Hansard Transcripts 1984-Nov-26 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I know members of the Legislature, and in particular members who are graduates of the University of Guelph, will join me in extending congratulations to the Guelph Gryphons on winning the Vanier Cup and the crown as Canada's premier college football team. It is the first time the Vanier Cup has been won by Guelph, and we are all proud of their accomplishment.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that the Guelph Gryphons were successful partly because of the efforts of an individual from the city of St. Catharines who happened to be a student at a school where I taught at one time. I cannot claim any of the credit for his talent, but Parris Ceci was chosen as the most valuable player in the game. We are happy to contribute to the success of the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) and that of his Guelph team.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES REDISTRIBUTION

Mr. Speaker: This is the moment we have all been waiting for. I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the report on the redistribution of Ontario into electoral districts.

The report has been placed in the members' mailboxes as well, for their pickup.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt), my first question is to the Deputy Premier, who is also regional minister for Niagara. Is the minister aware of a critique written about the Niagara River toxics committee report, which will be released tomorrow?

The critique was written by two Environment Canada scientists who worked on the initial report, a critique that tragically represents a devastating indictment of the environmental protection policies of this government and of the government of Canada. This critique says, in part:

"Clearly, the Niagara River and Lake Ontario are poisoned ecosystems in which all media, including people, contain varying amounts of biocides, or chemicals, produced specifically to kill biota.

"Ethically, this situation should not be acceptable. The concern then is about the health of the Niagara River and Lake Ontario ecosystems themselves and not just a matter of the number of human cancers caused by drinking the water."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: "It is about values and choices, the value society places on people, their lifestyles and their life support system -- the environment."

Is the minister responsible for the Niagara region aware of this incredible report, which suggests that we may be on the verge or seeing Lake Ontario become a liquid Love Canal?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, just for purposes of clarification, although I am the member for Brock, I have never considered myself accountable from any regional point of view. This government has the interests of the entire province at heart, and that is part of our overall concern.

Certainly, as a resident of the Niagara-on-the-Lake and St. Catharines area, I have for many years shared the concerns that have been expressed in this House by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) with respect to water quality and environmental concerns as they are reflected in those studies.

I would point out that, having been home this past weekend, I was aware that the St. Catharines Standard purported to have access to some report. It is perhaps the report to which the deputy leader of the opposition has made reference. As a member of the government, because this has come up from time to time in this House, I am aware that the Minister of the Environment has indicated there was a fairly high-level study going on with representatives from both the American and Canadian sides and that the results of this study would soon be made available.

It seems to me that the Minister of the Environment, in response to earlier questions, because there was purported to be a leak with respect to the contents of that report in one of the New York papers, did comment on it and indicated this report would be coming.

The people of Ontario generally and the people of regional Niagara in particular would be that much better served once we have the statement by the minister himself with respect to that. It is my understanding the minister does plan to make some statement with respect to this study, particularly as it relates to the safety of drinking water.

I share the deputy leader's concern about this, because we have all expressed some concerns. I would not be surprised if this report were to detail not only what the results are now but, perhaps more important, what remedial steps should be taken now to correct whatever the situation is. Our high priority of concern, which I am sure the member shares, will always be the quality and the safety of the drinking water.

Mr. Conway: Would the Deputy Premier and regional minister for Niagara not agree with me that this critique is far more valuable because it represents the unfettered judgements of two federal experts who worked on the study? In that respect, it is much more valuable than the sanitized version that is likely to appear tomorrow as a result of the new Mulroney gag order.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Would it not be more useful to look very seriously at this critique, since it does not represent the laying-on of hands of the new federal Conservatives' gag order when it comes to the release of public information? These are two federal public servants, expert in their field, who have seen the sad and sorry situation in Lake Ontario and who have reported honestly about their findings --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Conway: -- and who are not subject to the gag order of Mr. Brian Mulroney and the new Conservative order in Ottawa.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Are we not just a bit ahead of ourselves? If we are to have the benefit of the so-called objective study to which the deputy leader makes reference, would we not be better served by waiting until we actually have the study?

I would point out to the member, as the member for St. Catharines has no doubt shared with him, that the St. Catharines paper purported to have a fairly detailed account of a report yet to be made public. I think we are always much better served if we wait for reports to be made public. I assume it would be the report just as it has been tabled. I mildly resent any suggestion that the report would be "sanitized" or altered in any way.

We will have the benefit of the report and, as the deputy leader of the Liberal Party says, we will have the benefit of some objectivity as it reflects the situation as it is now and whatever else it talks about. That will talk about ambient water and that will talk about samples from the water as it is being tested at present. We will then want to know, and the people will want to know quite quickly, what relationship that has to the actual drinking water. There is nothing to which I attach higher priority.

Indeed, as the member for Brock, working with the regional municipality, I am sure at least one municipality that up to a couple of years ago was taking its water from the Niagara River, no longer has to do so in view of the construction work that was undertaken to change that situation.

We will all be in a much better position to make our own judgements on this once we have the benefit of the study. I think it is unfortunate to suggest that the people who have been working on this will have other than the complete study. There are many special interest groups, organizations and individuals that all share the same concern: that we clean up whatever is there and that we continue to ensure that the people of the regional municipality of Niagara and area, and others, have safe drinking water.

I have seen or heard nothing to suggest anything other than that we have water that is completely safe in so far as all known standards are concerned.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, is it the position today of the government of Ontario that the level of contamination in the Niagara River and in Lake Ontario is too high?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in response to the supplementary question, it is my understanding the Minister of the Environment plans to deal with this subject tomorrow on the basis of the report, when we will have the benefit of all the information that is necessary to come to our own conclusions.

It is obvious there is work to be done with respect to this situation. We will at least be placed in a position now of having the results of updated research done by some very capable people on what needs to be done and what steps have to be taken. The first concern of the Minister of the Environment was to satisfy himself -- and I am sure he has done so, because he has made that statement in this House on more than one occasion within the last week or so -- that there is no question about the safety of drinking water.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, we have the unfettered and unfiltered report, which we all feel is of great value, and the comments on the editorial page of a newspaper which has never been all that enamoured of the opposition or opposed to the government and which says the following:

"The problem has been identified -- time and again. All that's needed is leadership and action. And all we get is foot-dragging from New York state authorities, an attitude of total indifference from Washington, cutbacks in pollution controls from Ottawa, Ontario Environment Minister Andy Brandt's assurances that Lake Ontario water is safe, and bureaucratic backflips to water down the seriousness of the situation."

In view of this report and in view of these comments, would the Deputy Premier not agree with me it is now time for the Premier (Mr. Davis) to call a high-level and immediate meeting with the Governor of New York state to ensure that this matter receives the very highest consideration at the earliest opportunity?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, my friend the member for St. Catharines would want to share with members of the House the entire contents of that editorial. Two or three paragraphs ahead of what he just read, the editorial writer in his fairness points out where the real trouble in regard to the Niagara River rests, that is, with the city of Niagara Falls, New York, in its inability to get that sewage treatment plant working.

That has been the source. I am speaking now about the editorial writer, who points out that for years he has been attempting to persuade his readers in Niagara Falls, New York, to put some pressure on their administration and the state government to get that matter cleared up. As we know, there is work being done. The member for Niagara Falls has been very persistent in drawing that to the attention of the authorities at meetings which I have attended.

Whatever the situation is now, it is there and it is going to be documented in this report which will be made public. The steps and the attitude of this government towards it will be made clear. I would remind my friend the member for St. Catharines that the Premier indicated to the Governor before the present incumbent that he was anxious to have meetings to attach some priority to this cleanup work.

In summary, I think the editorial writer to whom the member made reference has included a lot of matters in that editorial which require some attention. I am quite satisfied that, under the leadership of the Minister of the Environment, this province, as always, will be prepared to exercise its responsibilities and do its share.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my second question is for the Deputy Premier and the regional minister for Niagara concerning water quality in the Niagara River basin and in the lower Great Lakes. I cannot believe --

Mr. Speaker: Just place your question, please.

Mr. Conway: -- that the Deputy Premier would not have walked into the editorial offices of the St. Catharines Standard to avail himself of a copy of this report, which is available.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: I will send a copy to the Deputy Premier, the minister for Niagara, at this time. This federal critique speaks to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out that almost 13 minutes of question period have gone by and we have had only one question. Please place your question.

Mr. Conway: I accept your injunction, Mr. Speaker. These federal research scientists point out that this is the most serious environmental concern facing the people of Ontario today. They point out that not very much is being done about it.

Is the Deputy Premier, the regional minister for Niagara, aware that the critique says on page 7, "It is clear that the whole Niagara River ecosystem is being contaminated with a large variety of man-made chemicals, some of which are known to be individually dangerous, and the combined effects of which are unknown"?

Is he furthermore aware -- this is a very critical conclusion -- that the federal research scientists who worked on this subject matter call for urgent action and say to the regional minister for Niagara and others in government, "It is inevitable that irreversible damage to the ecosystem will be done if action is not now taken"?

What specific undertakings is the Deputy Premier, the regional minister for Niagara, prepared to give to his constituents in Brock, and to the other four million southern Ontarians who take their water from the lower Great Lakes, that this alarming report, which speaks to a cesspool that is Lake Ontario, is going to be creatively and vigorously responded to in the public interest?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that this problem was not discovered within the last 48 hours. A tremendous number of people have been involved. The official report that will be tabled tomorrow is the one I would prefer to read. Whatever it says, we will now have some objective information with respect to the condition of that body of water. We are talking about the ambient water, the contents and chemicals that are in that water, the sources and what all that may mean.

To talk about what that means as far as the drinking water is concerned, whatever the situation is, it is something that will have to be addressed on all the fronts, as the member for St. Catharines said; namely, by the governments of the state of New York, the United States of America, Canada and Ontario, and that is not to overlook the municipal responsibilities. We will have a document about which there can be little argument in so far as scientific accuracy is concerned. That should dictate what the action should be.

Mr. Conway: What specific undertakings is the Deputy Premier, the regional minister for Niagara, prepared to give the four million Ontarians who take their water from the lower Great Lakes in consideration of the report of these two federal scientists who say, "Contaminant loadings of the same order of magnitude as those experienced during the early 1970s, carried on for a time period 12 times longer, will produce devastating and irreversible effects in the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and probably further downstream"?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member for Brock will be solidly supportive of the initiatives undertaken and articulated by the Minister of the Environment, a member of a government of which the member for Brock is also a member. The highest priority will be attached at all times, as it has been, as it is and as it will continue to be, to assuring the people of the area I have the privilege to represent, and all those who look to this water supply for their water needs, that we will continue to ensure quality, safe water for the people who are served in that way.

Mr. Conway: In view of the fact these federal research scientists have clearly set out in their critique that the situation in the Niagara River and in Lake Ontario is deteriorating rapidly and that something must be done, what specific undertakings is the Deputy Premier, the regional minister for Niagara, prepared to give?

As one first step, will he consider a commitment, if not to the entire province at least to the voters of Brock, that he will use his very considerable clout within the executive council to immediately secure funding for the herring gull egg monitoring program, a very critical and cost-effective environmental protection measure that was so insanely cut by his federal cousins in Ottawa two days ago?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Obviously this is a partisan House, and why would the official opposition not want to get in 24 hours ahead of the Minister of the Environment, who plans to discuss this very issue in a very rational and responsible way?

On the basis of what I would think would be a fairly good piece of investigative journalism on the part of Douglas Draper of the St. Catharines Standard, the member appears to have some documentation in advance of the official release.

The Minister of the Environment will have the unqualified support of the member for Brock and the Deputy Premier in seeking whatever he requires to discharge our responsibilities in this very important environmental matter, one to which I have a great commitment; and I repeat, the point being to ensure we continue to have a safe water supply for our people.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I want to go back to the Deputy Premier and tell him that the report, which we have and which has been quoted from, is entitled A Layman's Guide to the Niagara River Toxic Committee's Report: The Canadian Position. Apparently, it is an independent view by two Environment Canada scientists of the broader report that is being released tomorrow.

I gather the Deputy Premier was one of those who went to a hearing in Niagara Falls, New York, at one time and came back and said he himself was in a sense reborn on this issue and, "Not another drop of pollution will fall into the Niagara River." Can he explain why it is that since that visit not only has there been another drop, but indeed kilograms and tonnes of poison have poured into the Niagara River and into Lake Ontario without any effective action being taken by the government of Ontario?

Let us look at his own record and that of the government with respect to the past. Why has it taken so long? Why has the government been so asleep at the switch at a time when this ecological disaster has been taking place right before its very eyes?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for York South perhaps could not have a complete historical and factual picture with respect to this, because he was not a member of the House at that time. If I may be permitted to remind the honourable member, it was not a matter of being born again. I happen to live in Niagara-on-the-Lake; I am very proud of my residence there. There was a great deal of agitation at that time about a new discharge from the dump site, as the member for Niagara Falls and others know, and many of us went over to express some concerns about that new source of pollutants going into the river.

It was because of the work of very dedicated people on both sides of the river, such as members of Operation Clean, and other interventions and negotiations ultimately with that particular company that some arrangements were made. Part of the negotiations involved the Operation Clean people to satisfy themselves with respect to that discharge.

In the meantime, I say to the member, it was obvious that some kind of independent survey had to be done. I also point out that discharge was from the American side. We were dealing with another country. We were reminded that when we started dealing with another country, we had to deal through our national government. I am sure the member for York South would not discount that.

In fact, we were making quite clear what we thought as individual residents, as indeed did the then Minister of the Environment make clear what he thought, in terms of the environmental implications of this new discharge.

Now, as the member points out, we have some indication as to what all the points of discharge are along the Niagara River, and I will not be surprised if there are far more on the other side than there are on our side. We have some indication of what the results of that discharge have been and what the remedial steps are going to have to be. Let us get on with the job.

We can spend all the time talking about yesterday, but the important thing is what the situation is today; let us get on with making sure it does not persist to be the situation tomorrow.

Mr. Rae: If anybody speaks for yesterday, it is the Deputy Premier. I take nothing away from him in that regard; he is the spokesman for yesterday in this Legislature.

What I would like to ask him specifically has to do with the fact that Canada and Ontario -- and the laws of the province have been affected by this -- signed the international Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909, which states quite clearly that there shall be no pollution on either side of the border. There is very clear language in that treaty that would suggest any injury resulting to any party is not to be tolerated.

What I cannot understand and what members of our party find difficult to understand is how this level and degree of pollution could have been carried on for so long without the government of Ontario pressing the government of Canada, and indeed the present government of Canada, to take every possible action at the international level, at the treaty level, at whatever level is necessary, to ensure that this kind of poisoning of Lake Ontario and of that entire ecosystem comes to an end.

