall that on April 26 the Minister of Community and Social Services, in answer to a question I raised about children's mental health services in Windsor, stated, "She went away from that open setting," etc. "Part of the problem has been her parents' demand from the very beginning that she be put in a secure setting. She was placed in a secure setting and now she is in the London Psychiatric Hospital."

The minister may be aware that in fact --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Strike three, you are out.

Ms. Copps: This is a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: May I hear it, please?

Ms. Copps: The information is that young child is not now, nor has she ever been, a patient in the London Psychiatric Hospital. That information has come not only from her and her parents, but also the records department and both adolescent wings of the London Psychiatric Hospital. I suggest it is the minister who is monumentally misinformed and I would like him to correct the record.

Mr. Roy: Apologize.

Mr. Kerrio: Either you or Claire Hoy.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, with the full consent of her parents at a court hearing, she was remanded --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh, yes, my dear. At a court hearing, with the full consent of her parents --

Ms. Copps: She isn't there. Call the records department of the London Psychiatric Hospital.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue?

Mr. Speaker: I think it is a matter of clarification. There is a difference of opinion. If you want to clarify the record, I will listen.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, I would if I am ever to be allowed to clarify anything for the honourable member without being rudely interrupted. To clarify the record, the particular young lady, on --

Mr. Roy: Get your facts straight.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh, it is from the court, Albert; the place where you attend.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: On March 16, 1982, there was a show-cause hearing. Does the honourable member know what a show-cause hearing is? In attendance were her, her lawyer, her parents, the case worker representative, etc. She was placed as a ward of the Roman Catholic Children's Aid Society for the County of Essex, and I do want to clarify --

Ms. Copps: Have you spoken to the records department of the London Psychiatric? She is not a patient there. If you check with the records department you will find out. You have been monumentally misinformed.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You know, you are kind of cute when you get mad. Could you be quiet for a minute?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to rule that it was not a point of privilege in the first place. There was no special privilege of any member affected. It would be better brought up in question period or ministerial statements.

Ms. Copps: Get your facts straight.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member has a question, she may ask it during the proper time allotted for that tomorrow. I am not going to debate it. Please resume your seat.

Ms. Copps: The interjections are on both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: That does not make them any better.

Ms. Copps: Who is running this House, Frank Drea or you'?

Mr. Speaker: I am going to have to ask you to withdraw that remark.

Ms. Copps: Are you going to sit down?

Mr. Speaker: Sure.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, not wanting to impugn your integrity, I will certainly withdraw that remark.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege -- that was a very wise ruling, by the way --

Mr. Eakins: Tell us about your brother.

Interjections

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGES

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on April 23, I rose on a point of privilege and asked the Minister of Community and Social Services why he had misrepresented to the House an appeal that his ministry had taken against a decision of the Social Assistance Review Board. He accused me, saying that there was no appeal and that "the member is wrong, just as he was wrong last week." I sent the minister a letter of appeal, and that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege, with all respect. Your privileges have not been abused in any way.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you, then, if a minister stands in his place and wrongly accuses a member of something, do you not believe that in fact the member's privileges have been impugned? I just cannot understand how a minister can get up and make that type of accusation without privileges being abused.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very good point; it has been brought up before, of course. I have no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong. It is not for me to judge. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion. I do not have any special knowledge, and I do not know whether the minister did something or did not; I do not know whether the honourable member did something or did not. That is not my role.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: But certainly your role is to ensure that when someone makes an accusation, as the minister has done, and a member gets up in his place to refute it, as my colleague has done -- you can say, "I absolve myself of any responsibility for finding out the facts;" I can understand your dilemma -- surely you should hear out the entire point of privilege, because you have to make some judgement or you have to refer it to someone? It simply cannot go by the board.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is quite right. If it is a matter of correcting the record, that is one point; but in actual fact his privileges were not abused in any way. Now, if he wants to correct the record, fine.

Mr. Di Santo: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the record be corrected.

Mr. Speaker: The member wants to correct the record first.

Mr. Di Santo: Yes. I want the record to be corrected because an appeal was in fact made by the Ministry of Community and Social Services through its lawyer, Ms. Leslie McIntosh.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would have replied to the honourable member except that he sent over a request for a written answer. That is in the process of being transmitted to him, and he knew that when he popped up today.

The simple fact of the matter is that the appeal the member talks about was never proceeded with, was not an appeal, is not before any part of the Social Assistance Review Board and did not concern the matter he alleged the appeal concerned, period.

Mr. Speaker: We have heard both sides, and I do not know yet who is right and who is wrong.

EQUAL PAY

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Unfortunately, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has left the House, but I would like to correct the record of the previous debate regarding statistics from the women's bureau on the number of women who received awards in the last fiscal year.

I said it was somewhat over 600; the minister said that to his knowledge it was about 1,000. I have here the report from the women's bureau, and it says that over the past two years it was about 1,000. I was referring to one year, the latest year.

3:20 p.m.

PETITION

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Elston: I would like to correct the record too, Mr. Speaker, but I have a petition instead. I will try again today. Pursuant to subsection 33(b) of the standing orders, I have a petition signed by 20 members requesting that the annual report of Ontario Hydro for the year ending December 31, 1980, be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

Mr. Speaker: I am advised that is in order. It is indeed statutory.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL INTEREST AND DISCOUNT RATES ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 91, An Act to revise the Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act.

Motion agreed to.

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 92, An Act to amend the District of Parry Sound Local Government Act.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 93, An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act.

Motion agreed to.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 94, An Act to repeal the North Pickering Development Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Grande, first reading of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of section 1 of this bill is to provide for the Legislature to sit part of every month during the year instead of the current policy whereby it may sit continuously for a four-month period in the spring and two months in the fall and be recessed or adjourned for the rest of the year.

The proposed section 2 declares that the designations "member of the Legislative Assembly" and "MLA" are the official designations of the persons who are elected to the Legislative Assembly.

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Elston moved, seconded by Mr. Mancini, first reading of Bill 96, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for environmental rights in Ontario. The bill permits an action to be brought in the Supreme Court of Ontario by any person for the protection of the environment. The bill also provides for public notice and review of certain approvals, permits or other environment-related orders before the approval permits or orders come into force.

Other provisions of the bill provide for public access to information relating to environmental decisions and for regular review by the Environmental Assessment Board of all regulations affecting the environment.

The bill also permits the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish a fund to assist persons in public interest groups for the purpose of ensuring that points of view representative of significant bodies of opinion are adequately represented in environmental proceedings.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 83 and 84 [see Hansard for Friday, April 30] and the interim answers to questions 88, 89 and 90 standing on the Notice Paper [see Notice Paper].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

Mr. Charlton moved second reading of Bill 45, An Act to protect and enhance the Quality of Drinking Water in Ontario.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have had the opportunity to introduce this bill in this Legislature and to debate it this afternoon.

Over the course of the next decade, drinking water quality in Ontario is going to be one of the three major issues in the environment sector.

It is the newest issue in the environment sector and it is probably going to be the issue of most public concern as our knowledge about what we have done already to our environment grows and as the effects of that damage become apparent.

As I start this debate, there are a number of people I would like to thank who have been involved in this process. First, I would like to thank several thousand citizens of this province who are involved in the more than 50 groups who made presentations to our joint federal-provincial task force on the question of water.

Those presentations helped us to become very clear about the concerns that exist out there across Ontario and about some of the things, at least, that need to be done in order to help citizens deal with the situations they find in their communities affecting their water supplies.

3:30 p.m.

I would like to thank my colleagues, some of the members of our federal caucus, and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who were members of that task force and who put many long hours into this project, which is very far from being completed at this point. We are only at the beginning, but this is the place to start. I would like to give very specific and very special thanks to Toby Vigod of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Anne Wordsworth of Pollution Probe, who helped us in the development of the specific aspects of this bill.

The bill deals with a number of very important matters in relation to drinking water in Ontario, and the problems that citizens of this province have run into with their drinking water. The first and basic principle set out in this bill is that somebody has to take clear responsibility for the safety of the drinking water in Ontario. In this bill, that somebody is the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton).

At present, there is no clear jurisdiction. There is much overlapping of jurisdictions in which the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and the local health authorities are all involved. Nobody wants to take clear responsibility. Everybody is always passing the buck. So the first thing we have to establish through this kind of legislation is clear responsibility.

In Ontario we now have legislative standards for air. That is not true in the case of our drinking water. Instead, we use guidelines, and I think we all know what guidelines mean. When it is under the guideline it is safe; when it is over the guideline it is not safe and it becomes a recommendation, "Please do not use the water."

That is not good enough in terms of this province's dependence on our water supplies. We need clear, legislative standards for dangerous substances, and when those standards are exceeded there must be clear legal stoppage of the use of that water.

As well, there must be a responsibility on the part of the ministry to provide alternative supplies, and an ability for the ministry to clearly prosecute the offending polluter. We have set out in this bill a procedure by which those standards will be set. It is a procedure in which the public of this province will be involved from the outset. That is another very important aspect of this bill, and of the discussion around safe drinking water in Ontario.

One of the things that has happened over the course of the last decade, and, more specifically, over the course of the last three or four years, is that the Ministry of the Environment in Ontario has lost much of its credibility with large segments of the public in this province. That is because, although in the environmental legislation set out in this province we have some very clearly established principles of public participation, unfortunately, the minister, the ministry and the cabinet of which he is a part -- and again, we should note the total absence of the cabinet this afternoon -- have taken the approach of exempting project after project, under a number of pieces of legislation, from the public part of the process under that legislation.

There is a very clear mistrust out there. We had a prime example of that just last week, around the whole question of testing of some new technologies for the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls in this province. There was the feeling on the part of both the provincial and federal ministries and the proponents of some of those technologies that because of that mistrust, very quietly they had to find a place to do that testing, in the likelihood that the communities involved would oppose it. That trust has to be re-established and some of the processes set out in this bill will help that occur.

The bill deals with both public and private water supply systems. A public water system is defined as a system whereby some public body, perhaps a public utility in a municipality, supplies people with a service for water. The bill sets out a number of duties for those suppliers; these include frequent testing for the substances for which we have set standards in the province, and an obligation to provide customers with full information about that testing on a regular basis. We have suggested that be included with the billing for the water. In those municipalities where water cost is included in tax bills, etc., then the information should be made public through the media so that the people in the community are kept informed on a regular basis of the testing that is being done.

