Hansard Transcript 1986-Jun-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That in the opinion of this House, the government through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, should proceed with construction of a rapid transit line along Eglinton Avenue, servicing the neighbouring municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, recognizing that another population boom is expected to add 1.5 million people to these regions over the next 15 years.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is what one calls an amended motion.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, as you know, as is the practice with the Clerk of the House when a motion is submitted to him, some editing is done for purposes of printing cost, I expect. I did express this concern to the Clerk. I will be happy to read the motion as it is stated in Orders and Notices and then follow in my remarks with my full motion.

Mr. Gregory moved resolution 38:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing the population boom to be expected in the neighbouring regions of Metropolitan Toronto in the immediate future, the government should proceed with the construction of a rapid transit line along Eglinton Avenue, servicing those neighbouring municipalities.

Mr. Gregory: That is the wording of the motion as it appears on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation, and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Gregory: May I speak for 15 minutes and reserve five minutes? Perhaps someone can warn me at that time.

As I began in the beginning:

That in the opinion of this House, the government, through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, should proceed with construction of a rapid transit line along Eglinton Avenue, servicing the neighbouring municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, recognizing that another population boom is expected to add 1.5 million people to these regions over the next 15 years.

Twenty-six years of background information can be found that supports public transit improvements in the greatest-demand areas, identifying in all cases the Eglinton corridor in west-central Metro. The Eglinton line will create a pattern of stability within which seriously planned development and redevelopment can be created by each municipality through which Eglinton Avenue passes. Construction of the Eglinton line is vital to Metro's good health. Metro will be strengthened, both by internally servicing its own population and industry more efficiently and by providing the broadest access to all municipalities within any surrounding Metro borders.

In proposing this resolution, I hope to demonstrate to members of this Legislature, and particularly to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), the benefits of an Eglinton rapid transit line for Mississauga, Metro and surrounding regions, York and Etobicoke, and to show the need for such a service before the turn of the century.

To begin, I point out that a proposal for a transit line along Eglinton Avenue does not represent a new idea. Over the past 26 years, Eglinton Avenue has been identified as part of many proposals for improving the rapid transit network in west-central Metro.

At this point, I want to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mrs. McDowell, whose extensive research on this matter has led me to gain even more interest in the project. The research this lady has done on the history of Eglinton Avenue, covering not only the past 26 years but also many more years dating back to the 1800s, is very impressive.

The growing transportation crisis in the greater Toronto area, especially at the Peel-Metro boundary, has become increasingly evident during the past few years. The roots of the problem lie in the population and employment growth patterns and the resulting travel implications. To provide a clearer understanding of the growth patterns, it is necessary that I incorporate in my comments some facts and figures.

During the past 10 years, the population and the labour force in the region of Peel have increased by 61 per cent and 89 per cent. During this period, total person-trips eastbound at the morning peak period have increased steadily by 76 per cent, this in spite of internal employment growth of 73 per cent for the same period.

It is estimated that about 664,000 person-trips cross the Peel-Metro boundary in both directions between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. each day: eight per cent by bus, four per cent by commuter rail and 88 per cent by car. During the morning peak period, 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., about 50,000 and 89,000 person-trips cross the boundary westbound and eastbound.

These figures show there is significant traffic volume in both directions across the Peel-Metro boundary. The 73 per cent employment growth in Peel further highlights this point.

Projected population and employment growth for the Toronto region indicates a large expected increase in travel volumes across the boundary. Metro Toronto is foreseen to experience slow population growth while more than half the population growth in the Toronto region is expected to occur in Peel-Halton, with 27 per cent in York and 14 per cent in Durham.

Metro will continue to experience employment growth which will predominantly be filled by non-Toronto residents, and particularly by Peel residents. Peel employment will also increase, but the labour force is not expected to increase at the same rate, resulting in continued imbalance in the regional patterns of population and employment distributions. The travel implications of the projected population and employment growth for the Toronto region are going to require significant improvements to the existing transportation network.

A 1981 study investigated the feasibility of increasing the number of lanes from Mississauga at the Etobicoke boundary to accommodate further traffic flow to Metro. The study concludes that travel at the boundary is going to increase so dramatically over the next 25 years that it is expected to quadruple by the year 2011, while the capacity of the road system, currently at or near full capacity, cannot be expanded in any significant way.

10:10 a.m.

One of the key solutions to the problem is to stimulate a shift in modal split across the boundary in favour of transit. An Eglinton rapid transit line would contribute significantly towards achieving this objective. The existing and growth figures referred to earlier indicate high ridership levels, which are necessary to ensure that operation of the service is economically feasible. Ridership will inevitably increase as many will shift from auto trips to transit given the road network, already at capacity, not being able to accommodate the forecast auto demand by the year 2011.

The Eglinton rapid transit line will have many benefits to both Metro and the surrounding regions. These benefits further justify early implementation of the line. Some of the more significant benefits are summarized as follows.

An Eglinton rapid transit line will enhance the economic development objectives of Metro by supplying the required labour force to compensate for the growing imbalance between the resident labour force and job demand. It will also support the development of two major traffic generators, namely, the Mississauga City Centre and Pearson International Airport, where about 10,000 and 12,000 jobs currently are located. The Mississauga City Centre is the only major centre not now served by a major transit service.

The line will increase in general the modal split in favour of transit, which leads to greater fuel efficiency and conservation of energy. It will also be the only rapid transit line directly serving five local municipalities: the cities of Toronto, North York, York, Etobicoke and Mississauga.

Other benefits of the Eglinton rapid transit line include improved transit accessibility in the northwest quadrant of Metro Toronto, which is completely devoid of any rapid transit facility at present. The Eglinton line will be the first rapid transit facility in the city of York, which is the only municipality in Metro Toronto not served by at least one rapid transit line.

It will improve the functioning of the Bloor-Danforth subway by reducing its peak loads west of St. George station while also providing a good alternative route to passengers in instance of breakdown on the Bloor-Danforth line.

The Eglinton line will move the centre of gravity of the Metro rapid transit network farther to the northwest, which is compatible with the direction of urban development. The level of service along the roads at the Peel-Metro boundary and overall traffic conditions will be improved by diverting some auto trips to transit.

In my opinion, which I believe is supported by other members of this Legislature, the abovementioned merits are more than enough to justify that an Eglinton rapid transit line should be built ahead of all other plans. It should also be noted that the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto supported the Eglinton line as a top priority in its recent submission to Metro Toronto council's transportation committee.

I also point out that the Network 2011 report was prepared without an invitation for representation or input from Peel. Of the five recommended priorities, only one penetrates beyond the Metro boundary: the Eglinton facility. In my judgement, the implications of Metro's recommendations will have a serious impact on Peel and the city of Mississauga, and the cities of York and Etobicoke will suffer from delayed improvements of transit service along Eglinton Avenue. The Metro report has downplayed the concerns of its surrounding regions, on which Metro depends for its employment growth.

Further, the Minister of Transportation and Communications should be commended for his recent announcement that he intends to implement a recommendation put to him by Peel, York and Etobicoke to establish a joint committee to evaluate all major transportation decisions prior to any statement concerning the Network 2011 report. I am very encouraged by the minister's statement and feel it brings good news for our cause.

Whether the province funds 75 per cent of the cost, as recent reports have indicated may not be the case, it is certain the province will pay a fair share of the $2.7-billion cost of the construction of all three Network 2011 proposals. For this reason, I believe any further transportation improvements must promote a balance between the municipalities and regions. The province's role in assessing and evaluating Metro's report is therefore extremely important, not only to Metro but also to all the surrounding municipalities.

With this resolution, I am hoping to convince the province through the Minister of Transportation and Communications that there is an urgent need for the Eglinton West rapid transit line.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time I have left.

The Deputy Speaker: You have eight minutes and 28 seconds.

Mr. Gregory: Fine. Thank you. I would like to go back and touch again on some of the points that are very important to this.

The Network 2011 plan does not adequately serve or take into account the transportation planning and development objectives of the surrounding regions, including the region of Peel. Interregional matters are not given significant weight in the selection of transit priorities. This is reflected in third priority for the Eglinton line.

There is currently a major deficiency of rapid transit service in northwest Metro, resulting in poor accessibility between Peel and Metro. The existing priority identified by the Network 2011 study will do little to change this situation for another 25 years. The Eglinton line provides the greatest improvement and new accessibility to rapid transit within two kilometres from the Spadina subway to the Mississauga City Centre, while the Sheppard and downtown lines have substantial overlap in their proposed transit service areas.

Northwest Metro has been subject to severe transportation impacts generated by the fastest overall growth in the province from Peel and Halton regions. During the past 10 years, the population and labour force in Peel have increased by 61 per cent and 89 per cent. During this period, total person-trips eastward during peak morning periods have increased steadily by 76 per cent. This increase has occurred in spite of internal employment growth of 73 per cent during the same period.

Metro Toronto population is foreseen to experience slow or no growth, while more than half the total population growth in Toronto region is expected to take place in Peel-Halton, with 27 per cent in York and 14 per cent in Durham. Population and employment growth will have serious travel implications if improved service is not granted to the existing Peel-Metro cross-boundary traffic network.

The Eglinton rapid transit line will have many benefits to Peel, Metro and the other surrounding regions. These benefits further justify early implementation of the line before the turn of the century and reflect a higher priority than is currently indicated in Metro's Network 2011 study.

I ask the members of all parties in the Legislature to consider this resolution seriously. I know my friend the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) is going to take a very careful look at it, since he and I share the boundary of our ridings on Eglinton Avenue. Naturally, he will be very susceptible to my idea. I request support of the members of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my remaining five minutes for a summary later on.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Rae: It is with considerable pleasure that I rise to take part in this discussion since it is a subject that has long been of interest to me and one for which I am glad to say the minister is here to listen. The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), who just moved the resolution, and I so rarely agree on anything that I thought it appropriate for me to be in the House today. I know leaders do not often participate in private members' resolutions, but since it is such a red-letter day when the Mississauga rattler and I can agree on anything, I am delighted to be here to be in support of his resolution.

The reason this debate is of greater significance than it will be given by observers in the media is that it allows this House, for the first time, to consider and debate what is going to be an increasingly important debate about the transportation priorities in the greater Toronto area, the broader area surrounding Metro. An agenda has been established in the document called Network 2011, put out in draft form by Metropolitan Toronto council, the transportation committee thereof, and the Toronto Transit Commission. We have conflicting and competing agendas being considered by Metro and by the provincial government. This debate gives us an opportunity in this House to begin to become more publicly involved in this process. It is with considerable pleasure that I do so as the member for York South.

I am delighted to see so many representatives of ratepayers from the city of York and from my constituency here today, as well as the aldermen, who are both here; it gives me real pleasure to see the degree of interest. It is fair to say that many people in the city of York feel, not only in terms of many other aspects of government planning but also when it comes to transportation, that the needs of the people of the city of York have been seriously and systematically underestimated by government. I rise to support the proposal with respect to a rapid transit line that would go west, using Eglinton Avenue as the basis for that line, for two reasons.

First, I am convinced that the focus for the setting of priorities on transit has to be broader than the boundaries that were established in 1953 when we set up the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Second, I am convinced that we have to see rapid transit and the expansion of our subway system as an essential counterbalance to the tremendous inclination on the part of planners and other people to see highways and expressways as the answer to the problem. It is for these reasons that I rise to speak today.

With respect to the nature of development and planning, I do not rise simply as someone whose riding is to the west of Yonge Street. All of us who live west of Yonge Street can say we have a vested interest, as it were, in seeing that we get the transit line first or that we have higher priorities as opposed to some other part of Metro. That is not the nature of my intervention today.

The nature of my intervention is to say to the minister that when it comes to establishing the priorities, they have to be established at the provincial level and not simply by Metro Toronto. This is not simply a TTC decision or a Metro decision. This is a decision that has to be made in the broader context of what is happening to population, what is happening to growth, what is happening to development and what is happening to employment, not simply over the next couple of years but over the next 20 or 30 years.

As New Democrats, we are perhaps habitually prone to criticize, but let us look for a moment at the imagination and the commitment that went into the building of the existing TTC rapid transit system. A lot of imagination, a lot of planning, a lot of commitment and, if I may so, a lot of jobs went into the initial phase of transportation planning with respect to rapid transit decisions that took place 20 and 30 years ago. We are equally bound today to be imaginative and creative as we create the new rapid transit system that will be in place for the 21st century. Just as people then planned quite effectively and well, we have to do so today.

I say to the minister, this is not a time to be allowing one's priorities to be set simply on the basis of going to the province and saying, "The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto has a rapid transit organization and we have extensive capital needs; these are our needs," and having the province respond, "We can give you some of these, but we cannot give you all of them; here is a bit of this and a bit of that." This is not a time for a piecemeal solution. This is a time to sit down, not only with Metro but also with Peel.

I have written to the minister about this and attempted to speak to MPPs from all parties who share a similar interest and who recognize that the degree of population growth that is going to take place west of Metro is astounding. The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry. We do not know exactly how many, we do not know the numbers and we do not know what may change. We do know that today we have an area increasingly underserviced in terms of the quality of its public transportation. It is underserviced because so many of the people now living in Peel region work in Metro and have difficulty getting to Metro. Even those who are within Metropolitan Toronto, who live in York and Etobicoke, are underserviced in terms of being able to get to the centre of town.

I said there were two reasons for my intervention. The first one has to do with the nature of development and planning and the fact that we are living in the greater Toronto area, where the boundaries that were established in 1953 begin to look increasingly artificial when we consider the transportation needs of these people.

It is up to the provincial government to establish that fact clearly and to demonstrate its leadership by saying very clearly to other levels of government, "We are going to co-ordinate the planning, and we are going to make the decision on the basis of what we think makes sense for greater Toronto and for the southern Ontario area in terms of a regional plan." It has to be a greater regional plan. It cannot simply be a plan that is determined by Metro in the interests of what it sees as the interests of 1985-86. The decision cannot simply be made on the basis of what looks as though it might be the case in 1986. It has to be based on what is going to happen and what is going to be the long-term trend.

Very briefly, in the time remaining to me, I want to say why I believe in a rapid transit line rather than the bus route, which is recommended to start in 1999 in the Network 2011 report, and why the rapid transit line is essential. Anybody who drives around today in this part of Ontario knows full well that planning has been so poor and the degree of concentration of economic growth in downtown Toronto has been so great that we face ever-increasing pressure on our roads and on our highways. There are ever-increasing demands with respect to the growth of expressways.