Specifically, my question is this: Why has the government not taken that legal action which would finally give some teeth to all the mouthing of platitudes in here by the Deputy Premier, the Minister of the Environment and ministers of the Environment going back to time immemorial with respect to the pollution of Lake Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Let us be reasonable here. The member knows very well that this government has worked with the government of Canada, regardless of who happened to be forming the government of Canada, in making our points of view quite clear.

The member talked about the enforcement of international agreements. What has the Ontario government to do with the enforcement of international agreements? The member knows that has to be done through the government of Canada. Indeed, we have worked with successive ministers of the environment at the federal level. If the member says one must continue to work co-operatively to solve this, I agree.

I remind the member for York South that I live there, I am drinking that water and I am doing so on the assurance it is considered to be safe. It is one thing to talk about the raw water situation and another thing to talk about the treatment facilities there. The member knows what this government has done through the Ministry of the Environment to ensure adequate treatment in so far as the sewage is concerned.

To say we have done nothing is not only to ignore yesterday but also to be completely irresponsible as an elected person. Before saying we have done nothing, the leader of the third party should speak to the member just behind him. I am sorry, I should have included him in the concerns. The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) knows very well what the regional municipality and the government of Ontario have done with respect to treatment. I invite him to compare what we have done on our side with what has not been done on the other.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister has been aware over the years of the pressure we have brought continually on every honourable member who has ever accepted the portfolio of Minister of the Environment. I have begged them and cajoled them and done everything in my power to get them to have our American friends monitor those very dangerous sites. This has never been done.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kerrio: I have grave concern that it has now reached the waterway, and we should have known long before now that this was going to take place. Is the minister not concerned that the federal government has taken one of the valuable tools in the studying of gulls' eggs -- the thermometer from a doctor, if you will -- to tell to what degree that contamination has reached our ecosystem? It has taken that tool from us. It is going away from the resolution of this problem.

Of 227 known chemicals, 57 are now detected at levels that should be removed. The Deputy Premier heard the Minister of the Environment suggest there have been capital moneys taken from his ministry. Will the Deputy Premier encourage the Minister of the Environment to put that capital back into the filtering of the water until such time as we do what is needed to be done in the overall picture, which is to clean up our environment? In the meantime, will he ask him whether he will not put that money back into carbon filters, anything of a kind that is going to do the job until we can clean up the waterways? It is obvious now that we are in very serious trouble.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have just one or two observations. I have never viewed as a partisan issue the assurance of safe drinking water for the public of this province. Do we not all embrace that concern? I cannot see why we are attempting to do anything else in the discussion of the report. Whatever the report is, it is there and the facts will be there.

The member for Niagara Falls knows that the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton), when he was Minister of the Environment, put the Niagara River study team in place. Does the member not remember the discussions that preceded the development of that team? Does he not remember the work that was being done in this joint way to start understanding what the problems were?

The member for Niagara Falls knows about this. He should stand up here and take some credit for the money that was spent there. When the Ministry of the Environment went looking for places to spend money to further experiment with that type of treatment to which he makes reference, where did it go? The money went to regional Niagara and the city of Niagara Falls. That is something I am sure the member would like to share with other members of the House. It was very important to experiment with that type of treatment.

There is no lessening of the commitment. I have not spent any time trying to find fault with whoever has been in the government of Canada with respect to this matter. It is time we see the advantages of working together to clean up whatever has to be cleaned up and to assure the people of our area that there is no danger to our drinking water. I am sure the member would want to see that as the top priority as well.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Deputy Premier raised the issue of what work the region has done with regard to pollution. It has no relationship whatsoever to the question we have before us under this report.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: I wonder whether the Deputy Premier realizes -- because in his answer I was not sure -- that this report we have before us is a confidential report. It is not part of the laundered report that is going to be released tomorrow at all.

The federal government is cutting back and we will not know the degree of pollution that exists in Lake Ontario in a few years. In view of this, would the minister be willing to ask that these two scientists be brought before a committee of this House to give a fuller explanation of what they have found? Then this province would know the exact situation, at least from the point of view of the scientists, regarding the pollution of the Niagara River and Lake Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr.. Speaker, whatever is going to be released tomorrow, we will all be the wiser. I do not have the slightest idea whether something is confidential and not to be part of the package. I am only pointing out that the relevance with respect to the region of Niagara and other municipalities does have some reference to the question that was put to me by his leader. He stood in his place and suggested we were doing nothing on our side with respect to matters related to this.

We have made some substantial investments with respect to treatment and sewage disposal. As we move to clear up things that are within our jurisdiction, on our side of the river, with respect to dump sites and other matters, we will have a report that is going to be fairly credible. This is because of its authors and the information that is going to be contained in it. We are going to be able to do something about it.

Notwithstanding the so-called compliment about my expertness with respect to yesterday, one cannot dwell on yesterday. We can only look to yesterday for the lessons it teaches us to get on and correct the problems, to ensure we respond in a very positive way to our environmental concerns.

SEVERANCE PAY

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. I know the quest for delegates is endless, but I would like to ask him a question regarding the statement made by Mr. Wilson.

One item in his statement about the reform of unemployment insurance has received very little attention, but it has a very real impact on Ontario. In part of this so-called reform, severance pay, separation pay and termination pay -- all those items together -- are going to be considered earnings for the purposes of unemployment insurance.

That means workers laid off at Barrie -- all workers affected by the plant closures which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) announces so woefully in the House from time to time -- will have to exhaust their severance pay before qualifying for unemployment insurance. Why has the Treasurer been so silent in protesting this mean-spirited and incredibly reactionary proposal by Mr. Wilson?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to analyse the variety of statements and proposals put out by Mr. Wilson. The federal minister will be visiting each of the provincial finance ministers some time this month -- we are just trying to co-ordinate the date for his visit with me -- and at that time we will be discussing the various proposals and implications. Between now and then, I will do what I consider to be the prudent thing, which is to have staff analyse those various proposals so we can make a comprehensive response to him both when he is visiting us in December and when we meet with him some time in January.

Mr. Rae: I would not want the Treasurer to do anything too hasty with respect to this statement, but it is now the proposal of the government of Canada. He has had much to say about other aspects of the document. Does the Treasurer agree with this proposal by the minister, which is going to deprive working people, particularly older workers in Ontario, of roughly $25 million a year, according to government of Canada figures?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a lot more complex and has a lot more implications than a simplistic analysis such as is suggested by the one the honourable member proposes. I think it is appropriate that we respond to it in a co-ordinated way, and in that light there are discussions between staffs. My colleague the Minister of Labour has already raised it with his counterparts in Ottawa together with Mr. Wilson's office. My staff and I have done the same with Finance. I have talked to Mr. Wilson twice since the statement.

While the member might wish to have us mount an attack on various of its proposals now, two and a half weeks after the announcement, what he is missing, with respect, is that they are part of a comprehensive series of reforms that all have to be well understood before one begins to attack some of those suggestions.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since some of the matters that the Treasurer calls reforms are changes in opinion by the leader of the federal government from his commitments made before the election, does the Treasurer not believe it might be helpful when he approaches the government of Canada if he had a resolution from this House supporting our opposition to the changes, which fly in the face of previous commitments made by the Prime Minister? I refer to the whole matter of universality, which he considered to be a righteous commitment or something like that --

Mr. Bradley: A sacred trust.

Mr. Nixon: -- a sacred trust, which now he considers to be something worthy of review.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that if the honourable member wants to raise that question, there are half a dozen or a dozen of his colleagues left in Ottawa, and they should be raising those questions in the House of Commons, not here.

Mr. Rae: When we passed severance pay legislation in this House, it was in recognition that the most important investment a worker has is his or her job and that the worker who is fired or severed deserves some kind of compensation for that. It is almost a form of compensation for having your job expropriated. It is very much parallel to that, recognizing that it is the most important investment a worker is going to have.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: That investment is being taken away by the government of Canada. Workers are being told that they have to spend that investment before they can qualify for unemployment insurance. It is not that complicated.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: What position have the Treasurer and his colleague the Minister of Labour expressed to the government of Canada with respect to this incredibly reactionary, mean-spirited proposal, which almost amounts to the government of Canada going in and taking money right out of the pockets of older workers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the member does make a good point, which is that those provisions not only were passed in this House but also were proposed by this government. We should not forget that, just so we understand where this government comes from on those issues.

Second, I did not say that I or this government did not share the member's concern; in fact, I said quite the opposite. I said we have already contacted our federal counterparts and discussed all of this with them in trying to formulate a response, which I will have an opportunity to give when the federal Minister of Finance comes here.

I want to be clear. The approach that the member is suggesting is one that would continue the kind of federal-provincial relationships we have had during the past 15 years, which essentially had governments fighting through newspapers and through epithets thrown at each other from a distance. I firmly believe that if we are to get through the next few years, we are going to require a particular degree of cooperation and consultation, and lobbing hand grenades on these issues two weeks after they are announced is no way to encourage that dialogue.

So notwithstanding the political convenience of standing up, using your epithets and attacking all of those proposals --

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: That is better. I prefer that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I want to say clearly that this government associates itself and, prior to this question and the newspaper article which kicked this off, has already shared that very concern and intends to pursue it further, not through the media but at the appropriate negotiating table.

Mr. Conway: A new question, Mr. Speaker, to the --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: I believe I was recognized.

Mr. Speaker: But the Minister of Labour is rising on a point of something.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of the House today the presence in the members' gallery of the Honourable Michael Starr, a former member of the federal government and past chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. We are pleased to have him visit.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson): In recent days has the minister had the opportunity to examine personally the first part of the Provincial Auditor's report on Algonquin College? Specifically, could the minister share with the Ottawa-Carleton community her feelings and personal reactions to this report, which details a sad and sorry tale of corruption, criminality, incompetence and stupidity, which details failures in the ministry and at the college level?

What does the ministry think about this report which, among other things, indicates that Algonquin College was probably done out of $500,000 in fees owing because of the conflict of interest that so happily and for such a long period of time has been engaged in by one of the college's most prominent administrators -- someone whose conduct was the subject of ongoing concern for many months and years?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I was about to rise, and the House leader is not here, to ask permission of the House to revert to statements because I have a statement to make on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: If we have unanimous consent of the House, could we stop the clock and --

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give unanimous consent because I --

Mr. Speaker: All right. The minister will answer the question then, please.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, I will read the statement.

Mr. Speaker: No, you cannot.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: You are not allowed to do that, Minister, you have to answer the question.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do have a full response. If the honourable member would simply allow me to make the statement, he would get the information he is requesting.

Mr. Speaker: We did not have unanimous consent so I will have to ask the minister to reply to the question.

Mr. Conway: I am prepared --

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the minister is unable to answer the question, she does not have to, of course.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is difficult to summarize the kinds of questions which the honourable member put. There is a reasonably full explanation of the entire situation and my response to the auditor's report in the statement, which I was about to ask permission to give. If you are saying I cannot give it, then may I ask that I be permitted to give it tomorrow?

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have a hunch that if you ask that question again, you might not hear a "No."

Mr. Speaker: This is the very thing we were talking about in procedural affairs the other day. If we are going to do anything in a meaningful sort of way, I am not about to change my mind every two and a half minutes.

Mr. Conway: Exactly. Let us proceed, because I had to promise to give vital organs to get the majority Tories on that public accounts committee to investigate this God-awful mess. I want to know from this minister, who stood behind that obstructionist majority in public accounts, what she thinks about this damning indictment of the failures of her government and Council of Regents that led to the misappropriation of millions of public dollars at that national-capital community college. She can give that answer in summary.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I shall be pleased to provide all that information tomorrow in the statement which I will give the House.

Mr. Conway: I have a final supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member resume his seat?

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister explain why this pattern of conduct was allowed to take place over such a period of time without her making a statement in this Legislature and without there being any apparent awareness on the part of the ministry itself of what was going on? Why in heaven's name did it take so long for this kind of wrongdoing to be discovered?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the appropriate reconciliation of information occurred over a relatively short period of time, and I think appropriate procedures were followed in consideration of the budgetary activity that takes place within all the colleges and within the ministry.

ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Would the minister inform the House what steps he is taking to stop the obvious harassment of members of the United Steelworkers of America at Radio Shack in Barrie?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that matter is before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this time.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister will be aware, I am sure, that the picket line in this latter strike at Radio Shack was much more restrained and peaceful than the one during the previous bitter strike there a couple of years ago, yet criminal charges and firings are continuing. Five people have been fired. The day the settlement was signed by the union, the union was notified that five people had been fired, including one of the key members of the unit. Since then, two have been suspended for a month. One more has been given a week's suspension, and there have been 33 criminal charges laid in that situation.

Surely the minister cannot hide behind the labour relations board when there is this continuing harassment of workers at that plant. Is this the way they are to be treated? Is there no action he can take to stop this harassment of workers?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: There was a problem with this company a number of months ago. The problem was addressed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and I thought it was addressed in an appropriate manner. They are again before the OLRB, which is the body set up to deal with questions of this nature.

As I have suggested privately to the honourable member, whose concern I know is genuine, he should let the Ontario Labour Relations Board address these problems and then the ministry will look at the broad basis, not only in respect to Radio Shack but also in respect to other circumstances of a similar nature. As far as Radio Shack is concerned, that matter belongs before the OLRB.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister is no doubt aware that the developmentally handicapped people of this province who were able to make their voices heard and understood walked out of class last week in protest against her ministry's proposal to terminate the secondary school program at the Robarts School, London.

Despite the fact that a study committee has been established to look at alternative proposals -- a committee, I might say, which is heavily weighted with ministry personnel who are definitely in favour of terminating the program and who feel that is a fait accompli -- what personal commitment is the minister prepared to give to the students at the Robarts School who have said they do not want to go to Milton under any circumstances, who are going to leave the school rather than leave the family circle or are going to knock on the doors of the local school board requesting special education?

Why does this government take the attitude that the developmentally handicapped people of this province do not have equal rights or a just place in our society?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is the most ludicrous idiocy I have heard in this House for some time.

Mr. Riddell: Look at what the minister has done to developmentally handicapped people.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member is factually incorrect. There has been --

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: What has the minister done to the mentally retarded people?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Does the member want to hear the answer or not?

An hon. member: No, he does not

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Okay. He does not want to hear an answer.

Mr. Riddell: Now what is the minister doing to the people who are deaf?