We have proposed in the bill that there be public involvement in the regulation-making process, which is the setting of standards under this act, fairly quickly after the passage of the act, so that we are not still sitting here, 10 years down the road, waiting for the government and the ministry to move.

We have proposed that within 180 days after royal assent the minister and the ministry will be responsible for publishing draft regulations in the Ontario Gazette, and that some 90 days thereafter, if there are objections registered, public hearings will be held so the public can have input into the process. This is important because the public will not have confidence in any legislation or regulations in this area that are pushed through without their being able to have input.

The act makes it an offence to supply customers with water containing any contaminant or substance that exceeds the standard that has been set, or that contravenes the prescribed standards which we have set. The basic difference between contaminant and substance is the degree of toxicity.

The bill also sets out a number of penalties for those who contravene this act, penalties that relate, as I suggested, to exceeding the standards or to the providing of information, etc. We have set the penalties at a level of $50,000 for any contravention of section 6 which deals with contaminated water that exceeds the guidelines. We have set penalties of $25,000 in the case of any other contravention of this act.

3:40 p.m.

We have also attempted to deal with the serious problems of many of the environmental and local community groups around this province that have had problems or even suspected problems with their local drinking water which they have been unable to resolve. They have had no clear method. There has been no clear apparatus to enable them to come to a resolution of their concerns or their problems.

We have tried to deal with some of that in this bill by doing a number of things such as setting up a water review board to deal with matters relating to water problems. We have also set out a section dealing with private remedies where citizens have the right to take action against a polluter for damages.

For example, earlier this afternoon we talked about the situation in Stouffville which has been going on for about a decade now where the citizens have been able to find no clear method to remedy their complaints. We all know what that situation revolves around so I will not go through all the details. Citizens have had testing of the water done privately, the ministry has done testing and York Sanitation, which runs the landfill site in Stouffville, has done testing. Repeatedly, there has been no agreement among those three bodies about which test is right and which test is wrong. Inevitably, a test never agrees with the testing the others have done.

The citizens have had no clear apparatus to use to see a resolution of that, not even a separate, independent body which is prepared to hear testimony about the testing that has been done by all three of those groups and to come to some conclusion about whose testing and whose information is right. With this bill in place, those citizens would at least have some forum in which to have a decision made as to whether there is a threat to their health by contamination of their water supply from a landfill site.

It is not a perfect system. We all know we have fears about the court system, the cost and the lengthy procedures of the court system. But those citizens have spent a decade and have had no avenues to remedy their problems whatsoever.

The bill also sets out that, once an offence has been established and once a polluter who has damaged an individual's or a community's water supply has been identified, those citizens will have the right to take action to recover damages. In the law, there is no clear indication that citizens now have that right. The minister will tell us they do, but it seems strange to us that it is not clearly spelled out. If they do have that right, it certainly should be spelled out in a fashion people can understand so that they can take advantage of that right.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to bring to the member's attention he has approximately four minutes left. I don't know if you were anticipating reserving any time after the debate.

Mr. Charlton: Yes, I would like to save two minutes for the end, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps you could tell me when two minutes remain.

The bill proposes that a water advisory council be set up. The purpose of the council is to keep the minister and the ministry informed of the latest technology and the latest science, in relation to water and its safety, from around the world and from communities just outside the province, to consider matters that may be of concern in the community in relation to the safety of water, and to recommend to the minister when a matter needs to be looked at.

We have also set out the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to do research as an obligation. Right now we are in a situation where sometimes the Ministry of the Environment does research, sometimes it is the Ministry of Health, sometimes local officials who do research and sometimes nobody does research in relation to drinking water.

We have set out an obligation to assure citizens that when there is a problem with their drinking water, the causes will be found and the dangers to them in terms of their health will be diagnosed so that they are in a position to know what to do and who to sue.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to the concerns addressed by the honourable member in his private member's bill. There is no dispute about the fact drinking water must be maintained at high quality and certainly this is a high priority of this government. The policies of the Ministry of the Environment in the past and in the future certainly show this.

The Ontario Water Resources Act provides the necessary guidelines and controls to ensure the quality of drinking water in Ontario. The act gives the Ministry of the Environment extensive powers to regulate water supply, sewage disposal and the control of water pollution. It authorizes the ministry to supervise and examine all surface waters and ground waters in Ontario to determine the extent, nature and causes of contamination in these waters.

I feel that Bill 45 is redundant. If needed, regulations could be made under the existing Ontario Water Resources Act to detail any formal procedures necessary to protect Ontario's drinking water supply. What is needed to ensure high standards in drinking water is the constant upgrading of scientific techniques to monitor and control our water system. Bill 45 only provides a legal framework for controlling the quality of drinking water and does not become involved in the control of toxicants and their use in the environment.

I want to inform the honourable members opposite that we are discovering pollution sources nobody thought of a few years ago when pollutants were measured in parts per million. Our scientists now use instruments that can detect and measure pollutants in parts per trillion. To give you an example of the significance of this, everyone knows how long a period of time one second is; one part per million is the same as one second in a period of 12 days.

Mr. Kerrio: Just as long as it takes to pull the trigger of a gun.

Mr. Stevenson: Right.

Mr. Kerrio: It's the same thing. Toxics will kill.

Mr. Stevenson: Some pollutants are measured in parts per billion. One part per billion is one second in 33 years. One part per trillion is one second in 33,000 years. That is the precision with which we now detect seepage of some dangerous chemicals like dioxin from long-forgotten chemical dumps and from other, sometimes-not-yet-determined, sources into our water.

3:50 p.m.

We do not really know what effect such minuscule amounts of pollutants have on our environment or our health; but make no mistake about it, we are concerned about the effects of these small amounts. Their control remains one of the challenges we face.

We are most fortunate to have in this province access to safe drinking water and excellent sanitation facilities. Our system of water supply and waste-water disposal has contributed significantly to our public health and to the relatively high standard of living which we enjoy. The closing of beaches due to an excessive bacteria count in our waters is very rare and water-borne infections have practically disappeared.

At the University of Toronto, researchers studying the mutagenity and toxicity of chemicals found in the tap water treated to ministry criteria by Metro Toronto to be cleaner than the distilled water they get in plastic bottles for use in their research.

Mr. Elston: Have your cabinet people switched from their bottled water?

Mr. Stevenson: They would rather switch than fight.

The Minister of the Environment informed this House on April 1 that his ministry is actively involved in measures to ensure optimum public safety. Our government is involved in a number of things, a continuing examination of the latest testing procedures as well as a fish-testing program which operates as an early warning system for drinking water problems.

Also under way is a special examination of our entire drinking water guidelines program. This examination, scheduled for completion in early summer, will ensure that our guidelines, technology, testing and monitoring programs continue to reflect the latest scientific knowledge about water quality effect on human health.

In 1956, the first measure was taken to establish the Ontario Water Resources Commission, to develop provincially-controlled sanitation and water treatment systems.

Today, 25 years and $4 billion later, more than 400 sewage and water treatment plants serve practically all Ontario communities. Close to 90 per cent of the population of this province is served by communal water facilities and 77 per cent by communal sewerage systems.

Our provincial government has become increasingly involved in water and waste-water systems over the past several years. We provide financial and technical assistance to our municipalities for planning and construction of new systems, providing something over $300 million since 1969 to smaller communities.

We closely control the use of our water resources. We monitor both the quality of drinking water and waste-water disposal to check compliance with provincial objectives and regulations. We provide staff training and technical assistance for the operation and maintenance of water systems.

Our province has been quite active in developing water supply and waste-water facilities. In particular, the Ministry of the Environment has financed, constructed and operated hundreds of water supply and waste-water treatment plants throughout Ontario. Currently, the Ministry of the Environment operates 93 water supply plants and 221 waste-water plants.

In addition, MOE offers the most comprehensive program of training courses and workshops to civilian operating personnel in Canada. The training centre at Brampton utilizes classrooms with lab facilities and demonstration equipment as well as an abandoned sewage treatment plant.

In 1980-81, approximately 1,500 personnel participated in the training sessions. Some participants came from the Atlantic provinces, where similar courses were not available. Between 1974 and 1980, a total of 8,300 people from all provinces and several states have participated in the program.

Drinking water quality is a high priority of this government. Our efforts to ensure the quality of drinking water are backed by a continual updating of our scientific expertise, technology and knowledge in this field. Contrary to allegations often made by the members opposite, this government cares about the wellbeing of its people. It is safe to say that the history of water and drinking water quality in this province are matters of concern and technical success rather than buck passing, as was suggested earlier.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, probably all members of this House share the concern about the quality of drinking water, but I would like to point out the fact that some members of the cabinet show their concern by purchasing their water in bottles rather than by drinking from the taps.

Mr. Hodgson: Say that again.

Mr. Elston: I note that the honourable member for York North --

Mr. Hodgson: Say that again. You were up in Stouffville the other afternoon and you are getting carried away.

Mr. Elston: I noticed that the member was absent from the meeting that day, although I understand from reports that he was hiding someplace up the road. It is significant that he was unable to speak out publicly, and if he wants to do that he can do it here in today's debate. I am very pleased that he finally showed up this afternoon to take part in something, or at least to listen, for a change.

In any event, to address myself to the member's bill: I want to congratulate the member for Hamilton Mountain, who also showed a great degree of sensitivity by attending the meeting at Stouffville that day, as I did, to speak to the people there who had expressed a great amount of concern about the quality of their drinking water. I must indicate to all members that there is a great deal of concern which has not by any means found an adequate outlet via the legal process through the bills that are now available to the people. That is why I commend the member for Hamilton Mountain for taking steps to introduce legislation that will deal with the quality of drinking water in a meaningful way.

We understand that the government has developed legislation over the years to do a number of things, but the fact remains that no steps have been taken, to this point, to adequately enforce that legislation, nor have steps been taken to adequately address the need to introduce regulations to deal with the multitude of new and deadly chemicals that are finding their way out of dump sites and are being disposed of in ways this society cannot afford.

The member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) indicated that the bill is deficient in that it does not deal with the development of the techniques and technology that are required to deal with the problem, but I rather suspect this is not the need which has really been demonstrated to us here today. Clearly, the need is to develop a way in which the citizens of the province can enforce legislation and put into practice certain minimum requirements for the quality of their drinking water.

We know there is an ongoing process of development of technologies not only to deal with the problem of pollution in drinking water but also to deal with the problems of the disposal of the various chemicals that have found their way into dump sites over the past few years. We are confident that this sort of development of technology will continue.