That is not the way to go. We have to look at a rapid transit route. We have to give the public a transit alternative. We have to make it clear that we cannot simply continue to clog our highways, our byways and our roads the way they are being clogged today. We have to deal with the problem with a continuing commitment to the expansion of the rapid transit system. This is a time for imagination, a time for creativity and a time for public investment.

It may look as if it is going to cost some money -- and I know the minister has looked at the dollars, raised his eyebrows and said, "My God, how can we possibly afford to do that?" -- but I ask the minister how we can afford not to do it. We cannot afford not to have the kind of creativity and imagination that have gone into the building of a very good system of transportation, but one that drastically needs investment, drastically needs to be enriched and drastically needs to be improved.

This is a very good way to go. I commend the member for Mississauga East for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter today.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. Offer: I am pleased to rise and join in the debate on the resolution introduced by the member for Mississauga East. At the outset, it appears that the basis for this resolution stems from the Metro Toronto report known as Network 2011. This comprehensive report on the potential future of the greater Toronto area transportation matrix calls for a total expenditure of some $2.7 billion and talks about a construction span of something in the neighbourhood of 28 years.

It is important to understand clearly at this juncture that this initiative is a Toronto Transit Commission proposal. Among other things, the proposal encompasses five routes of transportation systems in five areas where those systems should and might be increased. The five routes include the Sheppard subway. Second, it talks about a downtown relief line. The third, which has been alluded to so far today, is the Eglinton West rapid transit system. The fourth is a harbourfront light rail transit line. The fifth is a Spading LRT line.

It is true that the provincial government is and should be very involved, in that its responsibility for this type of transportation system could amount to something in the vicinity of 75 per cent of the cost. However, it is also true that Network 2011 is at this point a TTC initiative. I believe it will be discussed next week by a joint committee meeting of Metro council. Whatever permeates from that meeting will be discussed by Metro council in the latter part of this month. Therefore, if this resolution is directed to what that decision ought to be, it may be a bit premature or presumptuous, on the basis that the questions have not yet even been put to the joint committee meeting.

Having said that, I have read the resolution very carefully, and it talks about proceeding with a rapid transit line along Eglinton Avenue. The resolution is silent, though, about when construction should proceed and with respect to how the line ought to be prioritized within the context of Network 2011. I am somewhat. concerned about this silence, this vagueness. I agree with the member for Mississauga East that a rapid transit line along Eglinton Avenue is required, but one should discuss in greater detail how important this type of line is.

As the member for Mississauga North, I hope any discussion of the prioritization contained within Network 2011 by any of the people who make these decisions will take certain indisputable facts into account. We know that over the next 25 years, development within the greater Toronto area is expected to continue at a steady pace. The present population of 3.5 million is going to come close to five million. A lot of that growth is going to be found within the Peel region. Peel is going to set the pace, I believe, followed by the York and Durham regions.

Employment in the Peel region will make even greater gains. It is anticipated that within that time span, approximately one third of the new jobs will be in Peel, one third in Metro Toronto and one third in the remaining regions. It is important to keep in mind the great demands we are going to have from areas to the west, from the Peel region in particular. Peel is a region of monumental growth, varied business activity and increasing business growth.

Although I indicate my support for the resolution, I specifically note that it could have gone further. I direct that comment to the member for Mississauga East.

We know many dollars are being spent now with respect to transportation within the greater Toronto area. The province contributes almost 50 per cent of the annual cost of that expenditure, with contributing amounts coming from the municipalities and transit users. The magnitude of this investment, combined with the basic importance of transportation to our social and economic development, makes it essential that any planning efforts take into account all the factors affecting future demand.

The province recognizes the need to provide an efficient network of roads and transit for the residents in the greater Toronto area. I am not supposed to speak for the member for Mississauga East but, as we travel along the Queen Elizabeth Way each and every day, we know there is much room for improvement with respect to access from the Toronto area to the Peel region and vice versa. We know there is great growth, especially within the city of Mississauga and the city of Brampton. We know that growth is not going to end tomorrow; it is going to continue for many years. We also know there are going to be greater demands made upon our existing transportation systems, which are at capacity or overburdened at this time and which need great relief. The Eglinton line is a start in that direction.

With respect to any investigation of the future of the transportation system throughout the greater Toronto area, including Peel, it is responsible to take a look at the current population, the growth of population, business growth, business activity, the types of businesses being formed in different areas, how they are being formed, when they are being formed, the future potential of these areas and what now exists, the transportation facilities now at hand.

Notwithstanding the fact that I, as the member for Mississauga North, come with certain preferences -- as do the member for Mississauga East and the leader of the third party as well as many people in Metro, North York and Scarborough, all of whom have their own preferences -- it is my opinion that a responsible and rational investigation of this nature must use actual, indisputable facts.

I believe the Eglinton line will bode well after that type of investigation. After looking at facts, figures and trends, the Eglinton line will prove to be a possible prioritization within Network 2011. It would be remiss on the part of all of us not to acknowledge that this type of investigation must proceed. Personal preference is important, but rational investigation of hard facts must proceed. I say that because I am confident that type of investigation or examination will prove the Eglinton line to be the line of most demand and greatest need. Therefore, I am very happy to support this resolution.

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Leluk: On behalf of the constituents of York West and the people of the city of Etobicoke, I appreciate this opportunity to support the resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Mississauga East and enthusiastically endorse the urgent need for an Eglinton West rapid transit line, a line that would effectively and efficiently serve many regions of Metro, including York West and Etobicoke.

I echo the concerns recently expressed by the mayor of Etobicoke, Bruce Sinclair, that Etobicoke's local streets are daily becoming more and more crowded by traffic from the residents of Peel fighting to get to work in downtown Toronto. The traffic situation in Etobicoke, particularly on the major arteries, is already serious and, without an Eglinton West rapid transit line, will soon result in congested chaos.

Recent studies and statistics underscore the situation. Within 20 years, more than 50 per cent of all daily traffic from Peel region will cross Etobicoke's western boundary. Within 20 years, 28 per cent of all traffic leaving Peel will be headed towards Etobicoke, while a further 26 per cent will pass through Etobicoke to go downtown.

Metro Toronto's Network 2011 report notes that 132,725 vehicles enter Metropolitan Toronto in the morning peak, with 48 per cent of this traffic arriving from the west crossing the Metro west boundary. The number of persons arriving through Etobicoke in the same time period represents 56 per cent of the total. In other words, more than half of all Metro-bound commuters enter Etobicoke every morning.

The report also indicates that transit users who cross the Metro boundary will increase in numbers more so than those using transit within Metro itself and that the cross-Metro increase will be particularly marked in the west. The report further notes that 16,827 people cross into Metro daily on GO trains, with almost 75 per cent of these passengers arriving from the west.

Over the next 25 years, development within the greater Toronto area is expected to continue at a steady pace. The present population of 3.4 million will likely increase to 4.6 million. Most of this population growth will occur in the regions surrounding Metro. York region in particular has been singled out among those that will set the pace.

Employment forecasts also predict that the heaviest employment growth will occur in the regions around Metro. Approximately 40 per cent of this employment growth will take place in the region of Peel, located immediately west of Etobicoke. This will result in substantial accelerated demand for increased transportation services across the Metro west boundary. Population growth predictions, economic expansion forecasts and ridership studies all point west with respect to the fastest and the most growth. They all point to the urgent and vital need for an Eglinton West rapid transit line.

During the past 10 years, there has been a noted increase in GO Transit rail passengers. Recent reports project this increasing trend will continue and suggest GO Transit might largely solve the west-Metro boundary commuting problem. A strong pitch for a much-improved GO Transit service has been made with a recently released publication, reported in yesterday's Globe and Mail, entitled West Metro Boundary Transportation Review. Authored by the Metropolitan Toronto planning department, the report suggests that if GO Transit service were substantially improved, its relieving effect could postpone the time when the Bloor-Danforth subway line reaches capacity.

Assuming such relief, the report maintains that the need for an Eglinton West transit line will become less urgent. There are several things wrong with this assumption. GO Transit has traditionally been a very specialized service, with trains departing in the morning and afternoon rush hours only, except for the Lakeshore line, and transporting people from catchment areas near stations along the route to Union Station. Unless a person lives within one of the catchment areas and works within a short distance of Union Station, the service is not at all attractive.

On a second point, the railways have been reluctant to agree to GO service expansion since it would seriously impede the movement of freight trains using the same tracks. To my knowledge, there have been no assurances so far that they would be willing to agree to a much expanded GO service.

On a final point, to enhance the attractiveness to some degree of using GO Transit, fare integration would have to ensure that a person could ride with one fare and use local buses, GO Transit and the TTC system. This has been discussed on and off for the past 15 years or more but owing to the different tax bases of the neighbouring municipalities, on which the running of train systems relies, there have been many insurmountable obstacles. Short of very substantial subsidies from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to overcome the fare integration problem, it is difficult to see an early solution to this problem.

On May 26, at an emergency meeting which I attended, the councils of the cities of Etobicoke and York unanimously approved a motion urging the province to give high priority to the Eglinton West rapid transit line. The motion supports a plan to serve Metro as well as several surrounding regions. With regard to Metro's Network 2011 transit priorities, Etobicoke's view, reinforced by the provincial government's position, is that the Eglinton West rapid transit line appears to be the only proposal that will inherently serve both regional objectives.

I am encouraged that the provincial government favours a balanced transportation system, and I am very pleased to know that the aim of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is to promote transportation projects deemed most beneficial in the context of the entire greater-Toronto area. I join with the member for Mississauga East in commending the Minister of Transportation and Communications for having recently established a provincial committee to carefully evaluate all transit development options prior to making a public statement concerning Metro's Network 2011 report. The people of York West and the city of Etobicoke are extremely anxious, as I am, that an Eglinton West rapid transit line be given urgent priority consideration and subsequent commencement and completion as soon as possible.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the present government to recognize the regional significance as well as the local significance of an Eglinton West rapid transit line. Such a line will benefit the citizens of the several municipalities it transects, namely, Metro, North York, York, Etobicoke and Mississauga. I encourage the present government to provide provincial funding to cover 75 per cent of the construction cost, this being the level of transit development funding established by the previous government.

I urge all members of this House to give serious consideration to supporting the resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Mississauga East this morning.

Mrs. Grier: I am pleased to participate in this debate this morning and to support the motion put forward by the member for Mississauga East, although I find it a little difficult to understand the hesitations expressed by the member for Mississauga North. I was not quite aware, until his final sentence, whether he was going to support the resolution. I am glad he wound up saying he was going to support it, but I point out to him that when he says this debate perhaps is premature because Metro has not yet taken a position on the Network 2011 report, it was the Minister of Transportation and Communications, in his letter of May 14 to the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, who pointed out that the province wanted to talk about transit priorities on a regional basis.

In my opinion, this debate is very timely. It is appropriate and important that the members of this Legislature go on record as supporting the motion put forward by the member for Mississauga East. The debate is not only important with respect to transit planning, which needs to be done on a regional basis as opposed to a local or parochial basis, but also because we have to take into account the interests of transit as opposed to roads.

I worry when the Minister of Transportation and Communications calls for a balanced transportation system, because in the past that balance has always favoured expressways. I hope that when he says "balance" he means balance and that we are not going to go back to the period of ever-increasing road improvements and ever-widening roads that inexorably led to expressways. That was put to rest by the former Premier when he closed the Spading expressway, and it was well laid to rest. We do not need it in Metro or in the regions surrounding Metro.

10:50 a.m.

My interest in the Eglinton transit corridor began when I was a member of Etobicoke council. We debated an expressway, as that corridor was first supposed to be in the early 1970s, but when expressways were killed in Metropolitan Toronto, Etobicoke had the foresight to preserve that right of way for a transit corridor. All through the years since, when development has been proposed -- apartment buildings and subdivisions on either side of Eglinton Avenue -- it has been designed to take into account that the corridor is one day going to have rapid transit. As a result, a great deal of development has occurred, and the population to be served by such a transit corridor is in place.

We have heard from other members of the very rapid growth that has occurred to the west in Mississauga. In my experience with planning in Metro and in the Toronto-centred region, if anybody remembers the Toronto-centred-region plan, we seem to have gone back and forth from regional planning to local planning. It has become ever more apparent, especially where transit is concerned, that we have to look regionally, and that is why this debate is important.

I remind the members of the House that when Metro began to develop its own official plan, known as MetroPlan, it began with a review of transportation improvements, the Soberman study, which talked about the network of transportation as an essential component of any official plan. That official plan, when it was finally adopted, called for decentralization of growth and development in Metropolitan Toronto. The way to achieve that decentralization is to build the transit network.

We only have to look at the development that has occurred at the extensions of the subway lines, not only in Metro but also in other cities, to know it works. If we do not want all the development to occur in the heart of downtown Toronto, then we have to provide the rapid transit that will enable people to develop subcentres out in the regions and on the periphery of Metropolitan Toronto.

Another reason this transit plan is very important is that it provides the link between downtown Toronto and the airport. We have in Metropolitan Toronto a world-class city -- to use the adjective so favoured by the government of the day -- that does not have a rapid transit link to its international airport. That transit link is long overdue. If it is ever to occur, it will occur by way of a transit line along the Eglinton corridor. That is another important reason why priority should be given to the Eglinton rapid transit line and why it has to be built quickly.

We have heard from my colleagues in Mississauga the statistics and the data about the growth of development to the west of Metropolitan Toronto, about the cordon count and the incredibly rapid growth of cars into the downtown area through the western boundary. If we do not get on with building this transit corridor, we will have created in Etobicoke one vast parking lot at the end of the existing subway line or, if not a parking lot, a series of roads clogged with cars at the morning and evening rush hours. The pressure to widen the arterial roads out into Mississauga will be inexorable, and that will have a very detrimental effect on Etobicoke.

We also have the need for this rapid transit line to utilize the existing transit corridors better. The Spadina subway line has traditionally been underutilized, and the linkage that would be provided by a transit line along Eglinton would greatly balance the use of the existing system. It would balance the investment that has already been made.

There is an unequivocal case in favour of giving priority to rapid transit along Eglinton Avenue through the cities of York, Etobicoke and Mississauga. It makes sense from a planning point of view, from a development point of view and from an economic point of view. I hope all members of the Legislature will support the resolution of the member for Mississauga East and that the Minister of Transportation and Communications will take that expression of support into account when making his decisions about transportation planning for Metropolitan Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The member for Frontenac-Addington. You have two minutes.