Mr. Nixon: Would the minister not say that she is being slightly provocative?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member knows full well, because I have communicated with him both verbally and by letter, that there is real concern about the maintenance of the viability of the secondary school program for students at the Robarts School in London. Because of that concern, we are trying to find a way to provide the appropriate secondary school program, appropriate in terms of scope and breadth.

We do not want to limit the secondary school program for those students at the Robarts School. If we have only 30 students, it will undoubtedly limit very dramatically the range of programs that can be offered to those students. Therefore, we have asked that there be an examination of alternatives --

Mr. Elston: Why are you making it difficult for new students to get access?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Will my friend kindly listen for a minute?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Elston: I want the minister to tell me why it is so hard to get in there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have asked for them to look at the alternatives that might be available in terms of providing the appropriate secondary school program. One of the suggestions was that some of them might choose to go to the Ernest C. Drury School at Milton. That is not a fait accompli, nor has it ever been a fait accompli and it will not be until the study group has reported.

The study group is weighted with people who are public servants in Ontario but not necessarily members of the ministry staff. It is weighted with people who have pedagogical experience in teaching those handicapped students and in teaching the students who do deserve real consideration in this circumstance. The parents are also represented on that committee. When that committee has made its final report, that report will be considered very seriously before any action is proposed.

Mr. Riddell: If the minister thinks the latter part of my first question was ludicrous, I simply ask her to take a look at the mentally retarded people who have been put out of their institutions and homes and who are now walking the streets wondering where their next slice of bread is going to come from and where the next roof over their head is going to be.

The minister should refer to some of the articles that have been written on this subject. Now the government is attacking the deaf students.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Riddell: Will the minister personally get involved and review the excellent alternative proposals that have been presented to the study committee? Will she assure this House that the very excellent recommendations made to that committee will be made public?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have no idea at this point what the recommendations are, and I will certainly consider making them public. However, I ask the member to reconsider his statement that this government has been insensitive to the needs of the mentally retarded or to the needs of the handicapped.

The obvious answer is that the member has not read the very excellent response to the movement of many of those mentally retarded people out into the community in much more appropriate circumstances than those that would have prevailed for them in a large institution. Most certainly it is the intention, not just of individual parents but also of the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and of many others very much concerned about those young people, to have them integrated fully within the community.

As a matter of fact, there is a very interesting article in this week's newspaper about the integration of students of that sort into the full program in the elementary and secondary schools. I hope the member is sensitive to that feeling and is understanding of that direction, which is very much the direction of those individuals who are parents of children with very severe handicaps. Those sensitivities are very much a part of our thinking, and all matters that are raised before that committee will be considered seriously before a recommendation is made.

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), I will ask the Attorney General a question about the fate of the transfer of the Spadina lands from Metropolitan Toronto to the province and the subsequent grant of a three-foot strip to the city of Toronto.

The Attorney General will remember I asked this question in October, and he helped me get an answer from the Minister of Transportation and Communications, which read in part as follows: "The surveys have been completed" --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: To recapitulate, the minister said: "The surveys have been completed, the deeds are being prepared and are being reviewed by the ministry." The Minister of Transportation and Communications said, "I am given to understand that the completion of the transfers will take place before the end of 1984."

That being the case, how does the Attorney General explain a motion that is before city council today which reads, "Whereas provincial officials have advised the final title transfer and leaseback for the Spadina expressway lands is not scheduled to be completed before the end of December 1984 ... "?

Can the Attorney General tell me who is telling the truth? Is the Minister of Transportation and Communications telling the truth when he says it will be completed before the end of 1984 or are the provincial officials who are talking to the city of Toronto telling the truth when they tell the city of Toronto it will not be completed before the end of December 1984?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I do not know if you can assist me, Mr. Speaker, but there seems to be a little intrigue going on across the aisle. The member for Bellwoods always waits until the Minister of Transportation and Communications is away to ask his question. He is trying to relegate me to delivering his correspondence and his questions back and forth.

Why does he not ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications? I have made my position very clear. My views were known long before I was honoured by election to this Legislature. I am satisfied that the government of Ontario and the next Premier will honour the commitment of this government and this Premier (Mr. Davis) in relation to not supporting any extension of the expressway south of Eglinton. I am sure I am reflecting the Minister of Transportation and Communication's views in this regard, and I am sure he will be here this week to hear from the member if he would like to pursue the question.

Mr. McClellan: I would love to ask him the question except that he is out campaigning for one of the Attorney General's colleagues, one of the other contenders who does not appear to support the Spadina policy.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: Since the Attorney General said he was a notorious champion of the Stop Spadina movement, as is his seemingly equally ineffectual colleague the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), may I ask either of those honourable worthies from the city of Toronto if he would do us the favour of finding out whether the Minister of Transportation and Communications was accurate when he said we will have the transfers completed by the end of December 1984, which means legislation before this House prior to the Christmas recess that would deed the title to the three-foot strip to the city of Toronto?

On the other hand, do the provincial officials who are telling the city of Toronto this will not happen in 1984 have the accurate inside track? Perhaps the Attorney General, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) or one of the members from the city of Toronto who have shed such copious crocodile tears on this issue ever since 1971 will do us all a favour and try to get an accurate version of what is going to happen next month.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: How can the member ask me to reflect on the accuracy of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, particularly when he is going to be with me on the second ballot?

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, that will make a more charming couple than the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. Can the Attorney General, as a very senior and influential member of the executive council long known for close, personal confidence with the first minister, and as regional minister for middle Toronto, indicate whether it is his understanding that this transfer will be completed before the premiership of the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) is at an end some two and a half months hence?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will convey the honourable member's concern to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I assume from the correspondence read by the member for Bellwoods that he has given this commitment, but I will again communicate the concerns of the members opposite.

AVAILABILITY OF ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy concerning the threat from Ontario Hydro about electric power blackouts without notice in southwestern Ontario. The minister will be aware of this threat since I sent him the newspaper clipping concerning it.

I wonder if he would respond to the statement made by the employees of Ontario Hydro that electrical power outages without warning for 20 or 30 minutes are in the cards for certain communities in southwestern Ontario because there is no transmission line to bring the power from the newly established atomic energy generators in the Bruce Peninsula.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member did indeed give me notice of his question and provided me with a copy of an excerpt from the Brantford Expositor of Thursday, November 15.

I think the statements made by the staff of Ontario Hydro related to something known as the load rejection system that has been put in place on the Bruce transmission line. This system is to provide for extra utilization of that line, but also to put in place a safety factor that would allow the load on the line to be rejected if some precaution were necessary.

I think the member is correct in assuming Ontario Hydro has made these statements to caution its customers that periodic interruptions may occur. The reference is to a half-hour interruption possibly yearly. It also points out the need for increased transmission facilities out of the Bruce, which is a matter that is currently being considered by the Ministry of the Environment, our ministry and Ontario Hydro in a joint attempt to address this very serious issue.

Mr. Nixon: Can the minister indicate whether these threats are part of a program by Ontario Hydro to scare the municipalities into removing their objections to the placement of the power lines, which I suppose we might as well say has held up the decision for over a decade?

Does the minister not see Ontario Hydro is facing the same problems it has faced for the last decade in getting an approved line for bringing the power out of the Bruce and that undoubtedly it is going to have bottled-up power there unless it moves forward with the kind of program that is acceptable?

What is the minister going to do about the possibility of that bottled-up power? We are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to generate the power, and it does not seem as if there will be any way the power can be utilized.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: This is a multifaceted question. I will be selective in my answer, particularly with respect to the alleged threats made by the staff of Ontario Hydro.

In light of their responsibility to provide electrical service to communities in southwestern Ontario, I think the staff of Ontario Hydro are only providing a factual answer to questions raised about additional load and additional efforts being put in place to deliver that load. I would not call these threats. I would simply say they are factual statements made about a load rejection system that is currently in place on the Bruce line.

Notwithstanding all of that, I think all the municipalities in southwestern Ontario that are relying on service out of Bruce and on the delivery of electrical energy from the grid want to be very conscious of the need for additional transmission facilities.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might indicate that today we have in your gallery a delegation from the People's Republic of China which is visiting Ontario to discuss the establishment of a twinning agreement between Ontario and Jiangsu province in the People's Republic of China.

The five-member delegation is here on an eight-day visit, which is in return for a visit to China last summer by senior Ontario government officials. The groups will be meeting with executives in large corporations, government people both here and in Ottawa, and in a few minutes with the Premier (Mr. Davis).

I would like to introduce the delegation. First, the delegation head is Mr. Cai Qiu-ming, Deputy Secretary General of the Jiangsu provincial government, which is a position that approximates that of a cabinet minister in our government.

The Deputy Director of the Provincial State Planning and Economic Commission is Mr. Gu Ding-xiang. The Deputy Director, Provincial Foreign Affairs Bureau, which is responsible for state foreign policy implementation, is Su Gen-hua.

The chief of the friendly relations with foreign cities division of the Provincial Foreign Affairs Bureau is Mr. Zhang He-xian. The interpreter is Mr. Liu Jian-ping.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Under the rules of the House, can you determine from the minister whether his plan to twin with the named province in China is going to go forward? Can you use your good offices to see the twinning delegation is representative of all parties at the table?

Mr. Speaker: Let me assure all members I will be most happy to look into that possibility.

PETITION

OPERATING ENGINEERS LEGISLATION

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to request additional time to prepare comments on proposed revisions to the regulations of the Operating Engineers Act of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"The second draft of the proposed revisions were distributed for comment by interested parties on July 1, 1984. A covering letter requested comments by September 14, 1984. It was sent to the secretary, board of review. A period of two and a half months, especially during the prime vacation period, seriously hinders the objective review of the proposed revisions and producing constructive comments.

"Many operating engineers and most organizations, volunteer, technical and advisory, are not prepared for a task of this kind on short notice during the summer vacation months. In order to properly review and comment on these proposals, we ask that the commitment date be extended from September 14, 1984, to January 1, 1985."

The petition is signed by 78 people.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I indicated an amendment to the business of the House to the effect that we would do third reading of Bill 77 tomorrow. That is now going to be third reading of Bill 77 one week from tomorrow, not tomorrow.

Mr. Wrye: Is that December 11?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.

Mr. Wrye: That is two weeks from tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right, it is two weeks from tomorrow. That is what we agreed to. I am getting a little ahead of myself.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention that written question 554 in my name was tabled in this House on November 2. As yet there has not been any response, even an interim one, from the ministry.

As you know, standing order 81(d) is quite explicit and states ministers will respond, at least in an interim way, within 14 days. Far more than 14 days have elapsed since the tabling of this written question as an inquiry of the ministry. I would ask you to use your good offices to ensure that the members of the executive council comply with the rules of the House.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the government House leader has taken note of your request and will act accordingly.

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. On behalf of members of the House, I would like you to look very carefully -- I mean this sincerely and seriously -- into the safety of having cameras in the gallery. There was a situation once before, and again today there was a slip.

I am very concerned about the safety of the young pages who sit below those cameras, and I wish something could be done. If no decision is to be made for televising the proceedings of this House adequately, at least something could be done to ensure that these temporary cameras are put up in such a way that they will not fall and hit someone down here.

Mr. Speaker: I think I had advised all members earlier that a safety chain had been installed in the gallery. All the equipment is supposed to be clipped to that chain prior to use. What happens, and it happened today --

Mr. Wildman: It is when they leave that is the problem.

Mr. Speaker: I think after they start taking the equipment apart, they lose control of it and it tumbles.

Mr. Martel: I have a real solution to that problem.

Mr. Speaker: I know you have.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this. I think my friend has raised a good point. I have some knowledge of what happens with cameras. When the cameras come off, at some point the safety equipment is taken off.

I agree with my friend that we do require some kind of equipment, if nothing else is going to be done, to ensure the safety of those cameras after their removal. As you know, unpleasant as they are, there have been disruptions in this place. A cameraman often is hurrying to get his camera off the tripod -- either to get down to the second floor or to move down the aisle -- and the camera could slip. I would hate for us to say, after some kind of tragedy, we should have installed some further safety equipment.

I would ask quite seriously that you take my friend's suggestion, which I think was made very well. I think you should have a look over the Christmas period at whether some additional safety equipment can be installed.

Mr. Speaker: I did not mean I was going to preclude taking any action. We will take a further look to see what more can be done. I am just not aware of what needs to be done.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I want to table the answers to questions 515, 523, 537, 550, 554, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 587, 588 and the interim answer to question 552, all of these standing in Orders and Notices. Also, I want to table responses to petitions presented to the Legislature, sessional papers 34, 35, 205, 231 and 234 [see Hansard for Friday, May 30].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PREMIER (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I have had a chance to discuss a matter with the critic for the New Democratic Party and we are certainly in agreement. The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) has a matter he would like to raise and I believe the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) would also like to ask questions on it.

We would propose that in the last approximately one hour, with the agreement of the Deputy Premier, to limit our discussions to two areas -- child care and battered women, including transition houses and the like. We simply do not feel we could do justice to three or four topics in that time.

If the Deputy Premier has replies ready for us, I would ask that they be sent to us in written form; otherwise, they could take 20 to 25 minutes out of the last hour and 10 minutes.

The Deputy Chairman: Is that agreed?

Ms. Bryden: I agree, Mr. Chairman.

If possible, we should confine today's hour and 10 minutes to two topics, battered wives and child care, but the member for St. Catharines wants to raise an item. Perhaps that could come first.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members for their indulgence. I recognize there is a predetermined list of items they want to discuss.

I want to ask the Minister responsible for Women's Issues a similar question to one I directed to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) and that I communicated by letter to the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton). It concerns the possibility of having a women's detoxification centre implemented in the city of St. Catharines. I read an article in the newspaper saying Kingston was looking for one as well, interestingly enough.

At present, as I know the minister is aware, we have a men's detox centre that is working very well and that I am pleased to see at Hotel Dieu Hospital. Alcoholism is not only a social problem, but also a health problem, which probably affects more people than we might anticipate. It appears a detox centre is by far the best way of handling it. Otherwise, we are putting people into hospital beds that cost a good deal of money, probably five or six times the amount a detox centre would cost.

I believe the cost for a woman to be in a detox centre is $27.50 a day, as opposed to more than $200 nowadays for a hospital bed. A person in that condition may well require some kind of semi-private or private accommodation if there are difficult circumstances.