Some of us on this side of the House are not pleased to see that the people who are trying to develop such technology are forced to go outside the province to do a lot of the testing and developmental work required to ensure their disposal methods are safe and practical. We are not very pleased that the government of Ontario finds it necessary to preclude any early financing of projects to deal with the disposal of environmental contaminants, such as the destruction of polychlorinated biphenyls by the diesel destruction method, which now is in its second phase and which only now has attracted the support of the Ontario government. They knew about the process before the first phase started.

4 p.m.

The record is not very good when it comes to helping develop technology to dispose of these environmentally dangerous substances. The record is not good when it comes to dealing with the problem of the emissions of sulphur dioxide. I presume that it is the standard pattern of the way that the Ministry of the Environment and the government of Ontario approach the serious problems that face the environment, and this must be changed if we hope to have any part of the environment left in a state where our children and grandchildren can hope to live in comfort in this province.

It seems to me that there is a concerted effort being waged here on this side of the House to ensure that the Minister of the Environment and other members of the Ontario government take seriously their responsibility to ensure that the environment is protected for years to come.

The introduction today of the environmental rights bill and the debating today of the second reading of the act introduced by my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain indicate a genuine concern about the track record to this point of the Ministry of the Environment with respect to the very serious problems of the environment and its reactions to the concerns that are voiced by the public.

I have always thought of the Ministry of the Environment as the watchdog, the protector, of the rights of the people; but when the Minister of the Environment goes out of this House and suggests that anybody who is loose-lipped and who criticizes his handling of a situation and the handling of a situation by his officials is wrong, it shows me very clearly that there is no public watchdog --

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The honourable member is making a very important speech and, apart from the fact that the minister is not here, we do not even have a quorum; I think he deserves more attention.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

4:07 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): A quorum is present.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: First, Mr. Speaker, let me apologize for the lack of members on our side of the House. Second, may I point out that the reason for the absence of the members, at least from this side of the House, and perhaps from the other, is an award that is being made on behalf of the Committee for Soviet Jewry, Ontario Region to Flora MacDonald. There was a representation in the form of a letter from the leader of the third party, and there were representatives from the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party present. That event was well known in this House; so I expect it was in rather poor taste at this time to have a quorum call.

It was mentioned that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) is not here. However, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, the member for Durham-York is here; so I do not know what the problem is.

Mr. Laughren: You can't maintain a quorum; you're not doing your job. Why not admit that you're not doing your job?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I do not have to do a job for the member for Nickel Belt. I do very well over here.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am a little sad to note that the government whip has suggested it is in poor taste for the rules of this House to be followed. I suggest that he did not quite mean it the way he said it and perhaps he should retract that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce has some time left, and there are a few other speakers to the issue. It was a point of privilege on which I allowed the minister to stand.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in wrapping up in order that other members may speak.

It is clear to me that people should not have their health and safety threatened by contaminated drinking water or, for that matter, by polluted air or soil. Therefore, the member for Hamilton Mountain has taken a good step forward in addressing the specific problems with his legislation.

We know there are some very fine sections in this bill and, if it comes to a point where the members opposite feel they cannot support the bill on second reading, I hope the Minister of the Environment, particularly since he is represented by his parliamentary assistant, will take sections of this bill and introduce them as amendments to the Ontario Water Resources Act. That could go a long way in addressing some of the very severe and critical problems that have been pointed out by this private member's bill.

The members on this side are quite pleased to support the private member's bill, and we wish the people on the other side of the House would see their way clear to supporting it as well.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I will speak quickly, while my colleagues are still here. Never before have I been made to feel, by a whip of any party, that I should apologize for being in the House during a debate. Only the Conservative whip could make a member feel that way.

I commend the honourable member for introducing this bill. It is an excellent bill, and I felt compelled to speak on it -- particularly as the member asked me to -- for a number of reasons.

First, water is fundamental to good health for people. Second, this bill would put in place a form of preventive medicine across the province. That is something the government should think about. Finally, it really is time, as the former Minister of the Environment, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr), would say, "to make the polluter pay when our drinking water is polluted."

Mr. McClellan: Did he say that?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, the former Minister of the Environment did say that at one time -- shortly before he was bumped to another portfolio.

This bill contains a number of key principles which need to be outlined. One is the whole question of public input and public involvement, not just in monitoring but in the actual setting of standards. It would be something new for the government to involve the public in a meaningful way in the setting of standards, and not to have it done in the way the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), for example, goes through with his sham of public input. This bill really would give the public a say in setting standards.

Second, establishing an advisory council is a good idea. It would make the public feel that it has some say in how we run this province. No less a personage than the Premier (Mr. Davis) promised a council to advise him on environmental assessment, but to this date he has not acted. Why? He promised it; it is in writing. Where is he on that issue? I think most of us would agree that he needs some advice on the subject of environmental assessment.

Third, the bill requires the operator of a public system to monitor the system and to notify its users when there is a problem. It would allow the users to sue for damages when their water supply has been damaged or contaminated. It also authorizes the Ministry of the Environment to do research into water quality. Finally, it establishes that the Ministry of the Environment is responsible for providing an alternative water supply when a regular supply becomes contaminated.

In this bill we are not talking about some bureaucratic mechanism, we are talking about the quality of life in Ontario. We are deceiving ourselves that the quality of life is good as long as there are people in Ontario who either have to carry their water or drink polluted water. That still happens in the riding I represent and, I am sure, in ridings represented by most members.

We should not be paying tribute to the pink flamingos of this world while there are people who do not have good drinking water. We should not be handing out grants to the private sector or purchasing a private jet for the Premier while there are people who have water they cannot drink.

The point I am making is that water tables can be polluted and nobody has to answer for it. I represent an area where much of this occurs. This bill would prevent some of that from happening.

Would Reed Paper have done what they did if this bill had been in place? I think not. Would KVP, now E. B. Eddy Forest Products, have polluted the Spanish River if this bill had been in place? Would Inco continue to pollute the water table and the lakes and rivers the way it did in the past if this bill was in place? The answer is that they would not. They would not be doing what they are doing now --

Mr. Harris: There wouldn't be any private corporations in Ontario if you had all your bills in place.

Mr. Laughren: That is absolute nonsense. The honourable member should know by now that the private corporations in this province will behave in as civilized a way as the jurisdiction requires them to. That is how civilized they will be. If the member sits back and lets them do as they want, then he cannot expect to have water tables that are not polluted in Ontario.

This bill would serve notice to all potential polluters that they will have to pay in the end. Unless it is put in place, why should anybody do anything about it until he is caught? At this point, there is no reason any polluter should be unduly concerned. The bill would set penalties for people who actually did pollute. It would give the public the right to know about the water they are drinking. Is that not a quaint idea? It would require the public to be told when they are drinking contaminated water. They should be told about that; right now there is no requirement that this should occur.

My colleague mentioned that water was going to be an issue in the 1980s. He is absolutely right. We are going to make sure that it is, because we believe that if there is one way to measure the quality of life for people, it is the quality of the water they drink.

This bill has particular relevance to many communities in northern Ontario. Many communities in the north simply do not have potable drinking water. In my own area there is a community where the wells have arsenic in them, a natural arsenic from the water, but the Ministry of the Environment has no requirement to provide an alternative water supply, absolutely none.

There are places like Chapleau, Foleyet, Sultan -- and Gogama, of course: I would be remiss if I did not talk about Gogama -- where the water table is so polluted that the former Minister of the Environment built a community tap in the town. But now Gogama is going to get communal water. And why is it going to get community water now? Because we threatened to build a statue around that community tap. The minister was afraid the statue might be in bad taste when it was finished. That is why the ministry now is going to have to provide funding for that community of Gogama. It is a sad commentary at this time.

Look at Massey. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) is here. The town of Massey's water supply source is being threatened by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. doing test drilling at East Bull Lake. AECL is proceeding to do its test drilling for the potential storage of nuclear waste in that community. The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) is shaking his head, but that is absolutely what it is doing: test drilling and research for the storage of nuclear waste. If he does not know that, he had better ask the member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

Mr. Harris: Check the record. That is not what the member said.

Mr. Laughren: That is exactly what it is doing. It will not sign a document that says it will never store nuclear waste where it is doing the testing. It will not do that. The government is asking the people of Massey to trust AECL with the source of its drinking water. It must have a lot more faith in AECL than I do if it puts that much faith in it.

In response to a survey AECL did in the community, more than 88 per cent of the people said, "We do not want that testing to be done where our water supply is going to come from." But that is totally ignored. The Ontario government will not intervene or even ask AECL to be subjected to an environmental assessment. It will not even ask.

If one talks to the people in that community, one finds that they feel as if they have no friends at all, because this government will not intervene. I know it is under federal jurisdiction, but this province will not even ask AECL to be subjected to an environmental assessment.

We have a long way to go before we can be proud of the quality of life in this province, because we cannot provide all its citizens with good, clean drinking water.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Hamilton Mountain for his interest in and efforts on the environmental issues in Ontario which I have seen in my short time here at Queen's Park; and although I am not prepared to support Bill 45, which the member introduced today, none the less I do commend him, not for the drafting of Bill 45 but for what I have seen --

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: If the honourable members will be quiet, I will continue complimenting the member; but if they want to keep on, I can skip this part and get into the other.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I think it is important. I think he has demonstrated obvious concern and has provided the opportunity for debate today on a matter that members on all sides of the House, I believe, are concerned about.

Mr. J. A. Reed: If you believe in it, you should stand up for it.

Mr. Harris: I am standing up right now, and I will tell the members why I do not like this bill, why I have certain reservations when it comes to accepting the bill.

My general criticism is that Bill 45 is narrower in scope than the Ontario Water Resources Act; it deals only with drinking water and lacks the all-encompassing approach that is taken in the Ontario Water Resources Act. The bill before us appears to be patterned after the US Safe Drinking Water Act. Like its counterpart, as my colleague the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) pointed out today, Bill 45 provides only a legal framework for controlling the quality of drinking water; it does not become involved in the most important aspect of ensuring safe drinking water, the control of toxicants.

What the ministry currently accomplishes through policies under the Ontario Water Resources Act Bill 45 proposes to achieve through formal legal procedures. It appears that the intent and purpose of Bill 45 are satisfied by the Ontario Water Resources Act. I will give members several examples in that area which I believe show the redundancy of the bill.