Mr. South: It is with pleasure that I speak in regard to the member for Mississauga East's resolution. I neither support nor oppose it, but I think it is time that we pause and wonder where we are going. It is more than 150 years now since Cooke, Wheatstone and Morse perfected the telegraph and we were taken away from the necessity of depending on the weather and less dependable things to move messages. From that, we evolved to the telephone, radio, television and now the computer, which is the area we must think about.

The computer has the ability to store and sort information, which we hope we can then retrieve. We are now planning and building for the younger generation -- such as the young people in the public gallery today, who are completely familiar and at ease with the computer. The possibility of people doing more work in their homes is here now. I believe we should grasp this technology. The prospect is for small local centres, much the size of local banks, where a score of workers can be located. They can compute with their central filing systems --

The Acting Speaker: Your time has elapsed.

Mr. Gregory: I am delighted to hear the degree of support in this House. I must confess to being a little confused by the remarks of the member for Frontenac-Addington. I am not sure he is on the same resolution as we are. With the greatest respect, I do not know what his point is. I wish we could have heard 10 minutes of his speech to determine what he is talking about.

I am very pleased to have the support of the leader of the third party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae). When I first heard him voicing his support, I wondered whether I should go back and re-examine my position. On sober second thought, I am pleased he has seen the light and the intelligence of this resolution. I very much welcome his support. The arguments he makes are very valid, the main point being that rapid transit in Metro Toronto cannot be planned in isolation from the surrounding communities, as has been done in the past.

There is now not only the Network 2011 proposal, a recommendation made to Metro Toronto council, but also a recent finding by the same body which totally upsets the first recommendation and which is signed by the same three people who signed the first report. I do not know what they are trying to find, unless it is a deliberate move to make sure the Sheppard line gets first priority. The facts that have been presented by the planning staffs of the region of Peel, the city of Etobicoke and the city of York bear out the importance of placing Eglinton as the first priority in this plan.

11 a.m.

I am very pleased to have the support of my neighbour the member for Mississauga North. He had me a little confused and worried at first. As I mentioned, he was trying to ride the horns of a dilemma without knowing which way to go, although he came out very clearly in support of this proposal in his last sentence. That is a very wise decision on his part and shows he has learned a great deal since the last election. We have found a way to communicate and support one another in a joint cause, and I welcome that support.

The member for York West (Mr. Leluk) has been attending the same meetings and hearing the same things that I have. He has realized all along that the Eglinton line should be the number one priority. This is not based on any parochial interest; it might appear to the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) that this is so, but it is not so. It is based on factual planning.

During the discourse the member for Erie asked, "What have you been doing for the past 42 years?" I point out to him that all the transit built in Toronto during the past 42 years occurred under the government of this party. That is what we have been doing for 42 years. The entire Toronto Transit Commission and probably even the transit system that serves Erie was done under the previous government. I will be delighted to take the member for Erie for a ride in my car to show him precisely where Eglinton Avenue is. That might convince him to support this cause as well.

Mrs. Grier: You should take him in rush hour.

Mr. Gregory: I am very pleased to have the support of the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier). She raises a valid point. I touched on it in my remarks, but she has reinforced it. There is the need to have rapid transit support for Pearson International Airport, What a service it would be to the people of Metro Toronto and all the surrounding areas to be able to take rapid transit directly to the airport.

I am sure the minister will take that into account. I urge him to pay attention to this resolution, because I feel it is going to pass. It is good advice, and I look for his support.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae moved resolution 39:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize in law that pension funds belong to employees and not to employers. Legislation should therefore be introduced immediately providing that any so-called surpluses -- that is, funds in excess of actuarial requirements -- be used to improve benefits and to provide mandatory inflation protection, and that no surplus withdrawals be permitted for any other purposes.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation. He may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Rae: The resolution before us gives the House a unique opportunity to express itself collectively on what has become one of the great outrages of our time. It gives the House the opportunity to express very clearly the view that moneys contributed into a pension plan, either on behalf of employees or by employees, belong to those workers. Any increase in the value of those funds should be used to improve the benefits that are there and not be available to be skimmed off and ripped off by employers who suddenly decide they have need of those funds.

Half the workers in Ontario do not have private pensions. The half that do are subject to private pensions that can be safely and politely described as nothing more or less than a ripoff. It is well known that until this Legislature is presented with legislation which will allow us to change the law, the law in Ontario today provides that if there is a fund established, the worker has access only to the specific amounts of money contained in the plan. The plans are invariably not negotiated; they are simply imposed by the employer. The plans do not provide for part-time workers and usually provide nothing for workers who have been there for fewer than 10 years.

We have a reality in Ontario that a person can work for three or four different employers in his entire working life, and at the age of 65 he will have absolutely nothing. The money that has been contributed by the employer on his behalf into the plan, according to the present law, reverts to the employer and to the shareholder. We are giving to the shareholder and to the employer money which, in all justice, should belong to the employee. It should go to the worker and should be used by the worker to improve pension plans, improve the possibility of earlier retirement and guarantee protection against inflation, rather than simply being skimmed off and used by employers.

It is obviously an issue that has gained heightened publicity in the past year because of the activities of Conrad Black and Dominion Stores, because of the issues we have raised in this Legislature over the past six months and because of the news yesterday that, in its purchase of Canada Permanent, Genstar Corp. raided its own pension plan. It has been fuelled by the realization that in the United States we have seen a virtual explosion of pension fund ripoffs and raids, to the tune of $3.1 billion in the last year for which we have evidence. Since 1980, more than $8 billion has been taken out by companies in the US and used by those companies for their own purposes and for reasons that have nothing to do with the improvement of pension plans.

When we were engaged in the first days of a debate in this Legislature, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) whether it was his view that the money in a pension plan belonged to the employees or to the companies. His instinctive reaction was that it belonged to the employees. That was the first day. That was Monte Mark I. That was the initial Monte response. That was the gut reaction of an individual upon being asked: "When money is put at a fixed rate into a pension fund negotiated on behalf of the workers, do you think increases in value should go to those workers as part of their deferred wages and part of their savings; or do you think the employer should be able to raid that money and use it to avoid a takeover or to finance a takeover or to finance a departure or whatever it might happen to be?"

Monte Mark I's response was, "It belongs to the employee." That was before the corporate big boys got to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). Initially, we had statements from the Treasurer and from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that indicated they were concerned. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself, when we raised the Conrad Black example, said he was very worried. There is not an issue facing this province about which the Premier is not very worried and very concerned. He has expressed that concern in many different ways.

However, something strange happened over Christmas, something strange happened as we came into the new year and something strange happened to this government on the way to pension reform. They got mugged in the corridors of corporate power. Since that time, they have refused to bring in the kinds of changes that would make sense.

11:10 a.m.

This debate allows ordinary members of this House an opportunity to express to the government of the day how they feel and how their constituents feel about what is happening. I wonder whether the constituents of members who are present today approve of the morality of what is happening, to say nothing of the legality, which is now being determined in the Supreme Court of Ontario; I am not going to get involved with that. I am questioning the morality of a company reaching into a pension fund, to which employees have contributed over the years, taking that money out and then refusing to pay severance pay to a great many workers who have been laid off because of corporate decisions.

I wonder whether people feel it is moral or appropriate. I say to members of the Conservative Party and of the Liberal Party, I have spoken to a great many Liberals and Conservatives who, upon hearing of our raising this issue, said, "You are right to do so, because it is a problem." I can remember speaking with a member of Parliament who has been very active in raising this issue in the House of Commons, Mr. McCrossan, the member for York-Scarborough. He has expressed concern for a number of years about the morality and fairness of what is being done to pension funds by employers.

The facts are very clear, and eloquent enough on their own. The mathematics is increasingly clear. What we had in 1980 was a mere trickle of $3 million being taken out of those funds. What we had in 1984-85 was $187 million being taken out of those funds. In the US, there has been an increase from $18 million per year to $3.1 billion per year. What we have is the makings of a major run, a systematic practice by companies in which they engage for a variety of reasons, at the expense of the improvement of plants.

I can give examples from my own constituency. A fellow came in who had worked for many years for the Toronto-Dominion Bank and had taken early retirement. He gave me the statement from the Toronto-Dominion Bank pension association, showing the Toronto-Dominion Bank had just taken out $25 million and then put in $25 million less than it otherwise would have had to. In other words, it took a $50-million benefit, and at the same time, this individual, who had been retired for some time, had received no improvement in his pension whatsoever.

I am not speaking here of a four-year or five-year employee. I am speaking of a 25-year veteran at the Toronto-Dominion Bank. I am not speaking of a hard-line member of the New Democratic Party. I am speaking of somebody who had been a loyal employee of that bank and had worked his way up to assistant manager and manager of a Toronto-Dominion Bank branch. Whatever else he may have felt about the New Democratic Party, he felt it was the only party that had the guts and the courage to bring this issue out into the public and to take on those corporate interests that are ripping off the public and taking money out of workers' pockets and putting it in their own. There is no other way to describe what is going on. There is no polite way to describe the process.

These are funds to which employers are making contributions on behalf of employees. These are funds whose value is increasing. Why is it increasing? It is increasing for two reasons. It is increasing first because inflation has gone up dramatically. Even an investment manager working blind would have been able to make money over the past 10 or 15 years simply by investing that money.

Second, there are plans that are increasing in value in relationship to the number of employees because the workers are getting fired. If they have been employed for fewer than 10 years, they have no benefits coming to them under the current law, and so the employer says, "Oh my goodness, look at all the money I have been putting in for somebody who has been working for eight or nine years; I had better get that money back." The Pension Commission of Ontario says: "Fine, take the money. It is yours." Actuarially, one is allowed to do that. I think it is immoral for the province to be put in a position where the pension commission is giving an okay to such a systematic haemorrhaging of funds and of money that belongs to the working people.

If one puts money into the bank or somebody else puts money into the bank on one's behalf, that money is there in trust for that person. Nobody in this Legislature should be under any illusions about what has been permitted. Because of the existence of a pension law that is a disgrace, because of the existence of this 10-year rule, which is a disgrace, and because there is no worker participation or worker right of return with respect to money made on investments, which is a disgrace, those funds are accumulating a surplus.

Conrad Black has written some very uncomplimentary things about me in the Globe and Mail Report on Business magazine. I have been called worse things by better people than Conrad Black, and I suspect I will continue to be. I take pride sometimes in knowing not only who my friends are but also who my friends are not. I am delighted with the relationship I have established with Conrad.

He said, and other business commentators have said this as well: "The NDP is failing to recognize that the investment managers have been the smart ones. They have made the money. They have been smart enough to invest that money and make a return, and therefore they should get all the money."

It would have taken an incredible act of financial expertise to put one's money in an investment portfolio over a range of investments in the past 10 or 12 years and not have made money. Almost anybody in this Legislature would have been able to get that amount of money, put it in a range of investments and make a return, no matter where he put the money. One could have put it anywhere except a sock and made money in the past 10 years. Conrad Black's theory is: "We had the genius to keep it out of a sock and to put it somewhere else. It has made money and therefore that is our money."

I do not think it takes any particular genius to take money out of a sock and put it into something that gives one some kind of return on one's investment. For God's sake, if one puts it into the bank, one is going to make more. One could have put it into a daily interest chequing account and got more money than the rate of inflation during the past year. Everybody knows that. That is the reality of where interest rates have been recently. The information coming to us from the financial industry makes that very clear. The funds have increased in value.

With inflation running at 4.4 per cent in 1985, the average pension plan rate of return was 23.3 per cent. Even looking back four years, the average has still been 18.4 per cent. Yet we still have these investment analysts telling us it is their exclusive genius that has produced this result. We all know that, according to the evidence, everybody has been a genius. There is nobody who has not been smart, who has not been a genius and who has not produced that rate of return.

In drawing my initial speech to a conclusion, I want to make a very basic point. Today the Legislature has a chance to stand up for what I call the commonsense morality of ordinary people. There is a commonsense morality on the street that says if an employer puts money into a plan on behalf of a worker, that money ought to stay with the worker; that worker ought to have access to and some control over that money; that worker ought to be able to get a return on that investment. The return should not simply go to the employer, who decides when he has made enough money and simply reaches in and skims it off.

We have an opportunity in this private member's resolution to send a message to Ottawa, to Queen's Park, to the Pension Commission of Ontario and to everywhere it will be heard that it is time the law was changed to give workers some control and some return on their investment.

Mr. Offer: I want to respond to the resolution put forward by the honourable member, who is the leader of the third party, regarding withdrawals that are made from the surplus of active employer pension plans. I understand the member is requesting that we require employers to use these surpluses to improve benefits. In response, I wish to make four points.

1. Unions can and do negotiate contracts that include cost-of-living adjustments for pension benefits. Many companies also provide inflation protection for nonunionized employees.

2. We support mandatory inflation protection of benefits and are urging other provinces also to move ahead on this issue.

3. Amendments to the Pension Benefits Act of Ontario, which will in all likelihood be introduced before this session closes, provide employees with greater opportunity to benefit from the investment performance of pension funds.

4. One of the primary objectives of this government is to encourage the expansion of private pension funds.

11:20 a.m.

With respect to my first point, it is important to stress again and again the voluntary nature of private pension plans. Private pensions are either implemented by management for the benefit of employees or negotiated by management and labour. The Pension Benefits Act of Ontario sets minimum standards for these agreements to protect the vested benefits of employees. We want to make sure that all future pension commitments will be met by requiring that assets from pension funds are safely invested.

We also want to guard against unforeseen circumstances by requiring that employers maintain a large cushion of at least 25 per cent of the liability in the fund. Because the security of the retirement income is so important, we encourage employers to fund their plans generously. As a result, these funds sometimes contain far more than is necessary to meet future obligations. Employers cannot touch surpluses that arise out of employee contributions. They are allowed to make withdrawals from the surplus that is generated by their own contribution only if this is expressly permitted in the plan. In recent years, exceptionally high investment returns have made surpluses more common. I believe it has been alluded to that this is expected to be a short-term situation, as were, which was not alluded to, the apparently forgotten pension deficits of the mid-1970s.