What I am looking for from the minister is some support as a women's issue for those of us -- and I think he probably hopes this will happen as well -- who would like to see women's detox centres in this province, and I will be parochial enough to say in St. Catharines. I am told having men and women together in a detox centre simply does not work as well. Although I am sure he has already put on the pressure, I would like to enlist his support publicly for projects of this kind, specifically for one at the Hotel Dieu Hospital.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact this matter has been mentioned. My friend the member for St. Catharines will appreciate that there has been a fair amount of interest in this subject in our home area. Certainly, in consultation with the Ministry of Health, as an overall women's issue, we have indicated our hope that district health councils, which are charged with some responsibility in arranging their priorities on a district-by-district basis, will place this type of program very high on their list of priorities, as is the case in our home area. The district health council that serves both St. Catharines and Brock has done that.

The member will know it is simply a case of making some final decisions. There has been what I would describe as some interest on the part of other agencies with respect to this work. I suppose one could say there has been an atmosphere of friendly competition as to location and type of program. I am quite attracted to the splendid work that has been done at Hotel Dieu Hospital up to now and I expect this matter will be resolved very soon.

It seems to me it was a matter of two or three weeks ago when my friend raised this question in the House, which was about a week after I had asked the Minister of Health for an update. I agree and I have said to people who have expressed some interest in this, and it has gone on for a long time, that I am optimistic the matter will be resolved fairly soon.

3:20 p.m.

From a general provincial point of view, as a women's health issue, we would hope to see this type of facility available throughout the province to complement the splendid work that is being done in the St. Catharines-Niagara area. I am optimistic that we will soon see that particular work in place. As I say, as a matter of respecting the presentations made by some other organizations, the ministry wanted to satisfy itself that it had explored those other options as well.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad the member for St. Catharines raised this question. We have not spent very much time discussing health issues as they affect women, but that is an area the minister should be keeping a very close eye on because the services in many cases are not nearly adequate, nor are they even equal to the services available to the general public, which tend to be used, in the case of detoxification, more by males.

Is the minister aware that there is or was a centre in Toronto that is providing rehabilitation work for women alcoholics? It was made up of former women alcoholics and I believe it was the only one of its kind in the Toronto area. It was not an official provincial government detoxification centre, but it was providing a service for women who wanted assistance in rehabilitation beyond what they could obtain through the Addiction Research Foundation.

I saw a story in the paper about a month ago that the centre was going to run out of funds by the end of this year. If the minister does not know about it, I urge him to look into it; if he does know about it, I urge him to press for some additional funds to keep this centre going.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly be pleased to follow up on the inquiry of the member with the Minister of Health. If it is the same organization I think it is, it has done splendid work.

Perhaps I can ask the member, is this the group that is looking for some capital money for an actual physical location, or is it simply looking for program money?

Ms. Bryden: My impression was that they operate a house where women alcoholics can get rehabilitation services.

Hon. Mr. Welch: So they actually have a physical location, a house or something?

Ms. Bryden: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I will be glad to follow up on that specific concern for the member.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, if I might just kick things off on child care, I would like to remind the minister of what has taken place since he became minister and of all the speeches he has made. We have interministerial committees. We have a committee of the Legislature, the standing committee on social development, of which I am a member. We have a federal task force under way. We have a lot of talk going on.

Can the minister indicate whether anything specific has happened, since the last budget, that we ought to know about? Let us choose one field, subsidized child care. There is a waiting list for subsidized child care, and a number of communities to which my committee travelled indicated they are quite prepared to pick up their 20 per cent of the cost. The federal government is always quite prepared under the present Canada assistance plan provisions to pick up its 50 per cent of the cost. Has any new and additional provision been made for subsidized spaces since the budget -- I am well aware of what the budget contained -- and if not, why not?

Why are 1,100 subsidized spaces in Ottawa-Carleton going wanting? I understand this municipality has said: "We will pick up the cost. We cannot really afford it; but then again, the women cannot afford to be without decent child care."

What are we doing about that? What representations is the minister making to his colleagues in cabinet and, more specifically, to his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea)? Child care is in crisis, and all the talk is not making it better at all. It may be necessary to talk before we act, but surely we could at least move ahead with some interim activities.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that we are setting aside some time for this subject because, as I pointed out in my opening remarks and as I have certainly been reminded by my critics, the question of access to and affordability of child care is seen as a very important matter.

Let us put it in context. I have said on more than one occasion that economic issues are the important issues at the moment as far as women are concerned; that women will not enjoy social equality until they have economic equality and that as economic and employment-related issues are so important, child care has to be seen in that context.

For far too long, child care has been seen strictly as a welfare issue. I think that is wrong. There is no question that there is some component of need and some significance to the programs that have to be addressed in that area, but I see this as a very important economic issue.

To put things in context, as the members of the committee will know, after extensive consultation both inside and outside government, including a survey of what we would call public perceptions, there is no doubt, as we have already indicated, that child care is seen as a priority issue facing women today. As a result, a number of activities are under way to provide both short-term and long-term solutions to the existing child care dilemma.

First, I remind the members of the committee that the speech from the throne announced a review of the accessibility and quality of child care. That review, now under way, is internal to government and involves, as I have already pointed out, 12 ministries in addition to the Ontario women's directorate. I expect some interim recommendations before the end of the year.

Second, as I also pointed out, at the meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women in May 1984, it was agreed in principle to initiate a federal-provincial working group on child care to focus on the financing of child care. I have pointed out to the members of the committee that the first meeting of that group was Friday of last week in Toronto. I am expecting to have its report and to be able to share it with other ministers when we have our next ministerial meeting in May 1985.

At the conclusion of the meeting in Niagara-on-the-Lake, the then minister responsible for the status of women with the government of Canada announced the creation of a four-member task force to be headed by Dr. Katie Cook. It was to study the issue of child care and report back to her by the end of the year. I have not had a chance to get an update from the new minister with respect to that. I have no reason to believe that report will not be ready by then, but I have not had a revised timetable statement since the federal election.

Then, as my friend mentioned, the provincial budget dated May 16, 1984, provided nearly $5 million for an additional 1,500 full-time subsidized spaces to assist the municipalities with waiting lists of eligible families.

Mr. Wrye: That was all informal care, was it not?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As far as I know, yes. However, whatever the setting, it was in the area of subsidization, which I felt was the interest of my friend.

Then, as announced by the Minister of Community and Social Services on May 28, 1984, the province was to become involved in the development of new rural child care resource centres to provide support and information to parents and informal care providers.

In addition, the province was to provide assistance in the development of seven new work place child care centres in selected areas across the province as well as taking steps to encourage employers to consider offering their employees assistance with their child care needs.

Finally, as my friend mentioned, the standing committee on social development held hearings throughout the month of September on the Day Nurseries Act. I understand that report is in the process of preparation and publication. It will obviously have some further and helpful information for us.

3:30 p.m.

Having said that, just to put it in that context, I point out it is necessary that we do not create the impression that this problem has to be restudied. I think it has been studied to death. I think we have lots of information around. I made it quite clear to the internal committee -- that is the committee internal to government -- that there was no need to have all kinds of extensive hearings again. All this information is available to us; we have to find some way to sift through all this material and get on with it.

There were two or three things about which I felt very strongly. I shared those when I spoke to the federal-provincial ministers in Niagara-on-the-Lake on May 30 and set out the general ramifications of the study. Those were that we change this from being simply a welfare issue and see it instead as the economic and employment-related issue it is; that we seek some new partnerships in this matter and recognize there are a lot of possible new arrangements into which we could enter, including taking a look at the expansion of work-place child care.

In seeking those new partnerships, we should get the focus away from it being strictly the government's problem. We should see it as an opportunity for leadership from the government and we should work in communities, many of which are prepared to enter into some special arrangements to meet this need.

I would hope that in this general way honourable members could see some evidence of the importance which the Minister responsible for Women's Issues attaches to it, keeping in mind that the actual delivery of this program at the moment rests with the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I would pick up on the minister's comments by having him review pages 18 and 19 of the highlights of the government's activities this year. They are very thin. I am having difficulty going through this issue and not discussing what is in our report, which is not out yet. I see my friend the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) is here. Let me deal with the work-place day care issue; I am trying to remember our report and I am sure my friend will help me.

As I understand it, the government set aside $350,000 for capital improvements for workplace day care, but that is not my main concern. The Deputy Premier talks about work-place day care, but when are we going to get it at Queen's Park? What is going on? I know he has had another study -- I believe his own directorate just provided a report -- and it seems to me this is ample evidence of the foot-dragging of this government. It has had pressure from all three parties, from individual members in all three caucuses, almost since the day I got to this place. There have been surveys, certainly by my caucus and I believe by some researchers in the New Democratic Party caucus. The minister has had work done by his own directorate, yet we cannot even get off the dime on that issue and get work-place day care into place at Queen's Park.

I know we would be accused of being elitist if we put in work-place day care, and the chairman certainly would not want us to be accused of being elitist, but one of the important aspects of putting in work-place day care is surely to free up other day care spaces in child-care-starved Metropolitan Toronto.

I would have hoped the minister would have addressed some of the numerous issues I raised in my remarks. I did not make funding the major issue, because funding will be something governments will work out somewhere down the road. What are the priorities of this government and what are the minister's priorities? He has looked at this matter very closely and has spoken about it enough. What areas can we attack immediately? Surely we can do more than $4.8 million for 1,500 additional informal spaces. Perhaps that would be a good issue for him to comment on as well.

How does this minister feel about informal versus formal child care spaces? What kinds of representations has he had from various women's groups? Most of them have told us they are not very happy with glorified baby-sitting, that they would want an expansion of the formal day care network, whether it is the large group centres or private home care.

What is happening with the Queen's Park work-place centre? When are we going to have it? How large is it going to be? How many spaces is it going to free up in other day care and child care centres in Metro Toronto and environs, from wherever employees in this building will be able to remove their children to bring them down here? How many new day care spaces is it going to provide?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, let me attempt to speak to all these questions, particularly on the work-place situation. It is very important to indicate we want to assume some position of leadership with respect to this.

I was encouraged to read the other day that Ontario Hydro was setting aside resources to inaugurate such a program in its building. Before that time I was personally encouraging some active consideration of something here in Queen's Park. I felt we might have the example of the Hydro situation, which would be closer to here, and we might be wise to think of centres such as Oshawa and Kingston, which as members know have received new facilities and where a number of employees have just moved in. That is where we are now looking from the standpoint of seeing whether we can introduce this in a practical way. I am hoping that before very long I will have some reports on the practicality of such facilities at those two centres.

I was encouraged some months ago when I was in Ottawa and actually went with the then minister responsible for the status of women and saw the child care operations in the East Block. I thought they were working very well. If we could have a few examples of that as far as we are concerned as an employer, it would be that much more effective, once again, in talking to the private sector.

I do not think we should lose sight of the fact, and I make reference to the statement of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) in this regard, that at the moment 90,000 children in Ontario are enrolled in licensed day care spaces in more than 1,900 centres. We should get some perspective on this. In partnership with municipalities and with cost-sharing assistance from the federal government through the Canada assistance plan, we are going to be spending $115 million on day care in 1984-85.

During the past two years the government has also provided funding through the day care initiatives program to supplement the number of licensed spaces available. I remind members of the committee that under this program we provide capital and operating startup dollars for more than 100 new nonprofit day care centres serving primarily full-fee-paying parents, and we have provided funds for expanding approximately 100 centres. In all, through this day care initiatives program, the government of Ontario provided funds for more than 4,000 new full-time or part-time licensed spaces, funded 18 new private-home day care agencies and provided expansion money to 13 existing agencies.

No one is attempting to ignore the fact that additional child care resources and programs are needed. Indeed, in response to that demand the Ministry of Community and Social Services is working to encourage and support the development of a flexible -- I think this goes to the point to which the member makes reference -- innovative child care system, a system designed to ensure Ontario families have available to them a broader range of child care options.

At that time, in the latter part of May, through the Minister of Community and Social Services, we announced an additional $4.8 million for regular child care and $1.2 million for special child care support. That was to assist in those programs where women were taking training to get themselves off dependency on social welfare.

3:40 p.m.

Just to respond to the other question, our major thrusts with these funds were to provide more licensed subsidized spaces -- that is what that money was earmarked to do -- and additional regular full-fee licensed spaces to develop new rural child care resource centres.

Other aims were to provide support to parents and informal day care providers, to expand child care projects developed under the employment support initiatives program to which I was just referring and to expand our support for workplace day care centres.

The member asked me if I had any preference. I approach all questions from this point of view: I am concerned about accessibility and I am concerned about affordability. This carries with it the assumption that we have facilities and programs that are considered to be up to proper standards. I am interested in how we can meet all those objectives in a combination of options.

I also speak as the father of one who graduated in early childhood education from one of our community colleges. I know the very low salaries they make and the necessity of raising their economic status. At the same time one must consider how it is done within the context of affordability and the various combinations of things that are necessary.

As to the member's question, I do not know whether he has any preconceived idea. I suppose it might vary depending on the setting; rural as compared with the more intense urban setting and so on. As long as we are satisfying ourselves with respect to accessibility, affordability and proper standards, then let us sit down and find how we can accomplish these things. I said this to the interministerial committee and we are saying it on a federal-provincial basis. The cost-sharing involved is the reason it has had to be federal-provincial up to now.

Mr. Wrye: I would like to ask one last question before yielding to my friend. One thing that bothered all members in the committee was that informal arrangements do not always work out. I was quite struck by our visit to Thunder Bay and the number of witnesses who came forward to talk about the informal arrangements they had made in one way or another, even through Manpower Canada. They described how totally inadequate they were. I and my caucus certainly worry about inadequate standards. It is fine having affordable and accessible day care but if we throw away the standards in order to get that, it seems to me we have nothing. It could be very dangerous child care.

My last very brief question concerns a matter the minister raised about one of his daughters. What in heaven's name are we doing with those awful salaries? The salaries for child care workers are really disgraceful. That is the only way to describe them. It must be a labour of love because it could not be for any other reason. We have very experienced people working for near poverty-level wages.

There are people with six, seven or eight years' experience, even in the best centres as I am sure the minister knows, who are still earning $17,000, $18,000 or $19,000 a year. That is not big money in today's world, particularly for somebody with a good education. I suppose one expects a person with an education to start out fairly low and work one's way up, but the ladder in our child care facilities is very short. The top of the ladder is still very low. It does not allow people to avail themselves of many of society's luxury items -- even, in some cases, of society's necessities.

I think that is something this government can be moving on today without all of these reports. Surely some method can be found to improve the wage scale of these well-qualified, dedicated individuals who are working for poor wages.

My concern, and I am sure the Deputy Premier would share it, is if we do not do something we risk losing these people to other fields. If children are our most precious product, then we ought to be recognizing this very excellent cream we have. They are dealing on a day-to-day basis with very young children while the mothers are out earning money, either to move the family forward or to make ends meet in order to keep it together.