First, Bill 45 requires anyone supplying the public with water to ensure this water meets the standards and requirements of the Ministry of the Environment. The Ontario Water Resources Act requires the same thing, perhaps in a slightly different way. Any person contemplating the establishment of waterworks -- and this includes any municipality -- must apply to the Ministry of the Environment for approval. Ministry personnel, before granting an approval, must ensure that the applicant will provide a proper supply of water. The Environmental Protection Act also requires that all approvals be kept in a record which is available to the public.

Second, Bill 45 provides an offence and penalty section to protect water supplies in Ontario. There are similar offence and penalty sections in the Ontario Water Resources Act. The individual fines, one may argue, are lower in the Ontario Water Resources Act than in Bill 45; but I suggest that the potential for higher fines is perhaps greater in the Ontario Water Resources Act, because the fines are determined on a daily basis.

Third, the water review board established by Bill 45 to hold hearings on proposed standards and regulations is the same kind of tribunal as the Environmental Appeal Board and the Environmental Assessment Board. These boards provide for full public participation in the decision-making process.

Mr. Elston: You never use the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Harris: Then criticize that, but it is there.

Similarly, the water advisory council proposed under Bill 45 to advise the minister on research and health effects could be created under the Ontario Water Resources Act. Section 7 of the act gives the Minister of the Environment the power to conduct the research that is described in Bill 45. The Ontario Water Resources Act also gives the Minister of the Environment the power to make regulations that are similar in scope to those envisioned in Bill 45.

I cannot accept the arguments presented by the member for Bill 45, given the fact that our government has the power under existing legislation to ensure safe drinking water. Regulations regarding the setting of water quality standards, maximum permissible levels of toxicants, testing requirements and monitoring frequency can all be made under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

My colleague has pointed out that we in this province have access to safe drinking water and excellent sanitation facilities. Our healthy population is proof that existing procedures are more than satisfactory in controlling and monitoring our water quality.

I bring to the honourable member's attention the recent report presented to the Canadian International Development Agency by Brian Grover of R. L. Walker and Partners Ltd., consulting engineers and economists, entitled Canadian Prospects for Providing Operational Assistance to Water Supply and Sanitation Systems in Developing Countries.

This report acknowledges Canada's, and particularly Ontario's, expertise in water supply and waste water disposal systems. The report also points out that half of the world's population -- the majority of those who live in the developing countries -- does not have access to a safe supply of drinking water. For them, a safe water supply is still more of a wish than a reality. Clearly, the absence of these essential services causes untold hardship and misery in those undeveloped countries.

The developing countries are attempting to expand their water supply and sanitation services to meet the basic needs of some two billion people by 1990. Since Ontario has already reached the goals for which developing countries are striving, the CIDA report recommends that Canada should commercially exploit its expertise in this area to improve the existing water supply and sanitation systems in developing nations.

At the same time, the benefits to Canada can be enormous in this area. It is estimated that Canada's water supply and waste-water industry could win contracts worth up to $40 million annually. An expanded Canadian role in operational assistance very likely would facilitate a larger Canadian role in establishing trade links with the developing nations. This is what is happening now in Ontario.

In closing, I urge the members to weigh carefully the implications of the honourable member's bill. I see no need to pass more legislation, particularly a bill that is largely redundant at a time in the history of Ontario and Canada when I believe we are already overlegislated. The bill does not provide the necessary controls and guidelines to fully protect and enhance the quality of our drinking water. We have in existence now an act that is more than satisfactory in ensuring high standards for drinking water in Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to tell the New Democratic Party that we wholeheartedly support the bill. We join them in having been much involved with and concerned about the quality of water.

It is not all that many years ago that we had governments formed federally and provincially here in this great country of ours. Many of them met at Niagara-on-the-Lake to form the first Parliament of Upper Canada on the banks of the Niagara River. I am sure on that day those parliamentarians moved about on the great waterways of the province and took their food from those waterways.

I cannot believe they would have foreseen that in such a few short years the public would have to come hat in hand to ask the government to protect the drinking water of this province. That is basically what is happening here today. One might have called this environmental day, because the minister reacted to the citizens who were going to come today to hear this bill debated and moved in a direction we have been attempting to get him to move for a good long time.

We certainly have taken the initiative to put a bill, in the name of our member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston), which our former leader had put. It was a very responsible bill to protect the water in Ontario and to enable us to go after the polluters.

All the members of the government have seen fit to do today is to defend a policy in which they say there is legislation in place and all we have to do is take action. But they have not done it. That is why we are debating this bill today, and that is why there are citizens here who want their water protected. It is because the government has not taken advantage of the legislation that does exist. It has failed to do that. It has poisoned the English-Wabigoon system and the St. Clair system. A former minister said the polluters were going to pay. They have never paid. The people in Ontario are paying.

4:30 p.m.

The minister's assistant is telling us that now we are so sophisticated we can measure not only in parts per thousand but in parts per million and parts per trillion. We have to be able to measure down to those very small measurements simply because the toxics are getting so potent that enough dioxin on a pinhead will kill any number of people.

We do not have a choice about getting that sophisticated. We have to be in order to measure the toxicants in the water. The simplest test of all is still there to be seen. The government wants to drag in all kinds of heavy research, involve infinite numbers of people and spend all kinds of money. There is a very simple way to know what this government has allowed to happen to Ontario's waterways, wells and water supplies. Fish cannot live in them any more. That tells us something.

It is said that people are living longer because we have good water. That is not true at all. They are living longer because of advances in medical treatment in some of the things that used to kill people off in the past. This government has done little or nothing to protect the waterways in this province.

What a shame that, after having all kinds of high-priced help over there, the citizens have to band together to protect their drinking water. It is happening in every jurisdiction. When the ministry tries to defend its position to the people in Stouffville it is wasting its time and the time of this Legislature.

It should decide whether it is going to get behind meaningful legislation, and whether it is going to take some comments from this side of the House where we are trying to be constructive and tell the government it is just about time to keep the promise.

Some very able members of the Legislature and some very able people outside, people who have been very much involved in the bill before us today, such as Toby Vigod of Canadian Environmental Law Association and Anne Wordsworth of Pollution Probe, have taken this responsibility and carried it forward.

This government did not represent the people of Ontario at the hearings held when tremendous volumes were going to be dumped into the lower Niagara River. The minister went as a private individual because this government did not have a commitment to send someone over there to say, "We are the province of Ontario, and that is an international waterway which knows no bounds. Those pollutants are going to come right across here to us."

It did not have the kind of fortitude it takes to go over and tell our American friends that we will not put up with that, that we will join together with the federal government and do what we have to do to turn this thing around.

The people with wells in the area of dump sites know full well that when one continues to put contaminant on top of contaminant, hydrostatic pressure pushes those contaminants out. They know York Sanitation did not put the contaminants there, but they also know if one continues to pile on top of those contaminants they are pushed out and pushed into the wells, and that is what they are concerned about.

They have every right to be concerned, because they cannot trust this government to share with them honestly all the tests that have been made. On many occasions I have asked this government to identify the dangerous sites where the leaching might get into the wells and drill the kinds of test facilities around those to know when those contaminants are on the move. It is not good enough to have a committee or a group testing the water after the fact. After the contaminants have moved into the water supply it is too late.

That is the kind of initiative we want to see the government take. That is why we join with the NDP today to suggest this government has had plenty of time to do it. It has failed to do it. Now comes a time for us to start pushing. The public is going to start pushing.

We saw how the minister reacted today the minute he found out we were going to debate this bill and there might be people in the gallery who are very upset about the inactivity on the part of the government.

Mr. Wildman: Where is the minister?

Ms. Copps: He doesn't even show up.

Mr. Kerrio: He has his parliamentary assistant here to tell him how the people reacted to this bit of reaction the minister had today because of the pressure that was coming to bear.

Here is a little background as it relates to the fact that our former leader introduced a bill, which was re-introduced today by our member. We feel that bill should be considered as well.

The contamination of drinking water supplies, both public and private, is becoming a matter which we read about more and more. Just as acid rain became a buzzword, toxics-on-tap and a deadly drink might become media buzzwords in the future unless this government takes some kind of action.

A review of legislation demonstrates that although legislation has been enacted to control water pollution at the source, this legislation has not been effective in preventing the continued degradation of the waterways.

Ontario may use the Ontario Water Resources Act or the Environmental Protection Act as legislation to protect drinking water; however, the provincial government has not taken advantage of its powers under these acts to control pollution effectively. Enforcement has been sporadic and uneven.

Furthermore, even where existing legislation provides a framework for establishing regulations, the government has not used these provisions to enact standards. This means that with respect to drinking water there is no legislation regulating contaminants at the point of consumption, that is at the tap.

Within ministerial regulation powers under the Ontario Water Resources Act, the minister may make regulations specifying standards, not just guidelines of quality, for water supplies.

The minister knows that has not been done. I say that we should all support this bill and get on with the very important aspects of this. They are important to the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: I was going to point out to the member for Beaches-Woodbine that she would probably have about one minute, because the time for this will expire at 4:39 p.m. As a result, would you like to give your minute to the honourable member who introduced the bill?

Ms. Bryden: I will defer to the member.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to respond in three minutes to all of the things that have been said, but I would like to pick a couple of them.

Both of the members on the government side -- the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) -- keyed on the fact that in their opinion and in the opinion of the government all of these things are already covered in legislation.

During February of this year, I listened to over 50 citizens' groups from across this province who have been fighting battles specifically related to water in their communities. They have found there is no easy legal access in the existing legislation to deal with the problems we are trying to deal with in this bill. That is the first item. I would like those two members to think carefully about that and I would like the member for Durham-York to carry that message back to the minister.

The second point is that the member for Nipissing made the point that the minister already has the power under the Ontario Water Resources Act to do the research I am suggesting he should do. There is a substantial difference between a power for the minister to do research at his discretion and an obligation that is set down in this bill for the minister to do that research instead of sitting on his hands having the power and not doing it.

In wrapping up, I want to say to the government members that this bill was developed in large part by the input of citizens and citizens' groups from across this province, not by some political plot of the left in this caucus. This is the kind of legislation the people in this province feel they need to deal with the concerns they have about water.

We sat for several days listening to group after group telling us this is the kind of thing they need. If there are specific things in the bill that upset the government, they can be dealt with in committee outside of the House, where we can have further public hearings and hear from more groups from across the province. The principle of the bill is what we should be dealing with here today; it incorporates the concerns that have been expressed by citizens from across this province.

I encourage members to support the bill.

4:40 p.m.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 47, An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Before you start, would you like to reserve some time at the end?

Mr. Riddell: No, Mr. Speaker, I am going to go right through. Twenty minutes does not give me sufficient time to say all that needs to be said about the unfair trading practices in the food industry.