I must remind the member for York South that it was up to employers to fund those liabilities by pumping millions of dollars into the plans. It is interesting to note that during that time of poor investment performance, the third party did not raise the issue of employee control of pension liability. Assuring equity between employers and employees is one of the main thrusts of the draft pension legislation. Surely, giving liability to employers and surpluses to employees would not, could not and probably should not serve this goal.

The revisions will provide greater accessibility to pension plan coverage and better disclosure to plan members and will bring the legislation in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As members know, many years of negotiating with our federal and provincial counterparts have gone into these amendments. Without a consensus, it would be difficult for national employers to administer pension plans.

To reach a consensus on many urgent issues of pension reform, issues of such urgency that we are clearly able to address, we have had to put mandatory inflation protection on hold. We had to put that on hold so other very important, urgent issues could be addressed, attacked and met. However, let me assure the House that although it has been put on hold, it has not been put on stop or on the shelf. We are going to continue as best we can, in a responsible manner, to move forward with respect to mandatory inflation protection and to getting necessary consensus.

In the meantime, the amendments to the Pension Benefits Act of Ontario include three provisions that will strengthen the employee's position on surpluses arising from investment performance.

First, we will be requiring employers to give plan members advance notice of the request to withdraw surplus.

Second, employee contributions must be credited with a market-related rate of interest. For example, the rates could be tied to returns on Canada savings bonds. This would ensure that plan members would benefit from investment earnings that are produced by inflation.

Third, employers will be required to fund at least one half of the accrued pension benefits. This means that when investment returns are high, employers will not be able to use these surpluses to escape their responsibility for paying a fair share of the benefits.

We feel these measures reflect a substantial reform of pension benefits in Ontario. They do not replace collective bargaining; they simply set minimum standards. In this way, both parties are free to negotiate, while we avoid imposing restrictions that discourage employers from setting up or improving plans. It is important that there be no discouragement of the responsibility of employers to set up these plans in one instance and to improve them in another. The three objectives I indicated earlier do, in our opinion, meet these goals.

Most important, we feel these measures are in keeping with our responsibility to encourage the growth of pension funds to cover more people in this province. They are intended to encourage adequate funding of plans to safeguard their solvency, and they will encourage employers to offer the kind of plans that provide the most secure retirement income.

Mr. Ashe: First of all, I want to put on the record some agreement on what a pension plan is. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that it is part of the package of benefits for an employee, albeit a deferred benefit, but something there for the future. I do not think anybody will dispute that. If there is a problem in resolution 39, which has been put forth by the member for York South, and in the remarks he put to that resolution, shall we say, being generous, it is that it muddies the waters.

Neither do I think there is any great disagreement that pension plan regulations have to be brought up to date. That is exactly what is happening. I am referring to the fact of portability, vesting at a much shorter term of service; and, of course, benefits for regular, part-time service, that is a different issue from the one addressed in resolution 39.

Having said all the positives, and agreeing with the general principle of what pensions are all about, how they accrue and who should benefit, I have had the privilege of being in this Legislature for nine years come next Monday, and I do not think I have ever heard such one-sided, socialistic, dogmatic rhetoric as I heard from the leader of the third party a few minutes ago. It is fine to put forth a point of view. There is nothing wrong with that, but one has to be fair and put out the facts on both sides of an issue, not only the facts that support a rather narrow point of view.

The member is suggesting all employers are crooked, all employers are bad and all employers are out to do whatever they can to the detriment of their employees. I agree there are some bad employers, but there are also some bad employees, as there are some bad politicians, etc. The previous speaker put some of this on the record when he was making reference to the present legislation as well as to proposed amendments to the act. I am not going to go into detail about those again, albeit I could.

What the member for York South has failed to put on the record and what has to be put on the record for the benefit of all the good employers out there who operate plans for the benefit of all, who are honest employers and who give the benefits to employees, is that they are not all crooked, which is what is being suggested by the words of this resolution.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Warner: It does not say that.

Mr. Ashe: It sure does, whether the member takes it that way or not. He should read the media and he will see. Of course, he probably only reads the comics.

We have a system that says if, actuarially, a plan builds up a surplus to its needs -- and a well-protected surplus, I might say, the previous speaker alluded to that -- it is not matter of an employer deciding: "I need a bunch of money. I will go in and rob the pension plan. There is a formality that I have to touch base with the pension commission, but it just says yes automatically anyway." Let us again review what the criteria are.

First of all, it has to be allowed within the trust agreement. The employer approaches the pension commission. It studies the plan, the future liabilities and the contributions. Once it has established that the employer contributions -- not one penny of the employee contribution, but all of the moneys from the employer -- are in excess of 125 per cent of the projected liabilities, then it is probably going to get approval to withdraw those excesses.

Mr. Warner: That is what Dominion Stores did. It is corporate thievery.

Mr. Ashe: Again, I have to emphasize it. This has never been alluded to in the remarks of the leader of the third party or others. They seem to suggest that if a plan makes money or is ahead over and above the obligations, the employer goes in and takes out all of that excess. All of that excess above 125 per cent is the contribution of the employer, not of the employees.

Mr. Warner: It is corporate cannibalism.

Mr. Ashe: Why does the member not learn what he is talking about before he opens his big mouth?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere not interject and will the member for Durham West please address the chair?

Mr. Ashe: I always do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Rae: Is this is a filibuster?

Mr. Ashe: No, only for another couple of minutes.

In actual fact, another recognition has to be put on the record, and it was alluded to indirectly by the previous speaker. We all know there is an innumerable number of pension plans in Canada. I understand there are about 117,700 with about 4.6 million active members. About 60 per cent of the plans are in Ontario covering, as the leader of the third party recognized, approximately half of the employees in Ontario. About 1.8 million plan members are in Ontario.

As we all know, there is more than one kind of pension plan. One can have a defined contribution plan, in which event there is no other obligation on the employer or the employee to put up extra money. One might say there is the out right there, but what has to be put on the record is that 90 per cent -- not 20 per cent, not 60 per cent -- of those 1.8 million employees in Ontario are covered under defined benefit plans.

As was pointed out before, from history, from the facts of the situation, what happens is that there are not always huge returns on plans. There have been times of deficit. We do not have to go back to the 1920s or 1930s. We need go back only to the last decade when there were many plans that were actuarially in a shortfall. It is funny, but we did not hear the socialist dogma at that time saying: "Hey, it is a shortfall. I think all of the employees should kick in some more bucks." The plan's obligation to kick in and fund any shortfall is 100 per cent the obligation of the employer.

I do not dispute that. I think that is only fair. I have no problem with that philosophy, but one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. If all of the obligations are on the employer to make up a shortfall, surely with the built-in protections of 125 per cent and so on, the employer should have some possible opportunity to withdraw some of his -- I repeat his -- surplus funds, not those of the employee, because I agree that would be unfair.

We do not have a perfect system. I suggest we probably never will. There is no doubt that pension reform at the federal level and at the provincial level is already well on its way. There seems to be more agreement virtually each and every day between the different jurisdictions in Canada and the federal government. The proposed reforms to the Pension Benefits Act in Ontario obviously will be helpful, but this Legislature cannot make an indication to the good employers out there -- and I would suggest that is most of them, I am not picking on a particular one.

I agree that the public relations of Dominion Stores and Conrad Black was not helpful to the image of employers and that the way he put it out was not helpful to him from a personal point of view. I do not deny that at all. That there is the odd bad apple in every barrel does not suggest that one bad apple necessarily makes the total barrel rotten, which is what is suggested by the party to the left.

As a responsible Legislature, we cannot support the rhetoric in this resolution by the leader of the third party.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution put before the House by the leader of my party.

I am little amazed by some of the comments I just heard from one of the Tory members. Pension benefits and the payments that go towards the pension plans are deferred wages. I do not know whether the member now is changing his position on that. We had a select committee report from the Legislature filed in 1982. Some of the Tory members who signed it were the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and former members Terry Jones and John Williams, all of whom agreed in that report that pensions were deferred wages. Has there been a change in the Tory position? I would like to know that.

I recall the debate about this committee. The setting up of the committee followed in about a year. There was some fairly serious debate in this House on the need for improvements in private pension plans. There was a resolution that I moved in this House back in 1979, which received support. It asked for earlier vesting, a central agency and portability. The debate on that private member's bill passed this House with support from all three parties.

We did not get any movement on those points and a lot of years have gone by. We did not get a darn thing out of the Tory party, but we finally got the setting up of a select committee on pensions. That committee did some good work. However, it totally refused to look at improvements in public plans, which are really needed in Canada and in the province today. It dealt only with recommendations dealing with private plans, which probably pay pensions to less than half the workers in the province in any event. The reason there was a dissent by myself and my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) in that report is that we tried to get some discussion and improvements in the public plans and we could not.

We had long debates on the improvements that were recommended to the private plans, some of which we supported in the report and some of which we did not, but we did reach agreement that pensions were deferred wages. There was no dissent on that point.

I guess it was a Band-Aid approach, but I do not recall a dissent by any of the Tory members of the committee at that time when we reached agreement in that committee that we should be taking money, where there were excess earnings in a fund, and using it to improve the benefits.

We could not get them to agree to indexing in that report, although we made the fight in the course of the select committee report, but we did get agreement that it made sense to use excessive earnings in private plans for improvements to those plans and that this might be the first step towards some form of indexing. That was the position taken at the time by the committee. It was taken by Tory, government party members. It made some sense. It did not go nearly far enough, but it was a beginning.

11:40 a.m.

We established that pension payments are deferred wages. Instead of taking that pension benefit, if a worker had taken the trouble to invest it, he would have earned the money on it. For a long while, workers took the wages, especially in earlier days when inflation was a little more and contracts were easier to come by, because they wanted the money in their pockets; but having decided instead to forego perhaps five or 10 cents in wages to put into a pension plan and to take the pension, that was guaranteed as a result of that set of negotiations, that agreement or that contract they signed when they took employment with the company.

Given the discussions we have had in the committee, it makes eminent sense that the money that may be earned as a result of those payments into the plan belongs to the workers. It is totally out of line to have the kind of ripoff we are seeing today when these plans have earned excess funds and companies are using them, in some cases, to pay their benefits, as poor as they may be, when they decide to shut down a plant.

Let me cite a couple of examples. We raised one of the cases in this House recently. I am talking about the Rexnord company in Toronto. This is a letter we received from the president of the local, who was trying at the time to get a meeting with the Premier:

"I work at Rexnord Canada Ltd. We are anticipating a plant shutdown in early January. As a result, the salaried employees will receive severance pay, from eight months to one year of pay, and up to $850 per month pension. Shop floor employees will receive severance pay from four weeks to 16 weeks of pay, maximum 62 years if qualified, and their pensions will be multiplied by $13 per year of service for a maximum pension of $455 for 35 years of service."

Obviously, there is a difference in the pensions of the office staff and the workers in the plant. However, four to 16 weeks after 20, 25 or 30 years of service with that company and a maximum pension of $455 is not a heck of a lot.

Then we take a look at what could have happened in terms of that pension. There is an excess in that plan. I wonder how much of the severance these workers are getting, which they are supposed to get as a result of severance pay legislation in this province, is coming out of their own money. Calculations as of January 1, 1986, by an independent actuary show that the balance in the Rexnord pension fund exceeds the plan's liabilities by $572,000. Rexnord has made application to the Pension Commission of Ontario for approval for a refund of $310,000 of this amount. It goes on to talk about the total approval of $3,213,000 of this surplus, leaving $2,208,000 in the fund. It also talks about taking some money out of a plant called Matthews Conveyor Co. in Port Hope, which is owned by Rexnord.

I do not know where the justification is to use that excess funding, in effect, to pay for the responsibilities the company has under other legislation in this province. This is not the only example. The examples abound across Ontario. The company is using the surplus in that fund, which the workers always saw as their money since we established the principle of deferred wages in this province a number of years ago. Prominent members of all parties in this Legislature have agreed that those funds belong to the workers.

It seems to me there is not justice in Ontario. There are some dangerous double standards at play if we allow companies to dip into surplus earned as a result of investing money that otherwise would have gone directly into the pockets of workers during the course of their negotiations with the company. If we do not pass this resolution, we are insulting not only all the workers who are involved in private plans in Ontario, but we are also negating a principle that I, as a trade unionist, thought had been established a long time ago with respect to pension benefits. We will live to rue the day.

If there is an upside to it, it may finally drive home to people that the real answer in this country lies in dramatic improvements in the public pension schemes and not in trying to fool around with the private plans. However, as long as they are there, there should be justice. That money belongs to the workers and that is where it should go, not back to the companies.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I am very happy to support the motion of the member for York South. I realize, by necessity, such a motion is overly simplistic and cannot deal with many of the intricate problems involved in the writing of legislation around such an issue. However, I still believe this motion should be referred to a committee dealing with pensions so that the considerations put forward in it can be considered by that committee in the hope that it can find some solution that at least makes some gesture towards resolving this difficulty.

There is an issue of fairness here. I remind the members of the House that in the Middle Ages usury was actually considered a mortal sin. I recognize that in our present day and age we have a system virtually based on usury. However, this outlines the fact that there are very heavy moral issues involved in interest and in the use of money.

I can give members a very simple example from my own existence. My father, who was permanent force army, paid into a pension fund for many years. When he died and his widow received his share of it, the value of that money had substantially and radically changed because of the years during which he paid into it, the dirty Thirties and Twenties, and because of the value of money by 1955. In 1955, the pension my mother would have received was figured out at $2,500. Members know we do not even pay that in charity now for someone to live on minimum standards. I point out to members that this laudable pension was for the wife of a major general. I do not even care to think what a noncommissioned officer would have received.

I recognize that the government then increased these pensions, but it gave out as charity what should have been there in justice, because the money that went into the pension had actually changed in value. The money that should have been there in the pension was the real money that was put in with this changed value, a point that has been regularly made by the New Democratic Party.

I agree with the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) that it is recognized that this was a benefit negotiated between employer and employee. The normal growth of that money belongs to the plan in the same way as the actual dollar value. If that money were invested by a prudent third party, it would increase in value because of the inflationary trends of money. That is not exceptional profit. For the most part, it is the regular profit that comes from prudent management and it belongs to the employee on whose behalf that money was negotiated in the first place. It is not new money. It is the same money adjusted upward as the money value has changed.

The arguments put against this by the ministry officials and by the new bill suggest it is insurmountable to work on this for some of the following reasons.