They are leaving these children with these very highly qualified individuals and I fear we are risking losing them. In fact, we already are. Our committee was given mountains of evidence of high staff turnover simply because of inadequate wages. They like the job, but at some point their enthusiasm must be matched by something in the pocketbook. I just wonder what the minister is doing to help.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can hardly wait for Hansard; I will take the remarks of the honourable member home along with my remarks.

As I have mentioned, I kid the member not, I think the pay scale for these very important workers is most unfortunate. I have talked about this to people and they say, "Well, of course, as you start adding this regulation and that regulation and you increase the cost of this, how are you being consistent with this whole business of affordability?" I say: "Look, you cannot make the argument with me that you are expecting a certain group in society to carry on at this type of wage simply to make this function. You will have to find other ways than to ride on the economic development of the people who have prepared themselves to do this work."

Our children are very important human resources, and these are people who have spent two years if not more at community colleges to prepare themselves for this important work. They deserve a proper wage.

You will have no trouble with this minister on that subject. I will make sure the federal task force people and our internal review place that very high on the agenda as we think about what these new arrangements should be.

Just before the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Bryden) shares her comments with us, if I heard the member correctly he made some reference to a need in the Ottawa-Carleton area for 11,000 spaces. That really should be about 1,000 or 1,100 spaces. Ottawa did receive some additional subsidized spaces as a result of the increase in the budget that was provided for in May.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I was very glad to hear the minister say he recognizes child care should not be a welfare issue, that it should presumably be put on to some other method of financing. In my opinion it should be on a tax-base system similar to the system for financing education from the age of five.

The question is what he is doing about getting it switched from the welfare system to some other base that would be fair and that would provide the kind of funding needed? He agrees the wages paid to child care workers are disgraceful. I understand they average about $10,000 to $11,000 even in the city of Toronto, and they are less in many other areas.

To raise those wages to a suitable level for people with two years to three years early childhood education training in community colleges or with university degrees would require real money. The question is where the money would come from.

Again, it is a question of asking the women of Ontario to subsidize day care, which should come to them as a right if we are going to have equal opportunities in employment. That money should come out of the consolidated revenue fund.

The minister could do something about it right away if a supplementary estimate were put through to adopt the $7 per space per day amount requested by the Ontario Coalition for Better Daycare as a supplement to the present funding of day care through the welfare system. That $7 was planned mainly to raise the wages of the day care workers.

3:50 p.m.

If we do not raise the wages, we are going to have a great deal of turnover. The people who are giving the care now are very dedicated; they are very well trained and we are fortunate we do have those people in the field, but they can only go on subsisting on $10,000 to $11,000 for a short period and then they have to move on to more remunerative work.

When that $7 was suggested two years ago there was no response from the government indicating it might be put in. Finally, after considerable agitation, the social services department of Metropolitan Toronto did manage to get the municipality to put in $3 million extra for day care salaries over a three-year period.

Does the minister know what that will do to the salaries? It will give about $1,000 extra to all the day care workers in Toronto. Instead of $10,000 or $11,000, their average pay could go up to $12,000. If anybody has tried to live on $12,000 in the city of Toronto, he or she will know it is completely inadequate and is really below the poverty line for anybody with any dependants.

Instead of relying on surveys, as in the throne speech, or on task forces or further studies, this could be done right away. I do not think we can wait any longer for the children of this province to be provided with adequate day care if we are really going to work for employment equality for women and proper care for our children whose parents both have to go to work in many cases.

I remind the minister that Judge Abella's report put a very high priority on day care as part of the facilities needed to provide equal opportunity for both women and minority groups. That was part of her mandate. She recommended a national child care act, based on consultation with the provinces, territories and interest groups, in order to ensure consistent standards and to take into account urban and rural needs and the special needs of children who are natives or members of minority groups or disabled.

This is a very fine objective, but we know it will take years to implement anything of this sort. I am surprised the minister is placing his faith in a federal-provincial conference to produce real action in the day care field in the immediate short term. We need it right now and that is what we and the Children's Day Care Coalition, as well as Action Day Care and many other organizations, are asking for at this time.

Judge Abella recognizes her proposal will take time. She says, "Until a universal system is available, child care should be available, at least for children whose parents are unable to care for them on a full-time basis and for children with special needs arising from a disability."

The minister keeps telling us statistics show the province is looking after 90,000 children in day care. There are only 51,000 fully licensed, full-time spaces in this province, so the other 40,000 are people who are probably getting a few hours of care at lunch hour or after school in school facilities. That does not answer the need for fully licensed, full-time day care for the 210,000 women in this province who are in the work force and who have children under six. At the moment, the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto estimates those women are facing a shortage of 84,000 spaces. The reason we wanted to debate this subject this afternoon is to see if the minister can give us a commitment to more action.

I would also like to draw his attention to a very interesting initiative in the day care field that Action Day Care has developed. It is an initiative for providing nonprofit day care centres with furnishings, equipment and maintenance services at cost, through their day care improvement project.

This is not only providing many day care centres with furnishings, equipment and services at reasonable prices and enabling the dollars to go that much further, but it is also providing a considerable number of jobs in the design and manufacture of equipment. I think it is an initiative this government should be assisting to expand, from the point of view both of services for the day care centres and providing additional jobs.

I understand this project, which has been going for three or four years, has 30 child care centres on its waiting list for the services it provides, so there is lots of room for expansion and additional job creation.

I would like the minister to comment on the points I have raised. Why not give the per diem grant on top of the present federal, provincial and municipal sharing of the other operating costs in order to do something right now about those day care salaries? It would be a nice Christmas present. Why not consider this day care improvement project for further funding, perhaps through the job creation programs of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman). It would provide him with a nice Christmas present he could offer as part of his campaign.

I would like the minister to comment.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is no question that one of the areas requiring new solutions as far as child care is concerned is that of financing. I would like to talk about that for a minute, because measures that are going to augment the Canada assistance plan cost-sharing arrangement are going to have to be developed.

The impact of our system of taxes and transfer payments on families with children should be carefully assessed. I think this is very important. The system of federal and provincial taxes and transfer programs provides income support to families with children. I think the member will agree it has grown in a piecemeal way since about 1917.

I think the current array of programs -- just listen to them: family allowances, the child tax credit, the children's tax exemption, the child care expense deduction and the married exemption -- includes many inequities at the moment. I want to suggest that since our system of taxes and transfer payments have at least a neutral impact on the composition and lifestyle choices of families and serve to assist working parents with the cost of child care in a fair and reasonable manner, our goal should be to try to rationalize these, which is why federal-provincial consultation is so important.

I might also mention that we should consider the use of the corporate tax system. We should explore it in terms of creating incentives for employers to enter into the child care partnership I have talked about. It may well be that organized labour, in its negotiations as far as benefits are concerned, will start including this in the collective bargaining process.

I point out to the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), who was asking about work-place child care, that there are four places now in our organization. I understand that at the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital, the Cedar Springs centre, the mental retardation facility in Orillia and the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls there are work-place child care facilities now. We should be seeing that increase as well as seeing it in the private sector.

4 p.m.

I mention all these other matters because there are people who are not looking for any subsidy but who simply want to have affordable, accessible child care. That is why I am thinking in terms of some new arrangements and perhaps even some new methods of financing, at no time suggesting we would in any way abandon our responsibility in so far as the subsidized area is concerned. The honourable member made some reference to the need for the enrichment of that, and we continue to keep that particular need before our colleagues. As a result, we had the financial increase in the benefit that was in the last budget.

We have to approach this on a number of fronts to satisfy ourselves we are exploring all these options and attempting to find some reasonable solutions for those who attach a great deal of importance to this service because it is so necessary for their economic wellbeing and their economic independence.

Ms. Bryden: The minister mentions there are some day care facilities in the Ontario public service, but I understand the Ontario Public Service Employees Union asked that further child care facilities be put on the agenda for bargaining last year and was told it was not a subject for bargaining at this time. Even if the minister encourages the trade unions to seek some assistance from the employer in funding child care, the provincial government does not seem to be encouraging any further extension of its provisions for child care.

What is the minister going to do about all the people who are not in the trade unions? Only about one third are in trade unions, and the others probably need child care even more. A great many are immigrant women who have to go to work to supplement their husbands' earnings. They have to have adequate child care in order that their children are not left in unsupervised arrangements.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We know there are a lot of private arrangements. We know the regulations do not apply in those situations where there are fewer than five children who are in some type of formal care. I am sure a number of young people are being left with relatives and that all types of private arrangements are being entered into. There is no question about that.

I have a great personal belief in maintaining some degree of standards and respectability on the part of those who are engaged in this type of activity. I was not suggesting an either/or situation in my last answer. It is simply the fact that in order to give some effect to the new look to child care, which for too long, in my opinion, has been seen only as a welfare issue and should be freed from the shackles of being seen only as that, we should not ignore our responsibilities in that regard but we should see it as a much wider issue, as the economic and employment-related issue it is for the economic independence and equality of women.

Child care is also a joint parental responsibility and not just the responsibility of the mother, although in many single-parent situations she is obviously the individual involved. In a number of ways we look for these new partnerships. We look for ways of financing them and making them available. Keep in mind that the goal is to widen the accessibility and speak to the affordability of something that is going to be considered an important service.

As we approach it, we think of all sorts of pilot projects; the hub model, for instance. Even those parents who have children now of school age have some concern. If they are only in part-time kindergarten, what about the rest of the day? What about children at the end of the formal school day, when there is a period of time between dismissal from school and the arrival home of parents?

All these factors have to be taken into account. With this new attitude of coming together and finding solutions instead of simply discussing problems, I feel we will be encouraged by the results both of the federal task force, the report of which is expected at the end of next month, and our own work internally within the government of Ontario.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, we have only about 20 minutes left for the other subject we were going to deal with, which is battered wives. Perhaps we should move on to that.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I was tied up looking at other matters. I am pleased to say I still have a riding, and this one even makes some degree of sense.

Hon. Mr. Welch: What would the riding be called?

Mr. Wrye: I do not want to be the first one to tell the Deputy Premier the bad news.

With regard to family violence, does the minister not believe the time has come to table a piece of legislation that is solely devoted to the needs of battered women and shelters? Is it not time we ended this ad hockery and got on with some legislation for shelters?

As I pointed out in my opening statement, rather than ad hoc grants which are constantly used to bail shelters and transition homes out of crises situations, is it not time to move to some block funding and get off the per diems? Is the minister having those discussions on an ongoing basis? Can we expect some action in the near future?

I say that with respect. I think I conceded in my opening statement, but if I did not I will say it now, that the one area in which we have made progress and in which this ministry and this government do deserve some credit -- and I am always willing to give it -- is in the area of battered women, particularly wife abuse. The report of the standing committee, of which we are all justifiably proud, has been treated for the most part by this government with the serious attention that was needed.

I remain concerned about the lack of specific legislation in this area and most particularly about the need for some block funding. I do not think we can go on with ad hoc bailouts. I do not think that is the way to go. Having talked with a number of people involved in transition houses in all areas of Ontario, including Sudbury, Ottawa, my own community of Windsor and here in Toronto, I do not think they feel that is the way to go. Can we expect some movement in that area in the next while?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am grateful for the supportive comments from my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich. It is refreshing from time to time to realize there are issues that can be addressed in a fairly objective way; the issue to which the honourable member makes reference is one.

I pay tribute to the standing committee. It was its report and the response to the report that encouraged us to get more involved than had been the case. The financial enrichment has been there as far as this program is concerned. Our main concern at this stage was to be sure none of the organizations providing this service as they have over the years would be in jeopardy. I have had no difficulty in securing the financial resources necessary to address that.

I pay tribute as well to the Ontario Association of Interval Transition Houses people. They were very helpful in those situations, working with us and with the people involved.

There has been a lot of new funding and there are some plans for further facilities coming on stream. Our first concern was to move in and satisfy ourselves in a flexible way that things were all right.

Mr. Wrye: Stabilized.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Stabilized, as the member says.

The next approach from a priority point of view was the public awareness campaign. On the basis of that campaign, I have a feeling there will be an even stronger appreciation of the extent of the problem. We have been using figures such as one in 10, or 200,000 women. I have a feeling the situation is more serious.

4:10 p.m.

When we go into that type of program, start taking it out of the closet and get people to talk about it, it carries with it the expectation of services being there to deal with the problems that come out. Perhaps now that things are stabilized, I think we will be in a better position -- and I am speaking now as the minister who will be making some representations -- for a higher degree of predictability and accountability, if that is the proper word, with respect to this financing. We will have this information and the projected needs that might help us to establish the need to move to the next stage.

What am I saying? I am saying I am in the process of collecting a little more evidence that might support a more formal request for the type of funding that might have to be put in place to ensure this program is available. Keep in mind that I am hoping ultimately, as we get out to talk about this whole situation, to reduce the need in the long run; and keep in mind that various other services have to be used and are there and are being funded. I am talking about law enforcement, the system of justice and of the social welfare system to the extent it is applicable. These are special needs, however, that have to be addressed in this way.

I am encouraged by the tremendous community support we are getting. We are moving out into the regions of the province now and sharing this whole situation with them and finding many in the volunteer sector, the churches, the service clubs and other communities groups, ready to play their part as well.

Mr. Wrye: I appreciate the minister's statement. We have stabilized the patient for a while now and I hope we can move ahead. I am not only curious, but rather bothered by the comment the minister made in passing that he thought the problem might be worse than one in 10. I would like him to elaborate on that.

Keeping in mind the time -- and I want to leave my friend 10 minutes or so after I take my 10 minutes -- I also want to ask the minister to make some comment on the decision of this government to withdraw support from victim advocacy clinics. I am sure the minister is aware of the complainant support program at Hiatus House in my own community of Windsor.

Quite frankly, I was exceedingly disappointed, to put it generously, that the pilot project the federal government had started was cancelled. After a slow start, as most pilot projects have, I felt it was showing substantial and positive results. It seemed to me the decision to torpedo that program and to continue only with the crown prosecutor, as useful as she is, with a mandate to deal with these issues, has not addressed the program in nearly as positive a way as the complainant support program.

I am well aware that assistant crown prosecutor is not only doing, as was indicated at the time, assault cases on women, but she is also doing many other things. Frankly, I think we have lost a number of things that the complainant support program could have offered. Is the ministry considering renewing any kind of a victim advocacy program? I get the sense a couple of the ministers did not particularly like the program, so it was dropped.