If I can convince members on both sides of the House in the time allotted that the formation of large buying groups by the major chain stores to exact more discounts and allowances from their suppliers is destroying competition, which is the essence of free enterprise, then I am sure my bill to prohibit such practices will receive unanimous support. Ultimately, it will be a major step to protect consumers from unjustifiably high food prices.

If one were told that supermarkets are able to make large profits while farmers are facing financial crisis, would one not find a certain irony in that scenario? Furthermore, would one not be suspicious of supermarket practices if one were told that one food chain raised the price of a certain food product 13 per cent almost overnight followed by a similar unjustifiable hike in price by two other chain stores within a week?

When a director of sales and marketing for an independent supplier of this product was contacted, he said no price hikes were justified for this product. When a consumer complained and the matter was investigated, the chain store which originally hiked the price said that an error was made when prices were readjusted after the long winter price war in Ontario.

Is it not rather odd that the other two chain stores made the same error? After the customer complained, all three chain stores dropped the price of that one product to the same level.

It raises the question as to how extensively this practice is carried on and what that says for competition. I submit we are losing competition in the food industry. As an indication of this, another buyer was recently taken out of the market when Dominion and Steinberg merged their buying power into one of the nation's most powerful buying groups known as Volume One.

Ken Gadd of Peterborough, who runs the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers, which represents family owned and operated supermarkets, said the creation of Volume One means, "It is going to be tough for the independents to survive." But he predicted the larger concern lies among food processors because Volume One is "just a means of extracting more discount from the manufacturer."

Herein lies the irony. Supermarkets engage in practices which continue to make them larger profits at the expense of not only the food producers but the independent processors and manufacturers as well, all part of the food chain; yet the food producers are trying to make themselves heard in their protest to governments over high interest rates, another player in the country's food system, while the five major grocery chains receive scant attention on the effect they have on producer prices.

Recent profit figures show supermarkets made sizeable 1981 earnings, even taking into account the year-end price war, while the farmers who produce their commodities saw slack prices and rising debts. There was a 115 per cent increase in farm bankruptcies last year over the previous year due to high input cost and low product prices. Yet profit figures released last year for food sales showed that while many of the supermarket chains were hurt by the price war, most of the big five made extremely comfortable profits.

There is no question that the way supermarkets make profits while farmers lose money is by using their market power to pressure processors, such as the canners, meat packers, frozen food companies and other wholesalers, to keep their prices low. We know from conversations we have had with processors that there is a lot of pressure put on them by these chain stores.

The processors, in turn, keep prices low to producers. Often the farmer is faced with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude as far as price is concerned with little assurance that even the bare cost of production would be met.

It is becoming more and more obvious that the supermarket chains hold enormous power over farmers and independent suppliers; while crippling interest rates are the most immediate threat to the survival of Ontario family farms, the growing chain store power should concern farmers and consumers alike.

The latest merger of buying power by Dominion and Steinberg was apparently done to match the buying power of other buying groups in the Canadian market. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, of the arrangements which were made between Loblaws Ltd. and Provigo Inc. in Quebec to form a buying group known as Foodwide, which took place not too many years ago.

Buying groups originally began among small-scale retailers who were losing out to the clout of the major chains. So they decided to band together to gain bargaining clout associated with large volume and distribution efficiencies in centralizing warehousing and services. IGA and Red and White were among the first. The federal government welcomed that development because it helped the weak in the industry, but now the government faces an entirely different issue as the major chains begin to use the same buying group vehicle to combine their clout.

Cranston Knechtel of Knechtel Wholesale Grocers Ltd. said: "I wish we could get out of this system. It would be a lot cleaner."

The purpose of these large buying groups is to get bigger volume discounts, but unfortunately these discounts bear no relation to any cost savings to the supplier. Volume buying will force suppliers to raise prices to their other customers, such as the smaller independent grocers, and so the noose tightens around their necks. Large buying groups also place enormous pressure on small processors and suppliers and are rapidly putting them out of business, as they are the independent retailers.

Just as a matter of interest, the power of the major chains in this province continues to increase at the expense of the independents. Last year their share of the grocery sales in Ontario went to 75.1 per cent of the market compared to around 48 per cent about 15 years ago.

It is interesting to compare these figures with those in the United States, where the five major food chains share only 26 per cent of the grocery sales, thanks to the Robinson-Patman Act which the American government passed to prohibit unfair trading practices and to give competition a chance to work in the free market.

Under this act, it is illegal for supermarkets in the United States to form buying groups in order to get larger volume discounts from food processors. The bill I have introduced will likewise prohibit unfair trading practices in the food industry and will give the independent suppliers and retailers a much fairer opportunity to compete.

I am not the only one concerned about the concentration of power in a few large supermarkets. In the words of Ruth Jackson, an executive with the Consumers Association of Canada: "The formation of buying groups is definitely going to decrease competition. We just can't see that supermarkets united in a buying group are going to compete aggressively."

Mrs. Jackson said there is no guarantee that the buying group will pass on to consumers the money saved by buying large volumes of groceries and she is concerned that the pressure for large volume discounts could push some small food processors out of business.

To quote Mrs. Jackson again: "It puts the small processor in a most difficult position right now and there seems to be no hope for the small retailer. There doesn't seem to be too much we can do right now. It was set up quite legally but it is a really frightening proposition from the consumer point of view to see buying power so concentrated."

According to Kenneth Gadd, head of the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers: "Small grocery stores are also endangered by the formation of buying groups such as Volume One and Foodwise. The small grocers say they have to charge higher prices because they can't get the same volume discounts as large chains. They believe the discounts should be outlawed in Canada, as they are in the United States."

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Gadd continues: "Such large buying groups create unfair competition for small stores. Even though they are members of buying groups, the small stores cannot force or request large discounts from food manufacturers because they do not buy in large enough volume."

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is also concerned that the purchasing policies of the supermarkets are reducing not only the number of food retailers but also the number of suppliers of food products. Vertical integration in the food industry is already well established and will be intensified as more and more small suppliers find they cannot afford the escalating discounts and price allowances being demanded by the big retailers.

More mergers, buy-outs and drop-outs will take place until the concentration of economic power on the selling side matches that of the buying side. More and more food processors and distributors will fall under the direct or indirect control of the corporate retail chains. Some will say this is the inevitable nature of free enterprise and is bound to have beneficial results in industry efficiency and cheaper prices. My colleagues and I disagree.

Let me assure the House that the Ontario Liberal Party is sincerely devoted to free enterprise. We believe the essence of free enterprise is competition; that the concentration of economic power in the hands of relatively few buyers and sellers is the antithesis of competition and the curse of free enterprise.

Monopolies and oligopolies are not necessarily more efficient and no cartel, to my knowledge, has ever advocated lower prices. It is established public policy in this country that competition is promoted, and economic domination prevented, by outlawing unfair trading practices as those practices may be defined from time to time in legislation.

Perhaps I should qualify that statement by saying this has been the public policy pursued by governments which support the free enterprise system. When I first introduced this bill in December 1979, and debated it in June 1980, the members on the government side used as an excuse the argument that trading practices are governed by federal legislation.

I will admit the main legislative vehicle for implementing policy in this matter has been the federal Combines Investigation Act, or the competition act, as many now prefer to call it.

This legislation has been under review for some years now with the stated intention of correcting many of its perceived inadequacies. The federal government introduced certain amendments in 1977 but they were not enacted. I do not believe there has been any change in the competition act since then and my comments must therefore be based on the statute as it currently stands.

Pertaining to that act, the key provisions relative to the trading practices in the food industry appear to be sections 34 and 35. Section 34 outlaws price discrimination by requiring a seller to sell equal quantities of the same product to buyers who are in competition with one another. That requirement has been in the act for 40 years and was adopted to deal with the situation disclosed by the royal commission on price spread in 1935.

I believe I am correct in saying there has never been a conviction under this section; although one should add, perhaps, that it has undoubtedly had a deterrent effect. An obvious consideration in prosecuting section 34 offences is that the Combines Investigation Act is criminal law. Therefore the crown is required to prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. I will have a further comment on this aspect in a moment.

Section 35 outlaws the sale of promotional and advertising allowances which are not offered to competitors on proportionate terms as defined in the act. It is my impression that the section has been rarely enforced. There are a number of inadequacies in the federal law as it now stands. I shall deal with only three major points, which in my opinion justify the need for complementary provincial legislation.

The first difficulty is that the federal law, as already noted, is criminal law. Many of the practices and offences against competition and trade which the legislation seeks to deter are not criminal offences as most people today understand that term. A more flexible approach than that permitted by the criminal law is needed.

The proposed amendments introduced by the federal government in 1977 sought to provide such flexibility by establishing a civil procedure with respect to what were called price differentials. While these proposals have not come back to Parliament, it is worth noting that they were criticized at the time as being ultra vires of the federal government.

The second major difficulty with current federal law is that it contains no discernible concept of cost justification as a test for the legitimacy of discounts and allowances granted or requested, particularly in respect of advertising and sales promotions. Without such a concept and test, I submit section 35 of the federal act is virtually unworkable. The Robinson-Patman Act in the United States corrected this deficiency years ago.

The third major difficulty, and in my opinion the most serious one, is that the federal law prohibits unfair trade practices by sellers. The entire act is designed to promote competition by preventing undue economic domination by the sellers of products. It is a moot point whether a buyer could be prosecuted, let alone convicted, under sections 34 and 35 of the federal act. Again, the US Robinson-Patman Act corrected this deficiency years ago.

I submit that this rather antiquated view of competition policy in Canada must be corrected. Many of the problems in promoting competition in today's economy arise from the concentration of economic power in the hands of large buyers. Control of the marketing side of trade by a few large buyers is as bad as control of the supply side by a few large sellers. Yet our legislative regime has not caught up to this rather obvious truth.

During the 1980 public inquiry into discounts and allowances in the food industry, to my knowledge no supermarket chain testified that it is the victim of price discrimination by its suppliers. Rather, I believe the weight of the evidence had all been the other way. These discounts, kickbacks and allowances are being aggressively sought by the big chains on the unspoken implication that the seller who does not provide them risks doing no business with that particular buyer.

I do not think it too strong to say they are being exacted from suppliers by the big chains. In this regard, I draw attention to what appears to be a standard clause in the pricing arrangement that the chains negotiate with their suppliers, wherein the supplier declares that the deal he has just concluded, usually to the tailor-made specifications of the chain, is being offered to all competing buyers in the trade; thus does everyone keep clean of the letter, if not the spirit, of the Combines Investigation Act.