In the first place, we want to put in mandatory inflation protection, but the other provinces will not. I believe the committee can examine this. Surely there is something the committee can do to find some other method of keeping this money in its fair and rightful place to benefit the employees who have lost the value in their money. I believe it is time this province showed leadership. Let us do it now. Let the other provinces fall in behind. It can be done separately from those parts of the dealings that have to be done on a nationwide basis. I do not believe that should stand in the way of looking at this.

We are told it is too expensive. I am not impressed by this argument when I see that Genstar took $100 million in order to buy Canada Trust. I read from yesterday's Toronto Star:

"Canada Permanent had acted as trustee over Genstar's pension funds, but was removed because of philosophical differences, the Permanent's former counsel...told the committee.

"He testified the Permanent's ouster came after the firm resisted the withdrawals because of a number of lawsuits which arose out of similar transactions."

We are talking about billions of dollars. We are talking about to whom it belongs. I suggest that not everybody, even in the business world, believes it all belongs to the employer, or even that portion of it that comes after the 125 per cent.

11:50 a.m.

Another reason that is put forward as making this impossible is that it was not in the original contract. The employers and the employees made a contract, and that was not part of the deal struck by the employers and the employees at that time. I remind members of the House that I got married 38 years ago and my husband did not agree to Bill 1 at that time. He finds he is stuck with it now whether he likes it or not. if there is an issue in justice that we are looking at, we should look at it. It would be much more difficult to argue against this question of justice than it would be to argue with people who object to the retroactiveness of Bill 1.

Another facetious reason that is put forward is that business opposes it. I suppose it is human nature that if one's option is to share the funds with the people who put it in there or to take them for one's self to reinvest and do what one wants in a businesslike way, one looks after oneself. The business may do that. It is the ruling of government to look after the common interests of the individual, and in this case those individuals are the employees.

The other question that has been put forward by the Conservative members is that since businesses have to look after the shortfall when they have figured out their actuarial tables incorrectly, they should also get the benefits. There have to be better ways of making sure actuarial tables are correct and of looking after this eventuality. After all, if a company goes bankrupt and the shortfall exists, that is not resolved in any case. As was pointed out, they can dip only so far and then they put themselves at risk. There have to be other ways of making sure pensions are secured in their inflated value and kept safely for the people who contributed to them.

Society has taken on the responsibility for old people, and pensions create a pay-as-you-go philosophy of looking after those eventual obligations. Therefore, it is in the interests of society that employers and employees look after this responsibility while the employee is working so that the money is there and secure when the employee retires. Otherwise, it falls on the ordinary taxpayer anyhow because in this society we do not let our senior citizens stand in need.

To keep this money fair, inflated and able to pay what it was supposed to pay when the agreement was made, we need to find a way to build in this inflationary factor. We need to do it now as a government and as a Legislature and not wait until the courts tell us that is the only fair way we can act. I believe we should be examining these. We have heard that the government believes philosophically in this, that it wants to do it and it cannot do it for reasons of money and reasons of other provinces. If we have a philosophical and moral obligation here, then let us try more sincerely and with greater effort to meet that obligation as best we can.

I do not suggest, as the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) suggests, that to say this should be done is to say that all employers are being accused of being crooked. I think many employers see the fairness and honesty of what is being put forward here, but unfortunately we write laws because there are criminals or crooks who would abuse society and its people. That is why we have to have laws saying one cannot do these criminal activities. That does not in any way imply that everybody in our society is a criminal and needs to be forced by law not to damage other people.

In the case of employers, I believe many employers want to see fair pension plans in place and would be more than willing to co-operate in setting those in place and seeing them mandatory and looking after the people they were intended to look after. It is because some businesses will not do this that government has to get involved and say this is the fair way to do it. I hope the government people will look at it.

Mr. Rae: I very much appreciate the chance to conclude this discussion. A month ago, I was going to a convention to give a speech. A woman was standing at the door of the hall I was going into and selling buttons. She came up and told me her story. She said she had been a Dominion Stores employee for 27 years, that she was 57 years old, that she had no severance pay, that she could not keep up on her mortgage payments and that she was selling buttons about Conrad Black and getting $1 per button. That is Ontario 1986.

I am not describing some medieval country. I am not describing something in what the member for Durham West described as socialist rhetoric. That is not socialist rhetoric; that is reality in Ontario. That is what is happening to people. The member described Conrad Black as a "bad apple." Those are his words, not mine. I look forward to the correspondence between him and Conrad Black.

Mr. McClellan: I hope he says it outside the House.

Mr. Rae: I urge him to say it outside. Then we would all get to see what the correspondence would look like.

That is reality. What I think the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith) has done today is to speak very directly to what is a moral issue. It is a moral issue about people's money, about what happens to people's money, about who is entrusted with people's money and what they can do with the money when they put it into a fund on behalf of other people.

My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) spoke with such eloquence about the issue of insurance that I do not need to embellish the point. When it comes to pensions, it is extremely clear; it is not a complicated issue. The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), who is here representing his boss, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, has given us the party line. If I may say so, it is exactly the same line we had from the Tories.

Mr. McClellan: It is the Frank Miller line.

Mr. Rae: Yes, it is the Frank Miller line. It is the same line we have heard from those who say there is nothing that can be clone to change the situation and everything that is there is inevitable.

I do not have time to go through all four points the member made. I just want to say that nothing we are suggesting will discourage the existence and the development of private plans. Nothing we are suggesting will take away for a moment from the existence of a private sector that will be providing pension plans. All we are suggesting is that we inject an element of what I have called "the commonsense morality of ordinary people" into the way money is invested, saved and used on behalf of those people. We are talking about the use and the misuse of people's money.

The government has expressed an interest in the amount of corporate takeover activity that is happening. The Treasurer has said he is very concerned about the amount of corporate takeover activity that is taking place. Who is financing the paper economy, the roulette economy, the casino economy? The workers of this province are. Their pensions funds are financing the roulette economy. Genstar takes over Permanent and finances it with money which is there on behalf of its own employees. The people say that is perfectly legal, that is the way it works and that is the wonder of private enterprise.

I disagree. I think when the story of the 20th century comes to be written, it will be the story of ordinary people striving to gain some degree of control over an economy and striving to inject greater and greater amounts of morality into that economy so it corresponds to their commonsense feelings of what should be.

Is it moral for a father who is putting money into a bank on behalf of a child to say at some point, "That money has made some interest and it is my genius that produced that interest and not the bank"? Conrad Black would say it is his unique genius, and that is baloney. If the father says, "I am going to take that money out," does the money not belong to the child? Yes, it does. If one puts money in trust, that money belongs to the people on whose behalf one has placed that money. That is the commonsense morality of the family and it ought to be the commonsense morality of our economy.

It is time we gave the workers in this province not charity, but some justice, some economic power and some economic control.

12 noon

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

RAPID TRANSIT LINE

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gregory has moved resolution 38.

All those in favour will say "aye." All those opposed will say "nay." In my opinion the ayes have it. Motion agreed to.

12:05 p.m.

PENSION FUNDS

The House divided on Mr. Rae's resolution 39, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Andrewes, Baetz, Bossy, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Foulds, Fulton, Gigantes, Grande, Grier, Haggerty, Hennessy, Laughren, Mackenzie, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. L, Morin, Morin-Strom, Newman, Polsinelli, Rae, Ramsay, Reville, Sargent, Smith, E. J., South, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Swart, Warner, Wildman.

Nays

Ashe, Barlow, Dean, Eves, Ferraro, Gregory, Guindon, Hart, Knight, Lane, Leluk, Marland, McNeil, Nixon, Offer, Poirier, Pollock, Reycraft, Rowe, Sheppard, Smith, D. W., Taylor, Villeneuve, Wiseman.

Ayes 37; nays 24.

The House recessed at 12:10 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROWING CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. Partington: A very successful 41st annual Canadian Secondary School Rowing Championship was held this past weekend on the 1,500-metre Henley rowing course in St. Catharines in the ridings of Brock and St. Catharines.

There were 82 schools represented from across Canada, from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland, and from the eastern United States. Heats were run on Friday and Saturday, with 30 finals being run on Sunday. The weather was a tremendous challenge to both the athletes and the officials, but they rallied and completed a great closing day on schedule.

Ridley College from St. Catharines captured top honours in both the men's and women's events, as well as the total points championship and the prestigious Calder Cleland Trophy for the senior men's heavy-eight race. Denis Morris separate school and Lakeport Secondary School, both of St. Catharines, took second and third places, with Upper Canada College of Toronto fourth and Shawnigan Lake School from Vancouver Island fifth.

Rowing is a demanding sport, requiring total dedication from the participants on a seven-days-a-week basis. It develops the minds, bodies and characters of our young people. In the process, it creates lifetime friendships. I take this opportunity to commend the athletes, coaches and officials on a job well done.

GOVERNMENT JOBS

Mr. Morin-Strom: I see no reason why so many government offices must be in Toronto and why many of them are not in northern Ontario. For 42 years, the Conservatives ignored communities such as Sault Ste. Marie. These communities have experienced the frustration of trying to deal with slow, unresponsive government ministries in Toronto.

After one year of Liberal government, the problem remains to be addressed. Several months ago, we heard the promise of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) to move an additional 1,000 jobs to northern Ontario. The words were commendable, but when will we see the action?

Saint Ste. Marie in particular is currently facing an economic crisis from the down-sizing of Algoma Steel. We do not need more studies and recommendations. The Rosehart commission on resource-dependent communities has just recommended that 5,000 Ontario government jobs be transferred to the north during the next five years. A group of deputy ministers and the standing committee on resources development have both recently heard specific recommendations for action on this issue from the community of Sault Ste. Marie.

The chamber of commerce has suggested that the timber and wildlife sectors of the Ministry of Natural Resources be moved from Toronto and that the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines could transfer jobs to the Sault rather than reducing its staff. For years, United Steelworkers locals have been asking for a regional office of the Workers' Compensation Board. With a committee of cabinet ministers visiting the Sault next week, I want the government to know that we in the Sault expect action now, not more consultation.

TARIFFS

Mr. Ferraro: I am pleased to tell the House that the United States International Trade Commission has ruled unanimously against directing new barriers on imports of steel forks used on forklift trucks. That decision removes a serious threat to Kenhar Products Inc. of Guelph, a firm that employs 134 people and is the major supplier of steel forks to the US market, selling about 85 per cent of its products there.

Kenhar's prime US competitor petitioned the International Trade Commission on January 17, asking it to raise the current 0.6 per cent duty on imported steel forks to 35 per cent. The US company said these imports were causing serious injury to American firms. However, Kenhar argued before the commission that the problems of US companies were the result of poor management and not imports. The commission ruled six to zero to deny relief to the US industry, without disclosing its reasons.

There is little doubt that most of the jobs at Kenhar would have been in jeopardy had the commission accepted the American request. Officials of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology took that threat seriously and met with representatives of both the federal government and Kenhar to discuss ways of avoiding such a punitive tariff.

Kenhar is in my riding and is recognized around the world for the quality of its products. I congratulate the management and employees on this exciting victory, and I wish to thank the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and the deputy minister, Pat Lavelle, and his staff for their efforts in this regard.

ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Ms. Fish: As members know, this is Canada Environment Week. It is a week in which we can focus our attention particularly on environmental issues and hope to heighten the awareness of the public and industry of the economic benefits of a clean environment and a healthy place in which to live.

By focusing on environment this week, all Canadians, not just Ontarians, will participate in workshops, information sessions and seminars. Schoolchildren, for example, will participate in many programs that will contribute to the beautification of their local communities and will give them a better understanding of the need to keep Ontario clean.

Our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has refused to acknowledge the special focus of this week and has refused to promote it.

A great deal of work has gone into public education and expanding the public's awareness of the importance of the environment. A great deal of that work has been done by voluntary nonprofit environmental groups. They, in particular, have organized seminars, conferences and public information sessions all this week in an effort to enhance not only World Environment Week but also the public's awareness and involvement in a clean environment.

Our Minister of the Environment should be applauding that work, not insulting it.

Mrs. Grier: I too want to celebrate World Environment Day, part of Canada Environment Week. I agree with the Minister of the Environment when he says that in this province every week is environment week. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, we agree with what the minister says but we wait in vain for concrete action.

This is the 49th week of the term of this government -- 49 environment weeks, according to the minister. We have had more than 49 promises of action, but let me give members a few examples of how these 49 weeks have been celebrated.

In week 2, we had a promise of comprehensive legislation to provide intervener funding. We are still waiting.

Week 19 indicated an action plan for the St. Clair River. That came up again in week 21, week 23, week 24 and week 31, and then I lost count.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How about control of acid rain in week 6?

Mrs. Grier: I am getting to it.

Week 21 also had a promise of legislation to increase penalties and fines. That came again in weeks 29 and 31.

Week 22 was the week to promise a drinking water strategy, and again in week 45.

Then there was week 25, an action week, with strong measures to curb acid rain emissions. We welcomed week 25. We praised week 25. And we wonder how long we will have to wait for the next action-packed celebration.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Cordiano: I want to highlight this government's continuing commitment to the province's post-secondary institutions. There is a need for our colleges and universities to play such a role in the economic and social transformation now under way in the province. At the same time, we must also improve accessibility to our post-secondary institutions.

To better equip post-secondary institutions to respond to changing demands, to foster excellence and to enhance accessibility, this government has undertaken several major initiatives.

For example, we announced an $84-million, five-year faculty renewal program to hire 500 new faculty members. Recently the colleges received $60 million of new funding over the next two years to hire a substantial number of new faculty members throughout the system.

In October 1985, the university excellence fund and the college excellence fund were announced with an overall total commitment of $80 million. Funding for the Ontario student assistance program was increased by eight per cent for 1986-87, compared with 5.9 per cent in 1985-86.

On May 13, 1986, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced a further $IS million to support applied research in Ontario's universities. Although we have made considerable progress in putting our post-secondary institutions back on the road to recovery, this government will continue its efforts to bring about excellence in those institutions.

NORTHERN ONTARIO GAMES FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED

Mr. Eves: I want to take this opportunity to announce that the Northern Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled will open tomorrow in Parry Sound.

It is a great honour for our community to play host to these games this year. Athletes from many northern communities, including Timmins, Thunder Bay, North Bay, Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie, will be participating in the games. As well, more than 400 volunteers and support staff have given up their time and energy to help ensure the success of this event.