I think it was very useful. I would like to get the minister's comments on that and also on the 10 per cent figure. Is that a statistic with which he has been provided? If so, could he provide it to the House.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any additional facts and figures, but I have some reason to believe, on the basis of my own personal reading in this matter, that one of the things we lack is a solid statistical backup for all of this.

The Ontario Police Commission, for instance, has asked police forces to keep more accurate records now. Because of the directives of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), more attention is being paid to this type of assault than perhaps was the case in the past unfortunately. It is simply a matter of attaching some importance to it. We said in a federal-provincial context as well that we had to have a stronger information base in order to have a fuller appreciation of the extent of the problem.

I was impressed with the work in Windsor, particularly the support services that were being provided to victims. The Attorney General felt at that time, with resources being the way they were, there was some advantage to working with crown attorneys. As the member knows, 60 crown attorneys in the province have been set aside for special programs and are being more fully sensitized to this.

There is always a tendency to want to fragment or compartmentalize things. I would rather give a little more time to the program of the Attorney General with respect to victims generally, with special programs to sensitize those who are charged with the administration of justice as to the experience faced by those who come in contact with the justice system for the first time. Through seminars with judges and with the special program the Attorney General now has with the crown attorneys, I hope we might have the opportunity to bring these points of view to their attention.

The members know that the ministers of justice have just completed meetings in Newfoundland. One of the great emphases now coming into the criminal justice system is this whole business of the victims of crime, not just their compensation but their lack of familiarity with and their nervousness about the justice system and what has to happen to prosecute those cases.

That is why I was attracted to the program in Windsor. It had that caring and that very special emphasis. I hope at this stage we can share that experience with the special group of crown attorneys who are being selected for this purpose and that the whole system could be that much more sensitized to these concerns.

Ms. Bryden: We are having a brief discussion of the whole problem of battered wives. It is an extremely important problem, a problem whose extent we are not fully aware of. I think it is similar to the child care problem in that it must be untied from the welfare system, because the women who require assistance in this field, and the batterers themselves who also require assistance, come from all walks of life and all income groups. It is a very serious social problem affecting children, affecting marriages and affecting the way people live together in our community.

The first thing is that it has to be untied from the welfare system. By that I mean that assistance for the victims should come directly through block grants. It should cover the kinds of services they need, not just the present room and board for a short period and a little counselling. It should cover the relocation and rehabilitation of the women who have to leave home permanently.

It should cover the child care that has to be done in the interval houses. If there are grants for child care for people at work, there should also be child care grants for interval houses. It should cover their advocacy work. They can do even more than the Attorney General's advocate assistance program because they are closer to the problem, they understand the problem and they work with the women in their appearances in court. It should include money for public education by the interval houses and generally for counselling.

I very much question whether the program the Ministry of Community and Social Services is putting in of so-called safe homes in rural areas and crisis centres in northern Ontario is going to answer the need for service to the victims of battering.

It may be one step better than having the local police force or the Ontario Provincial Police look after those problems, because they are not trained in those areas. However, what we really need are interval houses scattered much more widely throughout this province, with adequate trained staff who are adequately paid and do not have to rely either on the local municipal welfare people to give them a share of the funding before they can get any funding or on great fund-raising efforts that take up a great deal of the limited time of volunteers.

This is where we are at with services to battered wives. We do not have nearly enough professional services available for the victims and, as a result, many are still suffering grievous experiences in the courts and are getting inadequate relocation and rehabilitation services. I would like the minister to comment on that.

4:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I agree that anything we can do with respect to victim assistance is worth while; the member will get no argument from me on that. What we are attempting to do with the resources we have is address some of the particular needs. We added, as she knows, $3.5 million for our transition houses and the related support services to the budget of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, for a total of $9.6 million in 1984-85; so there has been a financial response in this area of immediate need in getting something in place or reinforcing those things that were in place.

As far as victim assistance programs are concerned, there are effective crisis intervention programs in place in Toronto, London, Windsor and several other jurisdictions. They are called domestic response teams; I pay tribute to the work they do. A voluntary program run by the Salvation Army is also in place in several jurisdictions, and I pay tribute to that.

As I told my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich, the Attorney General is looking actively at victim assistance programs across the whole province, and a co-ordinator has already been hired in the office of the director of crown attorneys. I look to that co-ordinator and to those court officials to provide a great deal of leadership along the lines the member has mentioned in providing the help that victims need.

I am not just talking about their material wellbeing. This is a very traumatic experience for a number of people. A London survey has told us that many of these women who finally do go through the criminal justice system as a result of this type of behaviour have been beaten at least 35 times. That is a shocking bit of information. They have been hesitant to go to the system at all; and then finally they have gone, against a background of that type of behaviour on that number of occasions. It is little wonder that when they finally decide to go public with this and do something about it they require those people around them who are sensitive to their concerns and to the tremendous disruption there must be. I cannot think of anything more horrible than this type of behaviour.

Ms. Bryden: The minister seems to have co-ordinators for battered wives in his ministry, co-ordinators in the Ministry of Community and Social Services and co-ordinators in the Ministry of the Attorney General. The question is, are we spending money on co-ordinators and advertising and not enough on the houses?

I would like the minister to provide us by correspondence with a list of all the interval houses now being funded and some estimate of future needs, because I still think there are large areas of this province that do not have police response teams. The minister mentioned three or four. There are large areas that do not have adequate interval house services, and there are large groups, such as immigrant women and native women, who are not being serviced adequately in this area either.

Just before I sit down I would also like to remind the minister that I hope he will study the figures we produced last Friday on the Quebec equal pay for work of equal value cases and withdraw his remark, which I heard again last night on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., that there are no proven cases of equivalence having been applied in Quebec.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I came quite prepared to respond to that today, because it was a challenge that was issued and one that was responded to. I am now prepared to answer it, but I was told there was some anxiety to do child care and domestic violence, and I agreed.

I can assure members that I have some very clear evidence with respect to this and I would just love to share it with the members. In fact, we should do it privately because it will be easier to deal with. Then I will be glad to send the members a letter on it after we have had a meeting on it. Notwithstanding the fact that our time is up, I have not overlooked this and I would like to discuss it with the members.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Treleaven): The time for these estimates having elapsed, it is now time to carry the final vote.

Vote 402 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of supply reported a certain resolution.

Assistant Clerk: Mr. Treleaven from the committee of supply reports the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the government ministries named be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985.

Reading dispensed with [see appendix, page 4462].

Resolution concurred in.

MUNICIPAL TAX SALES ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 102, An Act respecting the Sale of Lands for Arrears of Municipal Taxes.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, we started a debate on this the other night. We got as far as moving second reading when the clock ran out, so today I am very pleased to recommend Bill 102 to the House for second reading.

This legislation will establish a new procedure for the recovery of municipal tax arrears, a procedure that will be more equitable to taxpayers and simpler for municipalities to administer. At present there are two separate procedures: a tax sale procedure established in 1825 and a tax registration procedure established in 1932. As the minister indicated last December 2 when introducing an earlier version of this legislation, Bill 138, we believe the time has come to combine the best features of both existing procedures into a single new procedure.

Following the introduction of Bill 138, we received a great many letters and our ministry staff consulted extensively with numerous groups and individuals having an interest in the proposed legislation. Response to the bill was very positive, although concern was expressed about a number of individual issues. As a result of the consultation process, a considerable number of revisions were incorporated into Bill 102, which was introduced for first reading in June 1984.

As a result of further consultations over the summer, we have decided to incorporate a small number of additional revisions to improve the new procedure further. Several of them are just housekeeping changes in the bill, but I will be introducing four amendments when we go into committee of the whole House. I have given the opposition critics notice of those amendments.

The proposed legislation provides that where taxes are still owing on January I of the third year from the year in which they were imposed, the municipal treasurer will be able to register a tax arrear certificate against the property unless otherwise directed by his counsel. In the case of the vacant land, the waiting period will be only two years instead of three years.

Once a tax registration certificate is registered, the treasurer will be required to notify the owner and all interested parties, including any tenant and the spouse of any tenant. The owner will then have a full year from the date of registration to prevent the sale of the property by paying to the municipality the full amount of what the legislation calls the cancellation price.

The term "cancellation price" is defined in the legislation as the tax arrears plus all current taxes owing, interest and penalties, and all other reasonable costs incurred by the municipality.

4:30 p.m.

If this amount remains unpaid 280 days after the registration certificate, the treasurer will then be required to send a second notice to the same parties informing them of the impending sale of the property. Unless this notice results in the payment of the cancellation price before the one-year period expires -- that is, the fourth year after the taxes have been in arrears -- the treasurer will then offer the property for sale either by public tender or by public auction.

Notice of the sale will be given to local newspapers and in the Ontario Gazette. This notice will specify that the minimum acceptable bid or tender will be the full amount of the cancellation price. The municipality will be able to submit a tender or bid on its own if it intends to use the land for municipal purposes. As soon as the sale is completed, the property will be conveyed to the person offering the highest amount. The sale will be final and binding when the tax deed issued by the purchaser is registered at the local registry office.

An important feature of this new procedure is that the proceeds will be distributed in a fair and equitable manner. First, they will be used to pay the cancellation price to the municipality. Second, they will be paid to persons other than the owner with an interest in the property according to the legal priority of their interests. Third, the remainder of the proceeds will be paid to the former owner of the property.

Two other features in this legislation should be mentioned. First, if no tenders or bids are received or if the tenders or bids received are less than the cancellation price, the property will then belong to the municipality. Second, the local municipalities will be able to enter into agreement with their upper-tier council, authorizing the upper-tier treasurer to exercise all the powers and duties of a local treasurer on their behalf. At present, many counties, such as Frontenac, Hastings, Kent, Perth, Renfrew and Huron, administer tax sales for their local municipalities, and there is considerable support for the continuation of this arrangement.

The enactment of this important legislation will result in a great many benefits in this very complex area of municipal activities. I would like to draw attention to three of the most important ones.

First, it will abolish the two existing procedures for the recovery of municipal tax arrears. In their place, it will establish a single, province-wide system that is simpler for taxpayers to understand and more straightforward for municipalities to administer. In addition, it will end the provincial involvement that is such a prevalent part of the current tax registration procedure.

Second, as another important benefit it will provide substantially greater procedural protection to taxpayers and to all those with an interest in the property. For example, for the first time the new procedure will provide for notice to assessed tenants and their spouses. It will also provide for two notices from the municipal treasurer to all interested parties during the one-year period before the registration of a tax registration certificate and the commencement of action for the sale of the property.

Third, and perhaps the most important benefit, it will abolish a very inequitable feature of the current tax registration procedure. At present, when a property is sold for tax purposes, the municipality retains all the proceeds of the sale, regardless of the amount of the outstanding arrears; the former owner and interested parties lose everything. The new procedure, as I indicated earlier, will be much fairer to everyone in this regard and represents, we think, a major step forward in municipal tax law in this province.

I look forward to hearing the comments of other honourable members on this bill and hope they will join me in supporting it for second reading. After second reading has carried, I have indicated I will ask the House to consider it in committee of the whole to introduce the amendments of which I have given notice.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to indicate on behalf of my colleagues in this caucus that we will support the bill. We believe it is a significant step forward with respect to tax arrears legislation in this province.

When the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) indicated the tax sale legislation had originated back in 1825 and the tax registration legislation in 1932, it seemed surprising to me that it took this long to bring in a uniform tax arrears system for the whole province.

The parliamentary assistant has mentioned the benefits that accrue to individuals and to the municipalities of this province. I want to focus on the third one in particular, where he mentions abolishing the present two systems under which the municipality gets all the benefits and the current owner, unable or sometimes unwilling to pay the taxes for whatever reason, even after the property is sold does not get any particular benefit. That in itself is worth the reform this legislation is going to institute.

I want to commend the ministry on the consultative process in which it has been engaged -- I know a number of groups have been consulted -- and particularly with respect to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. That umbrella group, which has a number of smaller municipal organizations under its wings, so to speak, has been closely consulted, as far as I know. It has written a number of papers recommending changes, and I think most of the changes by far have been incorporated in this legislation.

Lest someone accuses me of forgetting to mention the very important fact that the minister is again absent from this chamber during discussion of his legislation, I want to mention to the parliamentary assistant that I have not missed that very obvious point. The minister was not here for question period. As the person who hands out all the patronage in eastern Ontario, he must be out signing all the appointments before the next provincial election. Wherever he is, we wish he would return to the House some time to participate in discussion of the legislation.

The parliamentary assistant did not mention that during the period April 1, 1983, to March 31, 1984, there were about 2,870 registrations of tax arrears in the province. That is a significant number. Of that group, 85 per cent were redeemed by the original owner or by someone in concert with the original owner. Talking about nonvacant land or land that had some structure or something on it, four per cent of the properties was sold to someone who was not an interested party. That leaves 11 per cent involving vacant land; here eight per cent was sold to someone else and about three per cent of the vacant land was municipally assumed.

Those statistics are interesting to the extent that I was surprised there were so many tax registrations across the province. I would have thought there were fewer, but perhaps there are more given the kind of economic times we had in comparison to the two previous years. I think there were 10 per cent or something less than that in the two previous years.

One interesting part of the legislation is that the lower-tier municipality can make an arrangement with the upper-tier municipality to look after tax arrears. That is a request the AMO made of the province. It is something that has been agreed to. I commend the province on making these changes and incorporating the requests of AMO; as well as those of other groups, I am sure.

There is no doubt we have a lot of small municipalities. Of the more than 800 municipalities across the province, some have populations of perhaps only 1,000; they often do not have the machinery or staffing to look after the outside things that have to be done. Permitting upper-tier municipalities to attend to this is a positive step. Public tenders and public auction are the two ways municipalities can proceed; it leaves the choice open to the various municipalities. There is to a certain degree greater autonomy built into this system than there was previously.

4:40 p.m.

The one thing municipalities have asked for, and I am not sure how extensive it is so the parliamentary assistant may want to comment on this, is to get a commission for the sale of tax-arrear properties or properties on which the taxes have not been paid. The government has rejected that request and instead the municipality can claim a certain amount for administrative costs.

Certainly the administrative cost is something a municipality should be able to claim. It is not something the general public should pay for, although there are services the general public has a right to expect based on the taxes paid in a municipality. I do not think this is one of them. I think it is only right and proper that the costs accrue to the individual whose property taxes are in arrears.

I presume there would have to be some kind of justification by the municipality for the costs that are going to be attributed to that sale of property. They are going to have to be within certain limits and the parliamentary assistant may want to elaborate a little on exactly what kind of guidelines the ministry is going to issue with respect to this. There is a certain amount in the legislation itself, but he may want to elaborate on that.