My colleagues and I submit that provincial legislation is necessary. I have outlined in the bill the kind of legislation that would prohibit unfair trading practices in the food industry.

I would like to refer to two other arguments used by government members to vote against my bill when it was introduced in 1980. They argued that the responsibility to regulate trade practices should not come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food but rather the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

As is obvious to everyone, the responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) do not end at the farm gate, as has been argued by that side of the House many times in the past. As his very title states, he is the minister responsible for food as well as agriculture. Moreover, the bill which I have introduced is an amendment to the Farm Products Marketing Act, an amendment which accepts the definition of marketing, and with certain minor changes the definition of farm products, already contained in that act.

The amendment would also accept without qualification the purpose and intent of that legislation. The Farm Products Marketing Act was enacted under the umbrella of section 95 of the British North America Act, whereby the provincial and federal legislators have concurrent powers respecting agriculture. Any provincial law is effective in the province provided it is not repugnant to any federal law.

It is legislation which has been held to be constitutionally valid by the court, and I should reiterate that we are not proposing some kind of legislative end run around the federal government's undoubtedly exclusive jurisdiction over the criminal law or the regulation of trade and commerce. We believe the problems involving public policy can best be resolved by removing them from the context of the criminal law.

Mr. Speaker, you are not going to allow me to finish and deal with the other arguments that were used on that side of the House last time, so let me end by saying that I have endeavoured to show that unfair trade practices in the food industry are of real concern to food producers, suppliers and independent retailers, not to mention the concerns the consumer will have if it is allowed to continue.

5 p.m.

The essence of a free society is choice. The greater the increase in concentration, the greater the restraints on choice. The choice of goods and services available to consumers becomes limited; employees are restricted in their choice of employers.

Suppliers find a restricted number of purchasers, especially with respect to industrial merchandise; and competition, the essence of free enterprise, is being seriously eroded. I am trying to correct this situation and the unfair trading practices by introducing this bill, which, after my debate now, I am sure will entice all members to support it.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Huron-Middlesex found it difficult to present this whole case in 20 minutes, imagine my plight in trying to deal with it in 10 minutes.

The member has spelled out the practices in the food industry and the role that rebates, discounts and allowances play in making those practices unfair and inequitable. I am going to accept most of the case he has made and not attempt to repeat it because I do not have the time to do so. Most of what he has said is factual.

To the extent that the member has brought in opinions, I think they are opinions that are very widely promulgated and very widely accepted as being an accurate assessment of the effect of discounts and allowances in creating unfair practices.

In my limited time I want to focus on the solution the member has come up with. Quite frankly, while I think everybody would agree this is a problem that has to be tackled, I have reservations as to whether what he has proposed is the best and most effective way of doing it. In other words, I support both the principle and the spirit of the bill; but I have reservations about the substance of the bill, and that is what I want to speak to.

In talking to some people in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture today I was interested to discover that their view is in essence just what I have said: that this bill needs to be brought in, this problem needs to be tackled; but they, too, have serious reservations about the substance of the bill. I was interested to go back and take a look at the debate we had on June 5, 1980. I concluded my contributions at that time --

May I interrupt myself, Mr. Speaker, to remind you that the first time the member introduced this bill he did so after the royal commission hearings had been completed but before we got the report. In other words, he was jumping the gun as to how we might come to grips with an obvious problem, although I do not suppose I should say it was very obvious because the commission did not recognize it very well.

Mr. Wildman: They were blind.

Mr. MacDonald: They were blind. Right.

I concluded my remarks then with this paragraph: "In brief, discounts are obviously not an honourable way of doing business." I think I would revise that statement after a couple of years and say that they are a vicious way of doing business; I was a bit too charitable two years ago. "They are a weapon by which the big become bigger. The supermarkets are destroying their competitors, and the consumers, the processors and the producers in many instances are suffering along the way. This is within provincial jurisdiction" -- this whole problem, this whole issue. "The government can do something, either by amendments to the Farm Products Marketing Act or, if I may suggest, without wanting to pull the rug out from under this bill, under the Business Practices Act, to apply across the board, not just to farm products."

Let me elaborate on that conclusion, which I made two years ago. My first concern about this bill is that the honourable member is attempting to tackle the problem within the framework of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food when -- dare I join my colleagues on the other side of the House for a moment in suggesting this? -- the appropriate place for it to be done is within the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The government had food added to OMAF back in 1963, and for 15 years or more they had a food council that was supposed to concentrate and do the job on the food industry beyond the farm gate. It never did that job; it was dismissed as being ineffective and useless, and even the government recognized it as such in the latter part of the 1970s. The government argued that since in the interval it would set up within the framework of this government a ministry to deal with consumer and commercial relations, that ministry would be the appropriate place to tackle the problems that might emerge in the food industry but which were also problems that emerged in all trade and commerce across the board.

The problem at the moment is we have fallen between both ministries and neither is doing this. The appropriate and logical place for these problems to be tackled is the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

I do not want to be dogmatic because this is really a tough one to come to grips with, but when one gets to the substance of the bill, this is where my concerns begin to mount. What the member has attempted to do in his bill is to designate and categorize or define unfair practices. If I may try to summarize it and put it in a nutshell, what he has said is, on the one hand, if a buyer or seller does not give or get the same kind of treatment as other buyers and sellers are getting, then it is an unfair practice. In other words, one cannot have a discount and allowance given to one buyer by a seller or vice versa if it is not available to everybody else; to do so is an unfair practice.

The second unfair practice is that, if a buyer and a seller give a discount, if there is no return in equal value through that market advantage that was given, then again it is an unfair practice. The thing that puzzles me is that this business of having to give an equal discount to that offered to other people is not a new idea. As the member has already pointed out, it is in the Combines Investigation Act. It has never proven to be effective. It is a legal quagmire that nobody would willingly, consciously or intentionally wade into, other than lawyers who are going to fill their pockets by doing so. We have never been able to get an effective regulation of the destruction of competition through combines as a result of our Ottawa legislation.

I suggest to my friend that, in bringing in this bill, he is really attempting to do essentially the same thing. Just imagine the fun lawyers are going to have when one must have equal circumstances between buyers and sellers on the discount and allowance when it adds "under substantially the same terms and conditions of sale and delivery." In other words, the quantity and the transportation distance must be the same, and all the other conditions must be the same. One does not need to be a very bright lawyer to be able to begin to make a case before a judge that the conditions are somewhat different and therefore one does not have to give the same discount to somebody else. It is not clean, neat and tidy. It is an invitation to a legal quagmire. Therefore, I am not certain it is really going to solve the problem.

It is interesting to note that the Quebec government and the provinces in western Canada have tackled one area of this. They have done it neatly and cleanly. In the hearings of the Inquiry into Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry in Ontario, as well as in the standing committee hearings we had in advance of them, the one product on which there was obviously heavy focus in seeking discounts was milk.

Those discounts, incidentally, were as high as 25 and 30 per cent. The reason is simple. Milk is a product most people want. The supermarkets will exact a discount of 25 or 30 per cent and then use milk as a loss leader. They will get the customers to come into their stores, get milk cheaper and therefore buy the other products. They create unfair competition with the independent grocer down on the corner.

We had people who came before the standing committee who pointed out in documented fashion the situation of the independent retailer. I can think of one instance in the city of Kitchener. This man said that when he bought his products wholesale, they cost him more than the price at which the supermarket down the street was able to retail them. Why? Because the supermarket had exacted such monstrous discounts and allowances. I repeat, that is not an honourable way to do business; it is a vicious way to do it. It is a practice by which the big are getting bigger and the little independent man is being driven to the wall.

How have other provinces come to grips with this? Let us narrow the focus, not deal with the broad field, but with this one product which is so key, milk. It is simple. If one goes to the western provinces or Quebec, the milk commission of the province, or the equivalent agency, fixes the retail price of milk, just as it fixes the price the farmers get in accordance with the formula. In fixing that, the possibility of discounts and allowances is eliminated from the picture.

5:10 p.m.

This is a problem that must be tackled. I think it should be tackled within the framework of consumer and commercial relations. I do not think the techniques that have been suggested in this bill will really come to grips with it, and if they do, there will be a legal quagmire as bad as that of our Combines Investigation Act. It is something we should bring before this House and support in principle. I hope some time soon either the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food or the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations will do something about it.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill 47. It is obvious that one of the motivating circumstances that brings this bill into the House now is the continued consolidation of purchasing power in the retail food industry. This type of consolidation is not new to this industry or any other industry associated with agriculture or any industry in general in the western world.

Originally, in Canada, as the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) said, Canadian business was built by hard-working individual entrepreneurs who, with innovative ideas, started businesses in their chosen fields. These entrepreneurs usually grew in size and expanded their businesses as they captured more of the market or as they acquired other businesses and other competitors. This gradual expansion of business has developed over the years to a point now where we see the General Motors, the Massey-Fergusons, the Westons and so on that we are all quite familiar with.

As the member across the way said, to some, this type of progression is a natural one in the free enterprise or capitalist system. Many others see it as the demise of free enterprise, when they see the concentration of market and the concentration of power going to fewer and fewer people and increasingly few entrepreneurs at work. Although this consolidation of power is certainly not unique to the food industry, to me it is of greater concern in the food industry than in many others.

For many consumers, particularly in large cities, their knowledge of the food industry stops at the retailers' shelves. Consumers see displays, advertising, promotional propaganda and so on in the retail industry and base many of their purchasing decisions on this sort of information. The promotional campaigns and merchandising decisions of the retail sector inevitably affect other people and groups in the food industry such as producers, processors and wholesalers. It affects these various groups to varying degrees.

The formation of buying groups is not at all uncommon in industry or in the agricultural sector. A good example is that 14 of the largest farmers in the area where I live got together and formed a buying group. They bought all their herbicides; these were delivered to my farm this morning and picked up there by the individuals who formed the buying group. They did it, of course, to get various discounts. In doing this, they hope to get a better price.

We also see it in the agricultural community, for example, in the marketing of seed corn, various warehousing discounts, early delivery discounts, joint advertising promotions and rebates of various sorts with which farmers and farm groups are familiar and, quite frankly, insist upon.

The question that arises here today is to what extent should the consolidation of buying power be allowed and which of the many options available to deal with this consolidation do we wish to choose, if any?

Ms. Copps: Gouge. Consolidation or gouge.