I wish all those competing the very best of luck, and I look forward to emceeing the opening ceremonies tomorrow evening. In these games, everybody is a winner.

2:11 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SPECIAL WARRANTS

Hon. Ms. Caplan: In response to the point of order from the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris): when I made my statement in regard to the tabling of the special warrants on April 24, I understood that copies of the special warrants were to be inserted into members' mailboxes. Apparently, this did not take place. As a result, copies are being distributed to all members today.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to respond briefly to the statement by the Chairman of Management Board. I accept the apology I called for yesterday from her for not distributing

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: I read apology into it, and I think that was her way of doing it. She apologized because they were not inserted into the members' mailboxes. However, the main point I made yesterday was that they were not tabled with the Clerk. That is the requirement under the standing orders. There was no comment on that from the Chairman of Management Board today, and that is a serious breach of the rules of this Legislature.

RENT REVIEW

Hon. Mr. Curling: This is a long-awaited moment. This is a historic day for this province. Later this afternoon I will be introducing legislation to reform Ontario's system of rent review. This legislation is significant for three major reasons: (1) it provides the tenants of Ontario with real and universal protection from unfair rent increases, (2) it provides for the revitalization of rental housing construction in this province and (3) it creates a system of rent review that is fair and equitable to all.

This legislation is even more significant for the manner in which it came to be. Since I became Minister of Housing, I have met and spoken to hundreds of landlords and tenants. I have listened to their serious concerns about the system of rent review that existed under the previous government. It was apparent that radical changes were required.

In seeking to reform the rent review system, our government faced a choice. We could simply implement our policies as additions to the existing system; and there would be little risk in taking that course, for the previous government had operated the rent review system that way for years. Or we could take an alternative course: we could go right to the root of the problem, take the entire system apart and come up with something better. That is the approach we selected.

Yet we knew that to do the job properly, we would need the assistance of tenants and landlords who are expert in the field. For this reason, I announced on December 16 the formation of a committee of tenant and landlord leaders who were asked to provide a new approach to rent review that would balance both their interests in a fair and effective manner.

As members are aware, the Rent Review Advisory Committee reached agreement on the best way to implement a new system of rent review and provided its recommendations to the government in its report of April 18. These recommendations represented a unique consensus between landlords and tenants. It is a consensus that this government has adopted and that has been incorporated into the new version of the Residential Rent Regulation Act.

The revised legislation maintains the framework outlined on December 16, which was reflected in Bill 78. Today I am introducing a new bill to provide the people of Ontario with a seamless, fully comprehensive piece of legislation. Later, I will be withdrawing Bill 78, and at the appropriate time I will be introducing some minor amendments to the new legislation after consulting with the members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee.

The six major features of this legislation are: (1) the establishment of an annual rent review guideline based on an inflation index, (2) a costs-no-longer-borne procedure for some financing and capital costs, (3) the establishment of a comprehensive province-wide rent registry, (4) a provision for the elimination of economic loss on post-1975 buildings to ensure the viability of those properties, (5) the provision of a revised form of hardship relief for owners of pre-1976 buildings and (6) the establishment of the Residential Rental Standards Board to develop provincial property standards. These standards will be used in calculating rent increases.

A key provision of the new legislation is the rent review guideline. I want to assure this House that the formula that has been put in place to adjust the guideline on an annual basis was fully supported by the tenants' representatives as part of a fair overall strategy to protect all tenants from spiralling rent increases and assure them of regular maintenance of their homes. The tenants' representatives are also in full agreement and support of the provisions in this act that assure builders, landlords and investors of a fair return on their investment in both existing and new rental accommodation.

The Residential Rent Regulation Act is a key facet of our overall housing strategy. At the same time, it is essential to note that the assured housing strategy is designed to increase the supply of available rental housing in this province.

I want to emphasize that this government fully accepts its responsibility to meet the housing needs of the less fortunate among us. Provisions in last month's budget allocated to my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) provide shelter subsidies for welfare recipients that will benefit 50,000 families in Ontario.

Earlier, I announced a commitment to build 6,700 new social housing units each year for the next five years, for a total of 33,500. Today, I am pleased to announce that we are adding an additional 13,400 units of nonprofit and co-op housing, to be released over the next seven years. This will constitute a total of 46,900 new social housing units in this province.

I am proud of this commitment to provide housing for Ontario residents with low to moderate incomes.

Today's legislation, the Residential Rent Regulation Act, opens the door to the private sector to increase the supply of rental housing for the middle-and upper-income markets.

It would be remiss of me not to recognize the members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee. On April 18, 1986, I publicly thanked them for their participation in the process that led to their historic agreement on a system of rent review for Ontario that would be equally fair to landlords and tenants. Today, I wish to thank them for their contribution. This government has accepted their recommendations with few revisions.

The people of Ontario owe a debt of gratitude to the members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee. These men and women put aside their own interests to work for the common interest. I cannot measure the hours, days and weeks they contributed to this undertaking. In the end they provided the guidelines for our new system of rent review.

They are in the gallery today, and I want to introduce them. First, there are the two people who co-chaired the committee so efficiently and effectively and who worked so very hard to make it succeed: Mary Hogan, director of Parkdale Community Legal Services, and William Grenier, chairman of Pagebrook Holdings Inc.

2:20 p.m.

Other members of the committee include John Basel, president of Arcadia Group Investments Ltd.; Leslie Robinson, co-ordinator of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations; Peter Goring, senior vice-president of Bramalea Ltd.; Kathy Laird, a lawyer with Metro Tenants Legal Services; Gary Griesdorf, vice-president and general manager of Goldlist Construction Ltd.; Fred Bever, an advocacy researcher with the National Anti-Poverty Organization; Glen Sifton, president of Sifton Properties Ltd.;

Pilar Amaya-Tones, a community legal worker; John Andrade, president of John Andrade Associates Ltd.; Jeffrey Patterson, senior program director of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto; Stuart Smith, president and chief operations officer of Shipp Corp. Ltd.; Dr. Claude Brodeur, a professor with the faculty of education of the University of Toronto; Peter Libman, a barrister and solicitor with the firm of O'Reilly, Moll and Libman; Robert Elms, chairman of the London Towers Tenants' Association; and last, but certainly not least, Jan Schwartz, president of the Multiple Dwelling Standards Association.

I would like them to stand and be recognized.

I have a tremendous staff in the civil service in the Ministry of Housing, and they too have done a tremendous job.

To all of you, my congratulations on a job well done.

Some people may be under the impression that the tabling of this new rent review legislation today signals the end of the process, the end of the consultation. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, today marks a new beginning.

The Rent Review Advisory Committee will continue to work with the government in developing the regulations and guidelines of our new rent review legislation and assist in ensuring the legislation is implemented properly right from the start. Restructured as the Rental Housing Advisory Committee, it will review the Landlord and Tenant Act and present me with recommendations for change which I will bring to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

Today, this government moves to put in place the most responsive, constructive and sensitive system of rent review in North America, It is sound legislation, designed to be fair and designed to work. It is legislation that is fully deserving of the support of every member of this Legislature.

Mr. Gordon: I would like to reply to the statement that has been made today by the Minister of Housing. I am sure the House is aware, as is the public of Ontario, that it was the Minister of Housing who set the agenda and promised a new housing policy for Ontario more than seven months ago. It was the Liberals who identified housing as the pressing issue in Ontario, and if they were prepared to make a political point by promising action then, they should have been prepared to follow through by now.

We want to be constructive, but when we see the minister introducing a bill in this House and then telling us he is going to have to withdraw it for further amendments, a bill to replace Bill 78, which has been here since January, we have to wonder whether he has it together at all.

When the minister is having his party today in the office of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), along with his invited guests, I hope they will ask him this question: How can he justify causing rents to go up for tenants in this province? Those rents are going to go up more than the rate of inflation and more than what unions are able to negotiate for their workers today. How can he justify raising rents for those people? How can he justify raising rents for more than 200,000 people who right now are living in rental units they cannot afford?

Does the minister think the bill he is introducing today is going to make their units more affordable? I beg to differ with him. We are trying awfully hard to be constructive, but this bill does not do anything for affordable housing in this province. The minister has been promising us a new history in this province, that landlords and tenants are going to come together and be happy.

Daniel McIntyre, president of the Ottawa tenants' group representing 40 different groups, is not happy. He told me he would not sign the agreement to do with this bill because it means housing is going to become less affordable for tenants in Ontario.

It does not make Dale Martin happy either. He is the former chairman of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations. He told me this bill was going to transfer millions of dollars to the landlords at the expense of the tenants and was not going to provide one more unit of housing. In fact, it is an excuse for the minister to say he has a policy so that the minister and the Premier can meet today to celebrate causing tenants to pay more rent in this province.

Are the developers happy? The minister says they are on his side. They have just launched a $2-million advertising campaign saying this new bill is merely a stopgap and that it does not answer the question of how to produce more affordable rental units in this province. This is a sham. I put it to him that when every individual in this province has had a chance to assess what he has done here today, he is going to find that people are not going to buy it.

Mr. Reville: This is a historic day in the province and in rent review legislation. History will tell whether this legislation will do what the minister has promised it will do. It was introduced on December 16, 1985, again on April 22, 1986, and again today on June 5, 1986.

I am happy it is finally here. It is symbolic that the minister has withdrawn his first Bill 78, because I think he has also withdrawn the commitment he made to the tenants of this province when his government was formed. That has to do with all the rent review protections that were so clearly spelled out in the accord signed between the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Ontario.

There is no way to determine whether this legislation will create one stick of rental accommodation in this province. That is a supply question. The minister should know that rent review is consumer protection, not supply. When the minister sat down to listen to tenants and landlords, he was listening to the landlords with his better ear.

I would like, however, to join the minister in thanking the members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee for their very hard work. They worked long and hard. They struggled with some of the most contentious issues in our society and they made some recommendations to government. However, they were working under a horrible constraint. The horrible constraint imposed upon them was the government's assured housing policy. They were deliberating within that framework. It is not surprising that the New Democratic Party will find some difficulty in supporting some of the recommendations.

We are very anxious to get on with this debate. It has been a year since the tenants of this province were left in limbo by this government, and while one is still alive limbo is not a very good place to be.

I agree wholeheartedly that this is not the end of the process. There is need for strong and searching debate. The Tories have been bankrupt on housing policy for 42 years and are still bankrupt. What they have been able to do to bolster their speech today is quote from two prominent New Democrats, who find the process embarked on by the government is not to their liking. We will, of course, entertain any entreaties they may want to make to us about joining our party.

Over the next while, we in the New Democratic Party will be fighting with all of our not inconsiderable heart and soul to ensure that this rent review legislation works very well for the tenants of Ontario. I do not think the government has managed to achieve that. Some aspects of the bill are very important, and those are things we have been after for many years. I am surprised that it took the minister so long to find out what those elements were.

Those elements are indeed a rent registry, improvements to things such as costs no longer borne and universal rent control. Without universal rent control, tenants do not have control over their lives, which is what the New Democratic Party is fighting for on behalf of the people of Ontario. This is one area in which control over one's life is absolutely essential. We will continue to struggle on behalf of the tenants to make sure that occurs.

WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Today is World Environment Day, and I would like to outline the broad direction our government is taking to protect the people and the ecosystem.

Over the past year, I have tried to reinvigorate the Ministry of the Environment. We have stopped pampering polluters; further, we have put them on notice that drastic reductions are a must. In some cases -- the acid rain polluters -- strict abatement schedules are already on the books, and in other cases -- the water polluters -- those abatement schedules are being formulated. I hope to have our waterways' cleanup blueprint before the House shortly.

When we step back from the daily tussle, we can see that these measures are merely a first step. I can see the day when the only significant pollution sources in Ontario will be accidental spills. We are closer than we may believe to a time when routine, day-to-day disposal of persistent toxic industrial wastes into the air, water and soil will be seen as a destructive, unhealthy crime which society will not tolerate.

Industrialization has brought us great wealth. We must now harness this engine of prosperity so it does not clog our very life support matrix, the global ecosystem.

Already the dimensions of what we have thoughtlessly wrought are becoming apparent. Frightening accounts of our entire Great Lakes basin being a bowl of toxicity have surfaced within the past six months. Our food chain is being contaminated. We are poisoning ourselves slowly, and it is time to turn the situation around.

Within a few decades, all routine persistent toxic pollution must, and will, end. Our government is taking the first steps at home by preparing tougher air and water abatement measures which address, for the first time, persistent toxic pollution; but much of the damage is transboundary in nature, and beyond our direct control.

In the most immediate sense, we must deal with our American neighbours on several key issues. While this is sometimes a difficult process -- witness acid rain abatement and the Niagara River cleanup negotiations -- there is a good record of past achievement. One need only look southwest to Lake Erie, where our joint efforts have literally saved that lake's life from a near-lethal phosphorus overdose.

If working out agreements with our old friends to the south sometimes seems a daunting task, future environmental problems offer us no relief on the transboundary pollution front. Indeed, the future will bring us even more complex negotiating puzzles.

As the Chernobyl incident reminds us, many forms of pollution do not just cross a single border; they orbit the globe and threaten the well-being of the people of 200 nations. Furthermore, some types of pollution originate in a score or even 100 jurisdictions -- consider the greenhouse effect, the disappearance of the ozone layer -- these are going to be difficult problems for mankind to tackle.

Canadians have been among the first to recognize this phenomenon. Today is World Environment Day, an institution growing out of the United Nations' 1972 Stockholm conference on the human environment. Canada's own Maurice Strong was instrumental in the success of that conference.

World Environment Day 1986 reminds us that even as we seek to clean our own house, we must develop institutions and mechanisms to grapple with problems that are bigger than any one of us.

Ms. Fish: The Minister of the Environment wrings his hands on World Environment Day and blames everyone else. He talks about cleaning up our own act. Where is the safe drinking water act? Where is the cradle-to-grave tracking of materials? Where is the legislation to alter the fines and penalties for polluters? Where are the promised improvements to water and sewage treatment? Where are the measures to discourage the use of leaded gasoline? The minister has not moved. He just talks.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the members once again that interjections are out of order.

Mrs. Grier: I want to recommend to the Minister of the Environment that he read the statement I made earlier today, because his statement with respect to World Environment Day is merely a reiteration of the good intentions we have heard and is not concrete action.

PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Gillies: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I rise to seek your guidance on what I consider to be a breach of standing order 18.