When notices are sent, I want him to clarify whether they are going out by registered mail. I presume they are, but it would be helpful that if they are not now such notices of arrears in property taxes be sent by registered mail.

I have one further point. I understand there are six counties that carry out sales of tax-arrear properties for lower municipalities. I believe those six are the counties of Huron, Renfrew, Victoria, Perth, Kent and Frontenac. There have been some discussions to permit other counties to sell properties and to collect those funds. I guess the government is not prepared at this point to expand that to the other 20 or so counties that do not have this system in place. I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant could elaborate on that point.

It may be opportune at this time to expand that to permit other counties that are not currently doing so to collect the taxes. If that is not the governments intention, then the parliamentary assistant might want to elaborate on when it plans to make those changes, if in fact it does.

As I have indicated, we do support the bill. We think it is a big step forward in the streamlining of the legislation. I am sure there will be some amendments necessary within the next few years; after every important piece of legislation, there are always changes that have to be made. In total, I think the bill does warrant the support of the opposition parties as well as of the government. We are pleased to give that support.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, we will oppose the bill. I want to say at the beginning that I think it is somewhat of an improvement over the previous situation. I would rate this bill by saying it has brought the matter into this century. It would have been nice, though, if we had a clearer and more succinct process. As a matter of fact, I have not seen such a convoluted process since I first set eyes on the famed Rotenberg rule that was supposedly going to resolve the problem of the bells ringing all night.

It is another occasion on which Ontario by its legislation, according to this act, will set in motion a sequence of events that can last over a four-year period and that puts an obligation on the part of the municipalities to do a great many things, frankly, to resolve a problem of tax sales for arrears.

I appreciate there has been a fair amount of consultation in the matter, and that is why I will be brief in my opposition to the bill. I understand the ministry has attempted to listen to problems that have been put forward by those who will be most directly affected by the bill.

I want to comment in passing, as my colleague in the Liberal Party did, that I note the absence of the minister and, as always, I am grateful for his absence. I always find it adds something to the tenor of the debate when he is not here.

The bill itself deals with a problem that is not of great public interest, probably, but that a lot of municipalities have difficulty with: what do you do when a piece of property has tax owing on it; how do you handle that situation? I would have preferred to see a more succinct process set in place, something that was a little fairer.

There is one other reason I am expressing some caution on this bill. I note the bill has been around for some time; it certainly has been discussed at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and in other places where they talk about these kinds of things, for more than a year. We saw one draft of the bill last year; we are seeing another draft of it now. Before the bill even gets second reading, four amendments are being put.

I think that speaks to the complicated and convoluted process that is being proposed here. It always seems to me that it is not a good idea for government to proceed unless it really knows what it is doing, and it appears to me that on this bill this government does not know what it is doing. It is trying to listen, but it has a hearing impediment.

In closing, one interesting concept was proposed by AMO, and that is a kind of real estate commission. When I first heard of this proposal by AMO -- it did not call it a real estate commission, but it was tantamount to the same thing -- it struck me as a particularly odd proposal for AMO to make.

The government's response makes the AMO proposal look good. The government's response is to say it will provide an allowance for administrative costs. The last thing I would want to do in this sweet world is to allow people in some of the municipalities I am familiar with a chance to lay out administrative costs. Having worked in municipal government for some time and having seen what one department can do to another in terms of chargeback, I certainly would not want to open that process up to the public, and it seems to me at least that the door is open here.

In summary, I feel the government has opted for a process that is more complicated than was necessary. It is one that I will follow with some interest as it goes through each of its different stages. It seems to me the province has put a lot of legal obligations on municipalities to resolve a problem. There is no denying this process is better than the one that was designed in the previous century; but it would have been nice to see a process put in front of us this afternoon that reflected the reality that this is 1984; it would have been nice to see a process that struck the balance between what the municipalities might have levied against them in actual cost by this process and the concept that AMO put forward, which was just a straight commission.

So we will follow it with some interest. As always, I am somewhat reluctant to oppose government legislation, but it has been my experience that if the government does not know what it is doing it is particularly dangerous. It seems to me that in this bill this afternoon it is giving us one more indication that it is not very sure of what it is doing. It is amending the bill before it gets through second reading. This is the second version of this particular bill I have seen and I know there have been others; my instincts tell me this is a bill we should not rush into madly.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the official opposition for his support and for his kind words, which I know were not for me but for the ministry staff.

It should be pointed out to the House that the consultative process with municipalities is certainly a nonpartisan type of process and I do appreciate the member from Waterloo North's (Mr. Epp) endorsation and understanding of that process and his participation in it. It is this kind of consultation with those of us who have had some experience in municipal politics that does make for better legislation, not only for the municipalities of this province, but also, more important, for the public of this province.

The member for Waterloo North did raise a couple of points I would like to discuss for a moment. With regard to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the only thing we disagree on is that they want a flat 10 per cent commission rather than the administrative fee. One of the principles we have in all these situations -- and I think the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) came at it from the other side and swung the pendulum the other way -- is that we do not feel a municipality should be able to make a profit on this kind of transaction.

One of the things that is built into this legislation, and should be, is some discretion on the part of the municipality as to whether it will seize a property. When a land developer falls behind, the municipality would have no qualms about taking it away from him; but if a person on a fixed income, a widow, a widower, a single parent and so on, gets behind in his or her taxes for a reasonably valid reason, the municipality wants to have that discretion.

If the municipality has the possibility or the incentive of making a profit on the tax sale, the use of that discretion may be coloured to the detriment of the person of poorer financial means who should be the beneficiary of that discretion.

For that reason the general policy of this government is that we do not want municipalities to be able to make a profit on performing their duty. That is why we do not feel there should be a commission.

We have indicated the municipality can charge its actual costs as part of the cancellation price. For some municipalities that may be somewhat difficult to ascertain, especially in advance. So we inserted section 15 in the bill saying:

"The council of a municipality, in lieu of charging the municipality's actual costs in determining any cancellation price, may by bylaw" -- that is in advance by bylaw -- "fix a scale of costs to be charged as the reasonable costs of proceedings under this act, which scale shall be designed to meet only the anticipated costs of the municipality."

We feel that gives the municipality enough discretion to cover its costs and fix a reasonable amount. If a municipality is taking advantage of that situation and trying to charge exorbitant fees, then anybody can take it to court. We do not feel we should lay on municipalities exactly how they fix that. They are masters of their own house to an extent and they should be able to fix that scale of costs on their own.

The member for Waterloo North mentioned the notice provision. Section 11 of the bill covers the notice provision which basically requires personal service or registered mail to the last known address of all those people.

As far as other counties getting into this agreement is concerned, counties taking over from the area municipalities or the smaller municipalities, the right to carry this on in the agreement is covered in section 17. It basically provides that all counties and all other upper tier municipalities, including regional governments, can enter into agreements with their lower tier municipalities, so I think that would be covered under this legislation. If counties other than the ones mentioned that now have this system, or even if the region of Waterloo or Metropolitan Toronto wanted to give this all to the upper tier municipality, they can do so under this legislation.

Aside from the area of a commission rather than actual costs of administration, I think we have satisfied the consultative process and I hope I have answered the questions brought to us by the member for Waterloo North.

As far as the member for Oshawa is concerned, contrary to what he says, we know exactly what we are doing on this side of the House. He complains about the length of time it has taken, yet if we brought something in and laid it before the House, he would complain we did not consult. One of the reasons this bill is being dealt with today and was not dealt with a month ago when it was first on Orders and Notices is that the same member for Oshawa wanted time --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Is the member for Oshawa standing for a reason?

Mr. Breaugh: I am standing, Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege. I do not mean to clue in the member for Wilson Heights on anything at all, but this bill has been printed for some time. The government House leader can call it whenever he wants. The only provision I put to him is that it seems wise to me when the government goes through a consultation process --

The Acting Speaker: Your privilege has not been challenged. Would you please be seated.

Mr. Breaugh: If you hear the last half of this sentence, you might find it has been.

The Acting Speaker: No.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Wilson Heights should know that when the government pretends to have a consultation process and pretends to put forward the position of an organization such as AMO, a member of the Legislature such as myself can make a not unreasonable request to see that in writing rather than taking the parliamentary assistant at his word.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Wilson Heights deal with the bill only.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the bill and with the comments made by the member for Oshawa. The member is, of course, correct. He complained it took so long. I am saying the reason it took so long was the consultative process, something he endorsed. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot ask for time for consultation and then turn around and complain we take the time.

The Acting Speaker: Has the member for Wilson Heights finished on Bill 102?

Mr. Rotenberg: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you not interrupt me when I am speaking to the principle of the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, I would be honoured.

Mr. Rotenberg: I thank the member for Waterloo North for pointing out that the government knows what it is doing on this bill and the process. But the member for Oshawa, who admits the present legislation is somewhat outdated, says he is opposing the bill because he does not like it; and he offers no real alternative. That might be responsible opposition, but maybe that attitude is why that member and his colleagues are still in opposition.

Sure it is a complicated process but it has to be a complicated process. One of the reasons it is a complicated process is for the protection of individual citizens in this province. The third party from time to time tries to hold itself out as the party that wants to protect individual rights, but it is not.

What the member for Oshawa, who is not supporting this bill, calls complicated is simply making sure individual persons are protected. This is protection for individual taxpayers, individual property owners, even individual tenants -- whom we support and they claim to support. We on this side are the ones who help the tenants. It is the rights of all those individuals that are supported and protected; that is why we have this process.

I reject totally the argument of the member for Oshawa. I hope he and his party will reconsider. This is a bill that protects individual rights and individuals. With those remarks I would ask for support for second reading of this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 135, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I will speak very briefly because this is really a technical amendment. The purpose of Bill 135 is to give the province the ability to help municipalities that could be adversely affected by previous legislation. It would ensure that municipalities located within the jurisdiction of district welfare boards and district boards of homes for the aged do not experience adverse cost-sharing shifts due to changes to the Ontario unconditional grants program made earlier this year.

The bill proposes to allow the province to prescribe a year of resource equalization grant entitlement. This is to be used in determining an amount to be added to each municipality's equalization assessment. It would replace the present system where it must be simply the previous year. We have found in implementing the new grant system that some municipalities would be affected adversely by using the previous year instead of the designated year. We want to make this change to allow us to use a designated year so municipalities will not lose under the new system.

5 p.m.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I think the parliamentary assistant has said it all. There is no need to elaborate on that. We support the amendment. It is in keeping with what we would like to see anyway, so I will leave it at that.

Mr. Breaugh: We are on a roll today. We are going to oppose the bill.

Mr. Ruston: They only have two members here so they cannot really oppose.

Mr. Breaugh: If the member wants, we can ring the bell and bring some more in.

Mr. Ruston: How can you do that?

Mr. Breaugh: How many does the member have?

Mr. Ruston: About two or three.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member will speak to the bill and not allow himself to be distracted by these horrible interruptions.

Mr. Breaugh: You are supposed to protect me when I am attacked.

The Acting Speaker: I am trying to.

Mr. Breaugh: We are going to oppose the bill for a very simple reason. If someone came and said, "Here is the way we are going to give you your allowance next year," but did not bother to tell either the amount or the basis of the allowance, it seems to me one would be in a bit of a quandary as to what kind of financing he would have over the next little while.

In essence, that is what this bill does. It says this will, in effect, be done by the order-in-council approach. It will not come before the Legislature, there will not be any debate on it and the government will do it on its own.

It says, if I may read the pertinent little phrase, "or such other year as may be prescribed." I know the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) will find this astounding. From my point of view, I would like to know exactly what base year is going to be used. That would be a rather important piece of information.

Second, for some time I have not been happy, and the municipalities have not been happy, with the way unconditional grants are put out to the municipalities. We look at the system of trying to put a little fairness into the process of resource equalization grants and we find a similar compounding of the problem.

We have two choices. One could be grateful, and I suppose some municipalities will be, that there is potential here for them to get additional amounts of money, but I believe municipal governments in Ontario are more complicated and have more needs than that. They do not need a handout. What they need is a clear idea of what their financial situation will be with respect to unconditional grants and resource equalization grants.

We will extrapolate. The government, once again, will have at its disposal almost a secret weapon. It will decide the base year and the amount of the grants, and it will do so in private when it feels like doing so and in a manner in which it feels like doing so.

I believe municipal financing is so important that they ought to have a better set of rules than that under which to operate. I am really reluctant to look at a system such as this that will virtually allow the government to do what it wants in private, without the inconvenience of having to come to the Legislature to provide us with an accurate estimation of what the unconditional grants will be for the forthcoming year or the years after that. It does not really have to negotiate with anybody. It has an ability to set an arbitrary amount of money on its own. I believe that to be quite wrong.

I am anticipating that the member for Wilson Heights, foaming at the mouth, will tell us all about how wonderful this government has been to municipalities and how it always gives them more money than last year. I think it is time to address ourselves to the larger issue. We need to have a better formula for financing municipal governments than an unconditional grant system which is announced virtually at the minister's pleasure, and a resource equalization grant system which was set up to provide almost a temporary balancing-up of the funding system, but which has, in effect, become a way for ministers to go out and hand out cheques.

I believe that to be quite a wrong system. I am aware there probably will be some municipalities that will get more money under this proposal, but I think the process is a wrong one and that we should have addressed ourselves to that, instead of to the bill which is before us today. We will oppose it.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) for his approach to this bill, for his understanding of what the bill is and is not about, and also for his understanding that this is part of the consultative process with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and that it is because of the problems which have arisen under the new grants system that we had to bring it forward.

The response of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) was of course predictable. He did not want to discuss the bill, but to discuss things that are not in the bill. That is predictable and his opposition is also predictable. Whereas one party has responsible opposition, the other party has irresponsible opposition. I will leave it at that.

The year that will be used will be mainly the year 1983, which is the last year the resource equalization grant had a guarantee. However, there may be some other situations where it will be to the benefit of a municipality to use a previous year rather than 1983 or 1984 in order to make sure that a municipality does not lose on this.

Again, this is a result of our co-operation and consultation with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, particularly the AMO finance committee. This has its support, and I would commend the bill to the House.

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Mr. Bennett, has moved second reading of Bill 135.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL TAX SALES ACT

Consideration of Bill 102, An Act respecting the Sale of Lands for Arrears of Municipal Taxes.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that subsection 3(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after "treasurer" in the ninth line "unless otherwise directed by the municipal council."

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, basically the registration of tax certificates is done as an administrative procedure. As I indicated in my speech on second reading, from time to time some discretion is deemed to be appropriate on whether or not a tax certificate should be registered.