Mr. Stevenson: If the consolidation of buying power is not abused, it is not detrimental to individual producers, producer groups or small processors.

In many cases consolidation of buying power can bypass normal merchandising systems and cut out some levels in the marketing structure. This removes a few hands from the till and often improves efficiency in the marketing of food products. However, the fear exists that this consolidation of power can be used against individual producers or processors to provide unrealistic demands or rebates.

The report of the inquiry into discounts and allowances in the food industry was not as broad as some had hoped. However, if one thoroughly reads the report and talks to representatives of various marketing groups in the agricultural industry, it becomes clear that these allowances do not often seriously affect the primary producers of agricultural products in the country.

The member for Huron-Middlesex read out the percentages and the increase in share of the market of the various groups. I will not go over them again. The formation of a joint buying company of Dominion and Steinberg's is a natural cause for worry for the small retailers, producers and processors, as well as consumers, who could be affected in the long run. Obviously, it is the smaller processors and retailers who feel they will not be able to compete.

This brings us to Bill 47, which attempts to deal with this potential problem in one way. Although the honourable member has argued otherwise, I still believe issues dealing with competition belong in the Combines Investigation Act. There is some very real concern that portions of Bill 47 are really outside the constitutional power of the province.

To whatever extent Ontario is allowed to exercise jurisdiction, I believe that the question really belongs in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. That ministry has responded and is looking into the creation of Volume One. I understand the federal government is investigating the matter as well. Should that not be sufficient to show where the responsibility lies, I suppose the Robinson-Patman Act in the United States is federal legislation.

The US Department of Justice has been strongly critical of that legislation and has recommended that it be repealed. It is extremely expensive to cost-justify a discount or rebate and there is a large body of opinion in the US to the effect that the act discourages rebates, adds to the cost and therefore results in higher costs than necessary.

Testimony to the Leach commission was almost unanimous that more legislation is not desirable or advisable at the present time. These comments came not only from big companies, but also from representatives of small and medium-sized businesses.

I am familiar with the marketing of many agricultural products. To a degree, I share the concerns of members who have spoken. However, I must add that my experience in many sectors of the agricultural industry has been that there is a sincere effort to market Ontario products and produce, providing they reach the retail outlets at a quality competitive with that from other sources.

5:20 p.m.

If the problem is one of a very few, powerful buyers, then let us deal with it by calling for better competition laws from our national Parliament rather than by imposing an awkward system of controls that can only harm producers, processors and consumers.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 47. I am very disappointed this government did not enact it when it was originally brought forward in 1980, and I am saddened by the fact that we have to talk about this subject again.

I will take members through a bit of the history of this business. At one time it was run by small entrepreneurs on both sides of the buying and the selling, and there was a somewhat equal balance of power between them. Today we find that the large, retail enterprises are run by masters of business administration who are armed with the latest market reports, statistics, computerized ordering and accounting systems and every modern business tool they can bring to bear on the subject. The problem is that farmers, marketing boards and smaller organizations do not have the power to deal with those people.

Just to step back a minute, many years ago we had an arm of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food known as the Ontario Food Council. I disagree with the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) who said it was not effective. In its first years it was quite effective. The chain stores worked very closely with it. When the council made some recommendation it very often carried through with it. Today, the competition is so severe and so great and the four or five top companies are fighting so hard for market share that they simply cannot have the luxury of listening to the Minister of Agriculture and Food or to the food council.

Sadly, ministers subsequent to that time have lacked the will and the influence with the chains. I would mention that three ministers ago we had a minister who did have influence and did step out. I wish I had the time to tell members some personal examples I know about.

The point today is that the players are so few, the competition is so intense and the profit margin so small that if one chain carries on a practice that gives them an advantage, however morally questionable it might be -- and I use that term advisedly, because under the Robinson-Patman Act it is considered illegal in the United States and, I think, in Australia -- the others have to follow suit in order to survive.

After the 1980 inquiry, the discount practices seemed to lessen, although they certainly did not disappear. Today, two major chains are joining hands to create a discount or profit centre, as Loblaws labelled their operation in the inquiry. During that inquiry some thought was given to the profit centre. Why did the chain stores establish a profit centre? There was some thought that perhaps it was a gimmick to hide profits or to avoid some income tax, but that was dispelled; no plot was discovered, and we were quite satisfied that there was none.

I believe there are two logical reasons. One is to put pressure on the buyer to produce discounts, to measure the discounts that an individual buyer's performance can be brought upon to extract. Those amounts of dollars are measured against other buyers, and the pressure is on everyone in the system to produce the same percentage of profit. The second reason, I believe, is to isolate the discount from the individual produce manager. We must remember that in today's market most of the buying is done by corporate buyers, who do their buying from a central office.

In the case of the produce that is bought at the Ontario Food Terminal here in Toronto, it is used by the chain buyers to pick up a fill-in item. If they need to supplement the trailer loads, they buy direct from shipping points within Ontario and some shipping points within the United States. They do not do their major buying on that market.

If the discount is to stay in the profit centre, and the evidence given at the inquiry was that it did, then the full purchase price, not the discount price, is passed on to the retail store, and their mark-up is based on 100 per cent of the purchase price, not the 98 per cent, or in some cases as low as 70 per cent. It is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand does.

I very seriously question the claim that the discount is passed to the consumer. On the other hand, with an independent, in which case the buyer and the retail manager are often the same person, the retail manager knows the real cost and prices his retail accordingly. The point is that the isolation of a discount in the profit centre, or Volume One as the most recent profit centre is called, separates the discount from the two functions; that is, of the buying and the selling function.

My colleague has spoken of the ability of the government to hide behind the federal skirts. They do that when it suits them. When it comes to giving away a Canadian firm like White Farm Equipment, they are very indignant that the rules of the Foreign Investment Review Agency are applied. They use the argument to suit themselves. The argument is put forward that the cost of enforcement would be prohibitive. My years of selling to chain stores tell me that the chains abhor being charged with any offence, such as false advertising, or offences under the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.

Produce put under detention in their stores by the sales act brings a severe reprimand if it was the supplier's fault. I remember on one occasion receiving a letter of blame about strawberries. It is pretty hard to guarantee the quality of strawberries very long, but the letter said, "If this ever happens again, you will no longer be a supplier." I can tell the members that is a powerful incentive to see that it does not happen again. The point is they absolutely hate such adverse publicity.

The good operators, and that includes most of them, would voluntarily obey a reasonable act, and this act is certainly reasonable. It does not in any way impinge upon discounts that are due to lower costs in the marketing system, and there are generous exceptions to take care of special circumstances.

In the debate of June 5, 1980, the point was made several times to wait until after the report of the royal commission was issued, as much of a whitewash as that was. That term was used by many of the critics. The inquiry did recommend that a system of dealing with discount problems be established. My colleague's bill does that in a most reasonable way.

We recognize that this government is not about to put into force an opposition bill. In fact, they blocked such a bill in 1980. Passage of this bill, leaving them the option of bringing in their own bill -- and I sense that the members have some sympathy for it -- and proclaiming it into law on their own terms would, at the very least, be a signal to both buyers and sellers that the government does not give its blessing to a practice that is illegal in other jurisdictions.

I find it ironic that in a province where we have such enlightened legislation as the Farm Products Marketing Act, the government refuses to follow through on a measure that is already law in the greatest bastion of free enterprise in the world.

A month ago, I attended a meeting here in Toronto, at the St. Lawrence Centre. One of the people on the panel was John Lindley, vice-president of Campbell Soups, who was a Canadian, who did business here in Canada, and moved to the United States as the vice-president of that company. When I had my turn at the microphone, I asked him what he thought of the Robinson-Patman Act and, in ringing terms, he let everybody know that it did the job it was designed to do and that they did not have the problems in the United States we have here.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this bill and I, too, feel there is value in passing this bill.

Certainly if we look at what is happening between the consumers and the farmers, we have to have some concern about the middlemen. I have here the report of Agriculture Canada, dated December 8, 1981, which says that this year there will be a 10 per cent hike in food costs and farm profits will be 15 per cent less. Surely that must give us all a wide measure of concern.

Certainly the plight of the farmers and the consumers is worsening as a result of a variety of things, particularly the high interest rates that are the policy of the Liberal federal government. But it is also due to the system we have between the agricultural producers and the consumers. The big retailers force discounts, and they are getting bigger and bigger and fewer and fewer. They force discounts, and in a variety of ways they eliminate competition.

I think both consumers and farmers recognize the danger, particularly since this amalgamation of buying called Volume One took place between Dominion and Steinberg and, as has already been mentioned, a combination exists between Loblaws and Provigo for the purchasing of food. Of course, farmers recognized the dangers of this long ago, and it is largely because of this concentration that they had to go to marketing boards, something that we in this party have supported for many years and many decades.

I have before me the report of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, dated October 27, 1980, which includes a submission it made to the royal commission that was sitting on the matter of discounts. I will not take time to read it, but it states very pointedly what has happened in the whole area of milk with regard to the discount situation, the big supermarkets being able to force discounts of up to 30 per cent and eliminating the small distributors and, for that matter, the small dairies.

I think we are all aware of what has happened in the dairy industry in the past 12 years. The number of dairies processing milk has gone down from something like 165 to 35 at the present time. I have here a brief from the Independent Milk Distributors Association that documents this, and it should be compulsory reading for those over on that side who now are saying that competition is not necessary. It should be compulsory reading for those members over there with regard to the damage it is doing to small business people, and even middle-sized business people, in this province.

Very comprehensive studies have been done in the United States on what happens, whether it is the retailers and supermarkets or the processors that amalgamate until there are only a few in the field. There was a comprehensive study done back in 1966, the most comprehensive one that has ever been done in the United States by the National Commission on Food Marketing. It concluded:

"In most industries, gross profit margins of larger firms have grown more rapidly than those of smaller firms. Profit rates of larger firms are considerably higher than those of other industry members and the industry average. The larger firms exhibit a greater stability and rate of profit than do firms in the other asset size groups, and these trends seem to be most pronounced in areas of higher concentration and increasing product differentiation."

It goes on to say, "When a few large firms dominate a field, they frequently forbear from competing actively by price. Competition by advertising, sales promotion and other selling efforts almost always increases, and the market power inescapably at the disposal of such firms may be used to impose onerous terms upon suppliers or customers."

This report goes on to point out that the three independent methodological approaches that were done by experts in the US Department of Agriculture estimated that consumers in the United States were paying between $12 billion and $14 billion a year too much because of this concentration or, conversely, that US producers were losing that much.