As you are aware, over the past several weeks we have read in the Toronto Star the details of several items scheduled to be presented before this House. Some specific examples include advance reporting of the government's amendments to Bill 94 and advance reporting of the announcements of the ministries of the Environment, Labour and Consumer and Commercial Relations.

We read in yesterday's Toronto Star the details of the new rent control legislation of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), and today's Toronto Star contains some details of the forthcoming pension legislation of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter).

We understand that simply reading about government policy in advance of its presentation in this House is not a matter of privilege. Item 95.7 in the Clerk's precedents book quotes several records which substantiate this.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention two specific points on this issue. First, we are no longer reading indications of government policy before it is introduced; we are now reading specific amendments and pieces of legislation. I invite you to consider the difference. Policy musings are one thing, but details of legislation -- actual amendments in the case of Bill 94 -- are of a slightly more serious nature and clearly demonstrate a contempt for the privileges of the members of this House. I ask you to give this serious consideration.

My second point relates to two individuals who have demonstrated contempt for this House and contempt for their government oath of secrecy. I understand that according to the precedents of this House as set out in item 96.3 of the Clerk's precedents book, I cannot rise on this point unless I am in a position to "name the offender and move that he be called before the bar of the House." I believe we are now in a position to do that.

The oath of secrecy taken by all public and civil servants, including special assistants and executive assistants to ministers, reads as follows, "I do swear that I will faithfully discharge my duties as a public servant and I will observe and comply with the laws of Canada and Ontario, and except as I may be legally required to do, I will not disclose or give to any person any information or document that comes to my knowledge or possession by reason of my being a public servant, so help me God."

I have two specific examples of breaches of this oath. One is named and quoted in the May 31 edition of the Ottawa Citizen. The other appears in this morning's Globe and Mail.

David Oved, special assistant to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), is quoted on page 16 of the May 31 edition of the Ottawa Citizen. The article reads in part: "David Oved, a spokesman for Bradley, said the new provincial amendments" -- note that it is as specific as the word "amendments" -- "will increase the maximum fines, set jail sentences for those who commit flagrant acts of pollution and make provisions so that the province can recover some of the profits earned by a company....." The article goes on to refer to Mr. Oved several more times.

This action by Mr. Oved is in clear violation of his oath of secrecy and is in contempt of this House.

In the second example, in this morning's Globe and Mail the executive assistant to the Minister of Housing is quoted extensively on page 5. Mr. Goetz-Gadon is referred to three times, yet his boss, the Minister of Housing, is not quoted once. Mr. Goetz-Gadon has violated his oath of secrecy and has demonstrated contempt for this House.

I move that these two public servants be called before the bar of this House to explain their actions and apologize to the House.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to comment on this. The honourable member is grandstanding in this matter. If he wants to refer a matter to one of the committees, fine. If he wants to put a motion that is properly in order to call somebody before the bar of the House, fine. However, as far as I can see, these men have not violated any oath whatsoever. The matter to be debated is the subject of the bills that are before the House and what is reported in the newspaper is somebody else's business.

I suggest the motion should not be proceeded with.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the member for Brantford and to the government House leader. I am sure all members are aware that a decision must be made by the Speaker on whether or not it is a point of privilege before a motion can be put, Because of the lengthy detail in the member's presentation, I would like to reserve judgement and report back to the House.

2:40 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Minister of Housing. The minister announced a policy today that changes the rules for the tenants of this province. Instead of facing a four per cent increase without appeal, the tenants of this province have been told by the minister today that in some cases they will face increases up to six per cent and in other cases increases up to 10 per cent. Can he tell us which tenants in this province will be helped by today's legislation?

Hon. Mr. Curling: All tenants in this province will be helped by this legislation.

Mr. Grossman: If a tenant, say in midtown Toronto, is currently paying $500 a month for rent, after today's announcement he or she will be looking at a $50-per-month increase or, on a $500-per-month rental base, an extra $600 per year next year. Can the minister explain to this House how that tenant, in essence paying an extra month's rent next year, has been put in a better situation as a result of the legislation the minister has announced today?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I was not good at math in school, but I thought I was alone. I hope the honourable leader will get a chance to read in detail the bill that has been put forward, not the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star. No rent will be increased unless it is presented under the rent review guideline.

Mr. Grossman: With respect to the minister, inviting us to read the legislation does not answer the question for the tenant who is paying $500 a month and is looking at as much as a 10 per cent increase. Just to help the minister and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who whispered that advice to him, let me point out that on $500 a month, a 10 per cent increase is $50 per month. If we multiply that by 12, we get a $600-per-year increase, which is more than an extra month's increase on the base rent.

Given his announcement, made many times prior to today, that he is in a position of trying to help tenants and improve their lot, can he explain to that average tenant in midtown Toronto how his circumstances improve when he has to pay an extra one month's rent as a result of today's legislation?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me explain again to the honourable leader that no increase can take effect above the guidelines unless it is subjected to the guideline formula. If he speaks about 10 per cent or I5 per cent, then it has to be brought before the review process. That will decide what justification the landlord would need in order to increase the rent by 10 per cent, eight per cent, 12 per cent or whatever. It must come forth to be justified first.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It is World Environment Day, and he treated us this afternoon to some information about frightening accounts of our entire Great Lakes basin being "a bowl of toxicity." He also cautioned us about how difficult it is to work out agreements with the Americans, with regard to Lake Erie and the Niagara River cleanup in particular.

Given that, I want to tell the minister that we spoke today with sources in the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States and with the International Joint Commission. They informed us that they have been waiting now for some six months to receive from his ministry information on raw data on sources of environmental pollution in the Great Lakes system, and that to date his ministry has refused to put forward that information. Can he tell us why'?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the Leader of the Opposition will know, the Ministry of the Environment provides the information that is requested by international bodies, whether they be state or national bodies in the United States. In the exchange of that information, we have had a good relationship with both the EPA and the adjacent states. We will continue to do so. We will continue to work very hard with the adjacent authorities to ensure that they provide us with information and we provide them with information. Acting on that, we can come up with some remedial plans.

Mr. Grossman: Again, that is a self-congratulatory statement of the minister's general goals. I want to make a specific allegation. Having spoken with the American authorities, we allege that while they have supplied some 4,000 point sources and the raw data, Ontario has supplied information with regard to 200 point sources and has refused to give any raw data, which are what the IJC needs. What it has received from the Americans, it cannot get from Ontario. Does the minister deny the accusation that he has refused to release raw data information to the IJC and the EPA?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that our ministry has, on all occasions, indicated it will be cooperative. In my view, it has been co-operative with the EPA, prior to my being the minister and since I have been the minister. We are prepared to provide that information to them when they make that particular request to us.

The member will also know that since most of the problems exist in terms of the information that we have exchanged, most particularly related to the Niagara River on the other side of the river, if one looks at the hot spots that are identified by environmental groups around the Great Lakes, one would note that most of them are on the American side of the river. Therefore, the information provided would be about far more spots on the American side of the river.

Mr. Grossman: The issue is not whether there are more sources on the American side. The fact is that the Americans have co-operated to the extent of providing all their raw data with regard to all their sources. I will read the minister's words. He says his government places "a premium on promptly and fully informing the public of all our environmental findings." If the minister means that, can he tell us why the Americans have released all their raw data on all their sources and he has absolutely stonewalled and refused to release any raw data on any of the Ontario sources which may be helping to pollute the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that it is understandable that because of the stand Ontario has taken, particularly in relation to those negotiations related to the Niagara River, I would be surprised if there were not accusations made from the other side of the river, from American authorities, against the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr. Grossman: So deny the accusations.

Mr. Davis: Did the minister give them the information?

Mr. Grossman: Did the minister give them the information?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The Leader of the Opposition is not the Speaker yet.

As the member would know, we have taken a very tough stand in those negotiations. Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: For that reason, I would recognize why that criticism would be forthcoming.

Mr. Grossman: Cover-up, cover-up --

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. He will no doubt remember that a few months ago he was interviewed by a newspaper about the withdrawal of funds from Dominion Stores' pension fund. He said that, upon reflection, he saw nothing immoral, illegal or unethical in the activities of Dominion Stores or of its chief executive officer or the person responsible for the overall policy of the stores, one Conrad Black.

Today the Legislature passed a historic resolution, which repudiates that position with respect to the extraction of surpluses from pension funds. Whose side is the minister on, that of the Legislature of Ontario or of Conrad Black?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Conrad Black is not an issue in this debate. At the time that comment was made, I was addressing a forum on pensions and suggested that in the eyes of the Pension Commission of Ontario there was nothing illegal, immoral or dishonest about taking that money out. That particular matter is before the courts, as the member knows, and we are awaiting their decision on one aspect of that particular situation.

Mr. Rae: One of the features of the budget was a couple of paragraphs of moral exhortation about the problem of corporate concentration and corporate takeover. That matter has now been referred to a committee of this Legislature.

Is the minister aware that in the Genstar case, to name only one instance, the money used to finance corporate takeovers was taken from pension funds by the company attempting to finance the takeover? If he is aware of it, and he must be because it was on the front page of the Toronto Star, what does he intend to do to take steps to stop the corporate takeovers and, at the same time, to stop the extraction of workers' money from their own pension fund?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As I have informed the House in the past couple of days, I will be bringing forward our Pension Benefits Act, which deals with this issue. Members will have an opportunity to debate it in this House and to come to a resolution.

Mr. Rae: In the light of the resolution that was passed by the assembly today and because the minister's legislation, at least in the draft form which we have all seen, does not deal with this question of surplus skimming and indexation, will he at least agree to impose a freeze on the withdrawal of any funds until such time as the Legislature has the opportunity formally to put in place what it moved and accepted today by way of resolution?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The pension arrangements are matters of contractual arrangement between the employers and the employees. It would be totally unreasonable to change retroactively that contractual arrangement.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Today the minister said on page 5 of his statement, "These recommendations represented a unique consensus between landlords and tenants."

I do not know. All I know is what I read in the papers and I have here a copy of a large advertisement.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is all in here. Why worry?

Mr. Rae: The Premier is getting exercise.

It is a large advertisement from the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario whose members and, indeed, as I understand it, whose leader was the co-chairman of the minister's Rent Review Advisory Committee. This was not six months ago; this was yesterday after they had signed the so-called consensus. It says: "Ontario has a housing crisis. We have a solution. We believe the initial step towards correcting the rental housing crisis in Ontario is to gradually phase out rent controls." That is the position of the same people who have signed this document.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: Why should we accept this document when the landlords have stated very clearly that their true objective and their real aim is the elimination of rent controls entirely in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Curling: One of the most respected persons in this House is the leader of the third party. I say that because I believe in democracy.

The consensus arrived at was not reflected in the advertisement which members see there. We had 18 people working on this advisory committee, and the consensus being read here was signed by 18 members. This is an advertisement that is written by another group. This is a democratic country and it is very difficult for that party to understand that. They have a right to write whatever they feel. This is the consensus we go by.

Mr. Rae: It is not very much of a consensus if it collapses the day before it is announced in the Legislature of Ontario. That is the problem with the minister's consensus.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Rae: I want to ask the minister about one of his items on page 6, which refers to "the provision of a revised form of hardship relief for the owners of pre-1976 buildings."

Mr. Wildman: Hardship?

Mr. Rae: It is hardship relief for landlords, which is a novel approach for any government to take in Ontario. Who will pay for this hardship relief? Can the minister confirm that tenants in buildings that are described as historically depressed -- and they will be historically depressed upon reading the minister's recommendation -- will be paying even more than the five or six per cent limit, which we expect to be announced?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Curling: With respect to the question from the leader of the third party, we recognize there are landlords who are having difficulty and who are having a hardship problem because of chronically depressed rents. However, if we had addressed those chronically depressed rents, the tenants of those units would have been faced with great increases in their rents.

The committee sat down and recognized those two problems. I have been working on how we will move on that without bringing hardship on those tenants who live in those units. When that is being applied, it will not bring an exorbitant increase on the tenants living there, but it will be adjusted in a way that will be fair to both sides.

Mr. Rae: I look forward to seeing that and to understanding the details. I invite the minister to come into buildings in my riding that are described as historically depressed and explain to tenants who are making perhaps $4.50 an hour why their rents should go up more than somebody else's because they are living in a building whose landlord he has designated as a hardship case. I invite the minister to come in. Perhaps he would like to do it soon.

This is the fact sheet on rent review that was handed out by the Ministry of Housing. Copies were sent out to literally tens of thousands of tenants, many of them by members of all parties, trying to explain what the government of Ontario intended to do. Is the Minister of Housing aware that, by virtue of his announcement today with respect to a change from the four per cent ceiling, a change with respect to guarantees of four per cent instead of a sliding scale, he has in effect simply torn up his earlier announcement?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just been advised that the power went off and that we are now on emergency power.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Until the power comes back on, perhaps somebody can pull the curtains.

Mr. Speaker: I am certain someone may have heard that suggestion.

Hon. Mr. Curling: If anyone has pulled the plug on the tenants, it is the leader of the third party.

The rents will not increase dramatically. As a matter of fact, we did not renege on our commitment at all. As members can see, we were saying we would bring all private rental units under the Residential Rent Regulation Act. That has been done. The guideline, or the paper the member had in hand, was to explain exactly what our position is. If he reads it now, it stands very well as it was.

We had also promised to introduce a bill, as I said, to bring all rental units under the Residential Rent Regulation Act, and we have done that.

Mr. Gordon: The members of the House would probably agree that there are two types of individuals who are experts when it comes to landlord and tenant matters: the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario people, who represent landlords, and the leaders of the tenants' groups.

Can the minister explain to this House why the fair rental group says his new bill just maintains the status quo, that it is merely a stopgap and that it does not increase affordable housing in this province? Can he also explain, given that they took those points of view, why he is now giving the landlords of this province such a big increase?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The Fair Rental Policy Organization took that point of view because over the years the previous government neglected to build any social housing. It was a matter of a meagre 2,000 in 1985.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: We have a great lack of affordable rental stock on the market. In 1986, we have presented 6,700 new social housing units to accommodate the neglect of the previous government.

Mr. Gordon: This government has not built a unit yet, but that is beside the point.