From time to time in our consultation process there was some disagreement among municipalities and some municipal associations. Some felt the treasurer should have the discretion, some felt the council should have the discretion and some felt there should be no discretion, that all the tax certificates should be registered no matter what the situation.

Having listened to everyone, and to the last position of AMO as well, we felt that if there is to be discretion, the discretion should be with the municipality and not with this government. Therefore, inserting the words in the clause that "the treasurer, unless otherwise directed by the municipal council, may" allows the municipality, in effect, to exercise any of the options.

In other words, the municipal council may otherwise direct the treasurer to register everything and have no discretion, the municipality may ask the treasurer to bring them all to its attention and the council may exercise the discretion, or the municipality may say to the treasurer, "You exercise your discretion on an administrative basis."

All the options are available to the municipality the way we have amended the act. As I say, we have done this in consultation with the municipal associations. The first draft was also done in consultation. There was some disagreement. Having put out the bill and had further consultation, as we always do, we find this seems to be the preferred position. The way we have it worded in this amendment, it will cover all the options and give each municipality the right to exercise that option if it desires.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant indicated to the House that the government had a choice between the province and the municipality and it decided in favour of the municipality. I commend it for this because we have a much better decision-making process at the municipal level.

Second, if it is between the municipal council and the treasurer, I think the municipal council should ultimately be responsible and the treasurer should get his instructions from the council.

I do not think there is any problem there. We wholeheartedly and without equivocation support the amendment.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. What happens when the treasurer does something which he has not been directed by the council to do and the council does not like what he did?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, in advance of that happening, the council may direct the treasurer how he shall operate. In other words, he shall draw everything to the council's attention, or just draw certain kinds of things to the council's attention or draw nothing to the council's attention.

If a council in its wisdom has given the treasurer certain discretion ahead of time and says, "You exercise your discretion," that is what it has done and the treasurer then goes ahead and exercises his discretion. However, even having that happen, after the treasurer has done it and reports to council, as he must, the council can then reverse the decision of the treasurer by taking away the discretion given to him in the first place. The council still has the ultimate authority.

Mr. Breaugh: That gives rise to one more question. I really wish the parliamentary assistant would try to answer the initial question. What happens if the council has set out some guidelines about how the notices would go out or what will be brought to the notice of the council? What happens if the council changes its mind afterwards? The treasurer has been given one set of guidelines to work with and does that. Does the council still retain a right to reconsider? How is that handled?

Mr. Rotenberg: The final say is always with the council. I cannot put my hand on the section, but there is a section under which a tax certificate can be withdrawn. If the treasurer registers a certificate and at some time during the year the person against whom it is registered appeals to the council, the council has the right to withdraw that certificate during the year. It can correct what might be deemed to be a mistake by the treasurer in exercising discretion, or the council may change its mind. Within that year, the council has the right at any time to change its mind and to withdraw the certificate.

On the other hand, if the treasurer decides not to register a certificate on a piece of property and it is drawn to the council's attention either through the treasurer's report or by some other citizen, the council can direct the treasurer to register the certificate which in his discretion he has decided not to register. That is because it says, "unless otherwise directed by council." Either way the council has the ultimate decision.

Mr. Breaugh: I want one final piece of information. What happens after a year in which, for example, a municipal council might change? It might even change its mind.

Mr. Rotenberg: Once the land has been sold, it is final. A council cannot change its mind after the land has been sold and registered. Even after it has gone out to tender, the council can still withdraw it. The final decision is still with council, but once it is sold, the sale is final and there is no recovery.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that subsection 8(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "A municipality, by a bylaw passed after the registration of a tax arrears certificate and before the expiry of the one-year period mentioned in subsection 9(1), may authorize an extension agreement with the owner of the land extending the period of time in which the cancellation price is to be paid and the agreement may be subject to such terms and conditions relating to payment as are set out in it but it shall not,

"(a) reduce the amount of the cancellation price or;

"(b) prohibit any person from paying the cancellation price at any time."

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, if the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) accuses us of not knowing what we are doing, this may be the only time where that is a possibility. This was a misprint.

We have consulted with the legislative counsel and it was indicated that we could not correct the misprint by editing, but had to bring in an amendment. If the member will look at the bill at the top of page 7, the words "shall not" apply to clause (a). They should apply to both clauses (a) and (b) and, therefore, the words "shall not" should come before clause (a) so that they will apply to both clauses (a) and (b).

As I say, this was a misprint. We do know what we are doing because we edit these things and read them over even after they are printed and even after they have had first reading. The misprint was caught and we have brought in this amendment to correct it.

Mr. Epp: To paraphrase Shakespeare, me-thinks thou doth protest too much or much ado about nothing or something like that.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to accept the parliamentary assistant's abject apology, heartfelt as it was.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment to subsection 8(1) carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.

On section 11:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that subsection 11(2) of this bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) Any notice required to be sent under this act to an assessed tenant in occupation of the land and to his or her spouse may be given to them jointly by personal delivery or by ordinary mail addressed to 'the occupant and spouse' at the address of the land."

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this is to clarify that the spouse as well as the tenant receives the notice. The word "spouse" was left out on the original draft.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I want to put on the record that I have some concern about the nature of the notice. I am not enthralled with the notion that a letter will go out by ordinary mail addressed to "the occupant and spouse." I receive lots of letters at my home sent by ordinary mail and addressed to the occupant and that kind of mail does not exactly get high priority treatment in my house.

It seems to me that the nature of the notice would indicate there was an obligation on the part of the municipality to do this in a somewhat different manner. It seems to me, frankly, quite beyond the pale to send out by ordinary mail letters of this nature addressed to "the occupant and spouse." I would like to know why.

Mr. Rotenberg: This is notice only to tenants, not to owners. In normal situations, this would be a tenant who does not have an interest in the land and is simply the tenant. Something new in this bill is that notice is being given to tenants, who, unlike owners, mortgagees or someone who has a registered interest in the land, do not have a financial interest in the land. It should not be required to add the cost of registered mail to the municipality for an apartment building with many tenants. For those who do not have a financial interest in the property, registered mail is not required.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not want to belabour the point. I like the idea of notice being given. My problem is the form. If it is sent by ordinary mail and if the phrase "To the occupant and spouse" is used, it will be received virtually as junk mail. The parliamentary assistant has a bit of an argument, I suppose, in saying these people are tenants and may or may not have a direct financial interest in the transaction.

It is also true that one of the reasons that will get them thrown out of there is the sale of the building for personal use. What sprang to my mind was that a lot of these procedures might be against duplexes, against people who have an apartment or something in a house. In my municipal experience that tends to be the kind of building in question in all of this.

It seems to me we owe the tenants a bit more than that. It is true, after all, that this particular piece of real estate would be in some question at that time. The tenants might well be thrown out on their ears, and the only notice they are going to get is going to be addressed to "Dear Occupant," which seems to me to be a strange way to proceed.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: The other problem where there are tenants is that quite often the assessment roll is not accurate. If we send it to Mr. X, who is the tenant on the assessment roll, and Mr. X has since departed and Mr. Y is now the tenant, instead of delivering the mail to Mr. Y as the new tenant, the mailman will take it back to the post office, mark it "Unknown," send it back and the occupant will get nothing.

It is really a matter of judgement as to which method would make sure the person who occupies that property as a tenant in whatever form, be it commercial, industrial or residential, will receive some form of notice. They get two notices, one at the beginning of the year and one after nine months.

As I say, it is a judgement call. We felt that in this way the tenant would have a better chance of receiving the notice than if it were sent to him on the basis of the assessment roll with his name on it, because that could be several years out of date and chances are in that situation that he might not get it either. As I say, we feel this is not a perfect method but it is a better method of making sure the tenants receive the notices.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Rotenberg's amendment to subsection 11(2) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 12 through 16, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 17:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that subsection 17(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) Where an agreement is in force under this section, the county treasurer has all of the powers of the treasurer of the local municipality in relation to the collection of tax arrears, including the power to sell land under this act, and the county treasurer shall perform all of the duties of the treasurer of the local municipality in relation thereto and only the county may pass bylaws under sections 8 and 15."

Mr. Rotenberg further moves that subsection 17(8) be struck out and that subsection 17(9) be renumbered accordingly.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to make it very plain that where a new tax agreement is brought forward between an upper-tier municipality or a county and a local municipality, the treasurer of the upper-tier will have all the powers, including the power to collect tax arrears. When the agreement is entered into, the county or upper-tier municipality will have all the powers that the treasurer of the local municipality would have if the local municipality exercised its powers under this act.

Since we have made sure that the treasurer of the upper-tier or the county has all the powers, subsection 17(8) is no longer required because subsection 17(8) simply made sure that the counties now in the agreement got those powers. We are now making sure that in every county or upper-tier municipality in which the agreement is brought forward, the treasurer will have all the powers of the local treasurer.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with the clarification here; we support it. I believe some municipalities have requested this, and it is something that will more closely meet their needs.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, the only comment I would make is that this is getting a little complicated. It points out some of my concern that this is going to be a difficult piece of legislation to explain to people on municipal councils and even more difficult to explain to the population at large.

I want to stick one little sentence on the record here. I think there is going to be some difficulty over the way this process works. It is not difficult to envisage that on a given day a lower-tier municipality will say, "The upper tier" -- whether it is the county or the region -- "is in a better position to do this kind of administrative work." Then we get into this kind of clarification of the bill and, in the practical ramifications of it all, the lower-tier community has lost its discretionary power to talk to people in its community and to rectify a local problem.

I am afraid the parliamentary assistant has simply put another bureaucratic face on something that is very complicated, and it is going to cause him at least some indigestion.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, the only problem and complication, unfortunately, is in the mind of the member for Oshawa. We already have some six counties that operate very happily under this system; we have other counties and other municipalities within counties that have requested it. Far from the system being complicated, it is being simplified.

As far as discretion is concerned, of course, when we turn over the powers to a higher municipality, we also turn over discretion. But even in village A, which has turned over its discretion to the county, at least one or two members of the village A council sit on the county council, and certainly any resident taxpayer of that municipality can approach his local member on the county council to have that matter brought forward. So the discretion will still be there at the local level.

Motion agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 18 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mr. Rotenberg, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

CITY OF SUDBURY HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Watson moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Andrewes, second reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the City of Sudbury Hydro-Electric Service Act.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, back in 1980 various parts of the city of Sudbury received electric service from Sudbury Hydro, Ontario Hydro and Inco Ltd. At the request of the city, the City of Sudbury Hydro-Electric Service Act was enacted, which allowed the municipal hydro commission to take over responsibility for the area previously served by Ontario Hydro. The status quo in the Copper Cliff area, which was served by Inco Ltd., was not interfered with.

Over the past few months, Inco Ltd. has offered to turn over its distribution system in the Copper Cliff area to the city hydro commission. Inco has made similar offers to dispose of its distribution systems in the towns of Onaping Falls and Walden. Bill 91, which received third reading on Friday, November 23, 1984, provides the enabling legislation for the system transfer in those towns in the region of Sudbury.

In a similar situation, Bill Pr39 was given second and third readings on November 23 to allow the town of Iroquois Falls to acquire an electrical distribution system from Abitibi-Price Inc. in the district of Cochrane.

The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) have indicated their support for the amendments, and Mayor Wong of Sudbury has requested that the amendments to the act proceed as soon as possible.

Accordingly, this amendment will give the Sudbury Hydro-Electric Commission the right to distribute and supply electrical power in areas where the commission purchases the assets used to supply the power. It is enabling legislation. It is a little more than housekeeping, but it tends to be a clarification as to their ability to make that purchase.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have not travelled to Sudbury to take a look at the ingredients of this bill as to what it is actually going to do, as I am sure the parliamentary assistant has not. The interesting part is that it is going to clarify some of the legislation. What it does in essence is it supports a principle that we hold very dear. It is going to enhance greater local autonomy for the local municipal utility. It is going to give them a little more control. As the honourable member said, it is going to facilitate purchasing additional utilities and, to that extent, we support it.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, in sharp contrast to the previous two pieces of legislation, which were ill-thought-out and awkwardly presented -- it is no wonder I opposed those -- I am in support of this legislation.

Mr. Ruston: The member for Sudbury East told the member that. He said he wanted to support it.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Sudbury East, as always, has done his homework on the matter. In his own quiet way he intimated to me he thought this legislation was worthy of support.

In a nutshell, the major impact of the legislation before us was captured in a letter from the chairman of Sudbury Hydro, Elmer McVey. I will quote a little bit from it:

"Copper Cliff residential customers will incur an approximate six per cent increase in their bills if Sudbury Hydro takes over and a nine to 12 per cent increase if Ontario Hydro does."

That says it all. There is a chance this facility will be taken over by Ontario Hydro. Those of us who have seen Hydro at its finest know that is something to be avoided at all costs.

This legislation is fairly straigtforward and worthy of our support. We give it that.

In closing, I note that we are one step away from having the pages taking legislation through this House. There is not a minister of the crown present.

Mr. Ruston: Not one minister in the House.

Mr. Breaugh: Not one -- not even the minister from Sudbury; he is off at the Board of Internal Economy. There was some argument over who would carry this bill. Members may note it is printed in the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), who is, of course, long gone. The government House leader then put a little motion through here saying it was in the name of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes). He too is long gone; so we are a long way down the list.

I fully anticipate that some time next week it will be the pages standing in the places opposite who will be carrying legislation in here. They probably would do a much better job. Certainly they would not be as inept as the member for Wilson Heights. The only advantage the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) has is that he has not yet learned to speak.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other honourable members with any further comment? Does the parliamentary assistant have further comments?

Mr. Epp: There is not a single member in the first or second row in this House; there is not a single cabinet minister.

Mr. Gillies: We do not need the front benches to handle the members opposite.

Mr. Kolyn: There is no one on the member's front benches over there either.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We were proceeding nicely.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a quorum call, if I might.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

5:36 p.m.

Clerk of the House: There is a quorum plus one, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum plus one being present, I recognize the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the members opposite for their support. I note the great increase in the number of members of the New Democratic Party; it has increased by 50 per cent. That is pretty good. In percentage terms, they win that one.

I also fully agree with the honourable member's comments about the pages. Before too long, I suspect, some of them may be bringing in legislation. The fact that my son happens to be serving as a page now has nothing to do with that, but it makes it appropriate. I will take it as a compliment.

An hon. member: Back to the bill.

Mr. Watson: Back to the bill. I appreciate the comments. We do agree that it is a clarification bill. I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 132.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

The House adjourned at 5:39 p.m.

November 26, 1984