The concentration is higher here than it is in the United States, both in the retail market and in processing. Using the same criteria, our research estimates that people here are paying $400 million a year too much or, conversely, that the farmers are getting $400 million a year too little because of the concentration of power, primarily in the supermarkets. There is a real danger in the economic power of giant corporations and, because food is so essential to us, that is where it is hurting us the most.

I want to comment on the statement made by the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson). He said he called for better competition laws. Coming from a member of the government party here, that is the height of hypocrisy. I have a 15-page document here by the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, now the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker).

He spoke at the conference of ministers of consumer and commercial relations on September 3, 1981, only a little more than six months ago.

I wish I had the time to read the whole 15-page document. Nowhere in that document did he mention the need for competition. The subject of his speech was the economic system we have at present, and he used the whole document to attack the proposals of the federal government to improve the anti-combines act and competition legislation at the federal level. The whole document is used for that.

He said, "A threshold level in the 70 to 80 per cent range under this proposed federal legislation would automatically designate many of Canada's top corporations." Then he went on to say there was no real danger in that.

"We also object to the presupposition that, just because a company is dominant in its industry, its market power is therefore detrimental to the consumer's interest. Large and dominant companies are increasingly sensitive to the dangers of antagonizing not only government but also their suppliers and consumers.

He said, "Market share, as already noted, is not a logical or fair test."

Then he ended up by saying, "For these and other reasons, Ontario must oppose the proposed competition policy of the federal government."

That was said by a member of the party that rules this province which just said we need better competition legislation. What a farce those comments are.

I want to say to my colleagues on the right that I could be a little more convinced of their seriousness in wanting competition if the federal government were doing more about this. In all the years it has been in power, it has never enacted that proposed legislation to strengthen the competition law.

I have a document by Irving Brecher, who is the chairman of the department of economics at McGill University. He says, "Relating statutory results to professed aim and potential benefit, I rank the story of competition among the saddest experiences in Canadian public policy."

The Liberals in Ottawa are backing down on this competition policy. I want to say to the members on my right that I would be a bit more convinced of their sincerity about wanting competition if they had opposed, as I did, the statement of the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations when he said: "Competition is not important."

Hon. Mr. Norton: Speak up.

Mr. MacDonald: You are not hearing; so he needs to speak up.

Mr. Swart: There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

I would think there was more sincerity in the remarks of the members to my right if they had used the time in estimates to highlight the trends towards amalgamation and the statements of this government that competition is no longer necessary in our society.

5:40 p.m.

I would be more convinced of the members' sincerity if the federal Liberals had not neglected to strengthen the competition law --

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Swart: -- and I would be more convinced of the Liberals' sincerity if they did not accept political contributions from giant corporations.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex South.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to --

Mr. Watson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought there was a rotation.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry; I did not see the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr. Mancini: He should have risen more quickly. We lost our turn recently because we didn't stand up quickly enough.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent has the floor in the rotation of speakers.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, if the member was not up at the proper time, why am I losing my turn to be able to speak? Is it not true that you told me only a couple of weeks ago that I had lost my turn because you had seen the other member rise first? Is that not correct, sir?

Mr. Speaker: Not during a debate, with all respect.

Mr. Kerrio: You're picking on those little guys again.

Mr. Speaker: I am not.

Mr. Mancini: What do you have against the short world, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: That is an unfair comment.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the efforts of the member for Essex South to take up as much time as he can because he obviously feels he is not going to get his turn.

I congratulate the member for Huron-Middlesex for his persistent determination to see that this bill is debated every two years. In fact, I think he has hardly changed since it first came here and we debated it in June 1980. I wish to make a few comments on the bill as it is proposed this time, although perhaps it is going to be like Halley's comet and continue to make its regular appearances before it finally fades away.

In seriousness, though, the member opposite has expressed concern over the growing concentration of buying power in the food industry and sincerely believes this bill can address the problem. I do not believe the bill can address the problem, but I do believe that there is a problem.

Indeed, if the member opposite wanted to be more effective in dealing with it, perhaps he should have phrased a resolution this afternoon that could have provided for provisions under the federal government's Combines Investigations Act. I think the arguments we have heard from all sides would have been exactly the same.

As the member opposite knows, this government is concerned by the possible negative effects that joint purchasing companies will have, such as the Dominion and Steinberg action in combining to create Volume One.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) has already outlined his own concerns, that consumers may suffer in the long run and that small retailers may be forced to pay higher prices to suppliers who try to make up for lost revenues.

Representatives of nongovernment groups, such as the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Federation of Retail Stores, have all criticized the creation of Volume One.

This government has specifically requested the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Ottawa to look into the effects of the Steinberg-Dominion action as it relates to the Combines Investigation Act.

I would sincerely suggest that if the member for Huron-Middlesex were as concerned as he would have us believe he is, he would lobby his friends in Ottawa to take further action.

According to an article in Tuesday's Farm and Country, the federal Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs admitted that buying groups such as Volume One underline the need for defined rules of the road for the marketplace where needed.

If one turns to a Globe and Mail article from a few weeks ago, even the president of Steinberg is opposed to the power that buying groups have.

To summarize the argument at this point, the creation of Volume One does not please us on this side, it does not please the members opposite and it does not please the consumers or the producers or even some of the buyers.

Both opposition parties in Ottawa have demanded new, tougher competition laws, and even the federal bureaucracy admits the need for better competition laws.

In the debate two years ago the member for Huron-Middlesex said, and he repeated it this afternoon, that the applicable sections of the federal act were unworkable. Perhaps he has given up expecting action from Ottawa. He knows quite well, and this bill reflects the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry in Ontario, that the Leach commission found that neither Ontario farmers nor farm prices are adversely affected by the rebate system, nor are consumers or consumer prices.

Mr. Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Watson: In other words, the wording the member has put into the system gives the responsibility to the Farm Products Marketing Board. I would suggest that he would create a tremendous bureaucracy; in fact, the bill would create a mini combines investigation branch in this province, one that would be constitutionally limited even if it could be legally constituted in the first place.

The real issue here this afternoon is not rebating; it is the concentration of buying power. This bill does little to address that issue. Instead, we should be supporting the call for stronger federal legislation, which would ensure that competition can continue so that everyone from producer to consumer can benefit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

Mr. Speaker: About three and a half minutes.

Mr. Watson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought speakers had 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I did take the trouble of going to the Speaker's chair earlier to figure out times, and I was informed that speakers had 10 minutes until the time ran out.

Mr. Speaker: But you had finished your speech.

Mr. Watson: I was given one minute's notice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You had thanked me and you had taken your place.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, you gave me one minute's notice.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Essex South has a few brief remarks.

Mr. Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support my colleague's Bill 47, which will create more competition in the marketplace and ultimately will mean lower prices to consumers and better prices to farmers because the middlemen and the giant corporate firms will not be able to gouge either one.

I have some specific examples that have been brought to my attention by people in my riding who feel that more competition is necessary in the food processing chain, by which I mean from the farmer all the way to the supermarket shelf. There is a growing feeling out there that the independent stores and the mom-and-pop stores are the ones that are suffering the worst at present because of the practices of the large corporate chain stores.

I know this because I have had them come to visit me in my constituency office and bring me examples of what is going on out there in the marketplace. For example, some of the supermarket chain stores are able to sell milk for anywhere from $1.49 to $1.89 for a three-quart bag. These independent stores and the mom-and-pop stores are unable to buy that milk for anything less than $2.50. How is it that the dairies are able to make this milk available to the chain stores at such a low price and not to the independents and the mom-and-pop stores?

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Mancini: We have the same type of unfair practice in the pop industry. Further, there is another --

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member's time has expired.

Mr. Mancini: Just one sentence.

Mr. Speaker: The standing orders are quite clear. The vote must be taken.

Mr. Mancini: I am sorry I had so little time. There is quite a lot to say on this issue.

ONTARIO SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 45:

Ashe, Barlow, Bernier, Cousens, Dean, Eaton, Eves, Fish, Gregory, Harris, Henderson, Johnson, J. M., Kennedy, Kolyn, Leluk, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, Norton, Piché, Ramsay, Robinson, Scrivener, Sheppard, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams -- 32.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 47:

Ashe, Barlow, Bernier, Cousens, Eaton, Eves, Fish, Gregory, Henderson, Hodgson, Kennedy, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, McCaffrey, McCague, Norton, Piché, Ramsay, Robinson, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Snow, Sterling, Taylor, G. W., Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams -- 31.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate the order of business for the rest of this week and next.

Tonight, we will be considering the 1980 report of the standing committee on procedural affairs on the proposed new system of committees, copies of which report have been provided to all members by the Clerk.

Tomorrow, we will conclude second reading and committee of the whole on Bill 41, followed by committee of the whole on Bill 6 and second reading of the following bills from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Bills 9, 12, 13, 15, 28, 14 and 11.

On Monday, May 3, we will consider Bill 38 for second reading.

On Tuesday, May 4, we will continue with Bill 38 and, if time permits, resume the municipal bills that were not completed on Friday.

Mr. Stokes: Why don't you block some of those too?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Why does the member not show a little respect for the rules? The rules of this House provide for the procedure that was followed in this House today. There is no need to stand there and act as if somebody has done something illegal.

Mr. Stokes: I thought you believed in democracy. This is the private members' hour. Why don't you let it come to a vote and then vote against it rather than block it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member who has just spoken should know better and should have a better respect for the rules of this House.

Mr. Stokes: I know the rules better than you do.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The rules of this House have been followed here this afternoon. No rule of this House has been violated; so the member should not complain about it.

Mr. Stokes: Why don't you let members speak for themselves? This is private members' hour. You don't even know what the concept is all about.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The rules of this House have been followed.

Mr. Stokes: You don't know what parliamentary democracy is all about. Anybody who is a Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should know the process. The fact is --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: With respect, I know more about parliamentary government than my friend does.

Mr. Riddell: Yes, but you are fragmenting it. You are fragmenting the democratic process --

Mr. Stokes: You are making a mockery of parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Riddell: -- and you will be held accountable one of these times.

Mr. Speaker: Could we get on with the schedule, please?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The people who are fragmenting it are the members over there. I am outlining the order of business.

On Thursday, May 6, we will consider the ballot items in the names of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow). On Thursday evening, we will debate the motion for adoption of the recommendations in the final report of the select committee on pensions.

On Friday, May 7, we will continue with the municipal bills that were left over from Tuesday.

The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.

April 29, 1982