Let us talk about the other experts --

Mr. Speaker: By way of question and supplementary.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Mclntyre was a member of the committee, but he did not sign the recommendations of that committee because he objected to the government putting in a new formula that determines the residential complex cost index and makes it, as he says, "pure gravy for landlords." He would not sign because he says it makes the affordable housing that does not exist much less affordable. He says the minister has not addressed the question at all.

Can the minister tell me why he did not bother to invite Mr. Mclntyre to the party that is going to be held in the Premier's offices today?

Hon. Mr. Curling: First, I extend an invitation to the honourable critic to attend the party today. He has mentioned it about three times. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) is invited to come over this afternoon.

Dan Mclntyre from Ottawa has made a tremendous contribution to the advisory committee. This is a democratic country, and he chose not to sign the consensus, but he is welcome to come to the party.

Mr. Gordon: Did the minister invite him?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Reville: I do not think there is much to celebrate at this party.

I want to take the minister back to the matter of the so-called chronically depressed rents, which are under his landlord welfare section of the bill. I want to attack his mathematics for a minute. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will bear with me while I pose the mathematical problem.

The minister will know that 80 per cent of people who are on social assistance live in private rental accommodation, and he will nod to indicate that he knows that. He will also know that if that building happens to be one of those with so-called chronically depressed rents, then the rents can go up by seven per cent. If I have a current rent of $500 a month, a seven per cent increase is $35 extra a month; if I am already paying 60 per cent of my income for rent, where do I find the $35?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me explain to the honourable member that before any increase can be awarded, it must be justified before the rent review process. Any increase will be limited to two per cent above what an individual is paying; so the increase is insignificant.

I understand the member's concern for the people who are earning such low incomes that $20 or $30 is a significant increase. The committee has recognized that and has said that if there should be an increase, it would be phased in over a certain time and no increase should be more than two per cent over what an individual is paying.

Mr. Reville: The minister understands more mathematics than I thought. Two per cent of $500 a month is $10 a month. If I am one of the tenants who is paying 80 per cent, 60 per cent, 50 per cent of income, I am already paying too much for rent. Where do I find the extra $10 a month when I am already taking money out of my food budget to pay the rent?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Where will that individual find the money? As I said, a rent increase will not be allowed without justification and rent review. When the member asks me where that individual will find that money, I do not understand how I can answer that for him.

Ms. Fish: I have a question to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). Is he within hearing? The minister was here moments ago. Is he here? Apparently the Minister of the Environment is not in the House. I will yield to my colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies).

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Premier. I am referring to the Premier's news release dated May 29, in which he announced the $17.5 million grant to a computer centre called Exploracom. We have learned that this grant is not coming from the Ontario Development Corp., or through the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp., or through Innovation Ontario.

It seems everybody in the government has the impression that this grant is coming out of the Premier's technology fund. As the Premier has not yet struck the council for his technology fund or laid down any guidelines or criteria for that fund, can he tell the House where this $17.5 million is coming from?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member for Brantford answered his own question. It is coming out of the high-technology fund.

Mr. Gillies: This is passing strange. We have a Premier's Council, which is going to administer a technology fund. There is no council. There are no criteria for expending money under this fund, and in this case the money is going to a venture headed by Abe Schwartz, a very close friend of the Premier. Mr. Schwartz supported the Premier as leader of his party, was an adviser to him in opposition and was a member of his transition team.

Is this some special arrangement for a special friend, or can we assume anybody can walk into the Premier's office now and get similar treatment under his as-yet-to-be-set-up fund?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me tell the member about Mr. Schwartz. He is a 29-year-old entrepreneur. When he was the age of the member, he was a millionaire. He was out making real jobs for people, not being negative. I just pass that on to my honourable friend.

The fund is also supported by people like Maureen McTeer -- whom I know the member knows well, and he will be delighted to hear of her support -- by Alan Eagleson and by similar people who think this is one of the most remarkable, creative new projects this city will ever undertake. Something like $35 million is involved in the project, from both the public and private sectors. It is involved in technology transfer, education, hands-on computer experience. It will be revolutionary, unique in the world.

What always gets me about the members is they cannot stand good news over there. They just revel and wallow in bad news. They cannot stand it when my colleague comes up with the most innovative housing policy in the history of this province or of this country. They are against it when we are considering technological development, when we are going to bring Ontario to the cutting edge of technological innovation in the world.

GRIFFITH MINE

Mr. Rae: I am delighted with that question from the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and the answer, because it allows us to draw a contrast between what the government of Ontario is prepared to do for Abe Schwartz and what it has been prepared to do for Ear Falls and Red Lake and for those serving on a committee that has asked for anything from the government of Ontario and has received nothing.

The committee, chaired by Jack Stokes, has reached such a level of frustration that it has in effect disbanded its operations. Is the Premier aware of that? Is he aware that a letter dated May 23, 1986, has gone out from Mr. Stokes, saying, "Every effort we have made to explore the potential for economic development has met with governmental indifference and insensitivity to the plight of Ear Falls, which is going to lose over 60 per cent of its tax bases at the same time as governments and private corporations are extracting over $60 million in terms of wealth every year from that part of the province"?

What does the Premier intend to do to give some hope, some practical idea of assistance, not just to Abe Schwartz and his high-technology, multimillion-dollar scheme but also to the people living in Ear Falls, who have got nothing from this government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to leave the impression that there is something for Abe Schwartz. The member may have the impression that there are no people in this world who want to make contributions, but this is nonprofit and he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money developing it. I get tired of this constant negativism when people make real contributions. I hope I have disabused the member of the small-minded notion he has tried to perpetrate.

Let me answer the question about Ear Falls and the north. This government has been working night and day on exactly the question my honourable friend raised. It is our view that we need to respond on two levels, on a long-term approach to the problems of northern Ontario and on a short-term approach as well.

We have very serious situations, not just in Ear Falls but in other communities in northern Ontario as well. A considerable amount of time was spent on this question in cabinet yesterday. The meeting of the policy and priorities board of cabinet this afternoon will be spent on the question. It is my hope that by the end of the month, and I cannot give a specific date, we will come forward with specific initiatives, both short-term and long-term, that will address exactly the problems raised by the member.

Ear Falls was kept going. Government gave $5 million by way of tax relief or tax expenditure to keep the mine going for a year to get the previous government by the last election, but the inevitable happened. We are looking at a wide variety of initiatives, not only at the existing resource bases -- forestry, mining and others -- but also at other approaches we can take in terms of bureaucratic responses and building the government presence in the north, and in terms of looking at private sector initiatives and tourism as well as at the existing strengths. It is our highest priority at the moment, and I expect to have an announcement that the member will think is constructive.

Mr. Wildman: If the Premier and his government are sincere in attempting to respond to the real needs of resource-based communities such as Ear Falls, can he explain why the chairman and the rest of the committee appointed by the government have come to the conclusion that, "In spite of our efforts to enlist the aid of several ministries at the federal and provincial level, absolutely nothing was done to assist us in this endeavour"? Why would they come to the conclusion that, despite their honest efforts, "There is absolutely no commitment by either the federal or provincial governments to assist us in our hour of need"?

Why would the chairman of the government's committee come to that conclusion if this government had a commitment to northern development? Why were the very positive suggestions made by this committee for alternatives to deal with the problems of Ear Falls not responded to by this government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are taking the approach of the suggestions made there as well as by the Rosehart committee, a wide-ranging committee of which I gather the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) was a member; it did some excellent work and made suggestions we can specifically adapt to the situations there. My honourable friend will see some announcements by the end of the month. I hope they will go at least some way towards addressing a serious problem.

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) if he will present himself in the House. He was here for his statement. It is World Environment Day. Will he grace this Legislature with his presence, or is he running for cover to find the answers to questions he could not respond to before?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not see him. New question.

Mr. Gillies: I fear the Premier protests too much. I did not say in my question that I thought Exploracom was a bad project.

3:20 p.m.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have a new question of the Premier. His nonexistent Premier's Council for his as-yet-not-set-up technology fund has approved one grant of $17.5 million for a close personal friend of his. If he is as concerned about the appearance of that as we are, will he table the submission that Mr. Schwartz's group made for his consideration? Will he table the minutes of the technology fund meeting at which, presumably, it was approved? Will he table anything and everything he has that can dispel the impression that may be left that this submission got special treatment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, I am concerned about substance; the member is concerned about appearances. That is the difference between us. Let me say to my honourable friend that, as he knows, the Premier's Council will be an advisory council giving advice to the executive council, which will make the actual spending decisions. That is the way it is and it always will be.

It is a $100-million fund, as the member knows, and we will be making a variety of decisions over a long period. I will be reporting to the House in the not-too-distant future about the Premier's Council. This was the first decision that was made. I am very happy to share information with members.

I am glad the member will finally stand up to say, "It is a good project and I support it." Why does he not put that in the preamble of his question so people will not get a false impression of his views on the subject?

Mr. Gillies: I can understand the Premier's sensitivity. The people of Ear Falls are still waiting, and my landslide victims in Brantford are still waiting, but a friend of the Premier's can waltz into his office and walk out with $17.5 million.

Can the Premier tell this House whether other submissions for his technology fund were considered by his office at the same time as he was considering the submission by Mr. Schwartz? Can he tell us a bit about them, about their merits and demerits, and whether he will be approving any of those in advance of his fund being properly set up?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We may well. We are looking at a variety of initiatives.

What is so heartening to us is that this high-technology fund and our new creative approach have been greeted with such widespread support in the industry. A lot of people are excited about the prospects.

Mr. Grossman: We did not ask you that. Where are the documents? Will you table the documents?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member wants all the information. I am happy to share it with my honourable colleague. I am happy to share with him the enthusiasm that has been felt across this province. It is felt that we need leadership in this area. A number of ideas, suggestions and submissions have come in. We will be dealing with them in due course.

We may very well make more decisions prior to the formal introduction of the council. We may very well, because time is somewhat of the essence. After all, we are trying to make up in a short space of time for 42 years of bungling.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will wait if members want to waste other members' time.

RIO ALGOM

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister will be aware that Ontario Hydro has just renegotiated its uranium contracts with Rio Algom.

Can the minister explain to the House why a public corporation, which operates under the authority of this government, can find ways to renegotiate a contract with Rio Algom so it reduces the annual output of ore from those operations and extends the life of the contract, thereby guaranteeing the profits of the company, but cannot find ways to protect 200 jobs in Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As far as I am concerned, as the negotiating of those contracts went on, Ontario Hydro was faced with the reality that uranium can be purchased in Saskatchewan for half of what it is costing at Elliot Lake.

What has happened now in the renegotiating of the contracts is that the jobs are guaranteed at Elliot Lake by extending -- the member shakes his head, but those jobs are going to be protected because they are going to be ongoing for the life of the contract.

Everyone realizes the uranium from Saskatchewan is on top of the ground and that at Elliot Lake it is in the hard rock. I am not sure everything that could have been done was done, because I was not privy to the negotiations. I am pleased that Elliot Lake is going to continue to be viable and that we can keep those mines open.

Mr. Wildman: Surely the minister is aware that Rio Algom has announced the layoff of 200 men. If he is aware of that, and if he is aware that Ontario Hydro has paid for the mine and the infrastructure and has guaranteed the profits for Rio Algom, is he prepared to suggest to Ontario Hydro that it put together a package that will assist in early retirement so those jobs can be eliminated by attrition rather than by layoffs?

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Wildman: Also, is he prepared to agree to the proposal of the committee that has just reported, that the resource --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am prepared to go forward with anything we can do to protect jobs in northern Ontario. As our leader has just told the House, we are taking initiatives that are going to do a great many things to help the people in northern Ontario. Keeping those mines open is one of the things that is quite important to the future of Elliot Lake.

There have been layoffs throughout northern Ontario, but if we can keep those mines open to protect the rest of the jobs that are in jeopardy, that will be an accomplishment. We will take the member's concerns forward. I am not prepared to do anything that is counter to good involvement in negotiating on keeping all those jobs available to the people in Elliot Lake.

PROPERTY REASSESSMENT

Mr. Cordiano: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. Is it his intention to impose market value assessment on Metro Toronto if the councils do not support the reassessment as proposed by the chairman's task force?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Members of the House know that the Metro chairman established a task force some months ago which reported, I guess, about a month ago. Various city councils of the metropolitan area are deliberating on whether to accept any or all of the recommendations. It is my hope that all the cities will pass resolutions recommending that reassessment take place on a Metro-wide basis. I believe it would be in the best interests of the ratepayers themselves.

In direct answer to the question, I believe the responsibility for making that decision must lie with the elected members of the various councils. It is not my intention; with the information that is available to me at this time, to attempt to rally support in this House to impose anything the councils feel is not in the best interests of the proper financial conduct of their municipal affairs.

Mr. Cordiano: l guess the minister is saying it is up to the individual councils and he will leave it to their autonomy as to whether the passage of reassessment will take place.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member and others know the House has the power to impose reassessment, whether or not it is accepted at the local level. My own strong feeling, and my observation in this matter, is that if it is requested by the councils, if they are fully involved in the planning leading up to the decision and if it is accepted by the ratepayers -- many of whom will benefit, while others would pay more taxes; there is no doubt about that -- it Leaves a substantial political dilemma for those people who sometimes are more sensitive to the winds of politics than they perhaps should be.

3:30 p.m.

FIGHTING ISLAND

Ms. Fish: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I am so pleased to see him back. While in opposition, the minister's party claimed to be quite concerned about the condition of an area of this province that his leader referred to as a disgrace; indeed, he went on to refer to it as a veritable cauldron of toxic chemical waste. The area is Fighting Island. What has the minister done in the past year to deal with that?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Within a month or a month and a half of becoming Minister of the Environment, I visited Fighting Island personally as part of an excursion that went to Windsor to deal with the Zalev Brothers' problem, which had been festering for some time, and to the Sarnia area, which was beginning to be identified as a problem area. I visited Fighting Island at that time with my officials, American officials and company officials to observe any problems the island might be encountering. Specifically at that time, people had expressed concern over the visual problems that had existed, the dust that was blowing over towards the Windsor area and so on.

In co-operation with our friends on the American side, we have continued to do testing in that area to determine the extent of the problems. I expect the report on the interlocking lakes, the international lakes, the upper and lower lakes, will be forthcoming quite soon under the auspices of the International Joint Commission.

Ms. Fish: The area is either a simple aesthetic eyesore or a veritable cauldron of toxic chemical waste. Does the minister stand behind his leader? If so, what has he done specifically to deal with what his leader has termed "a veritable cauldron of toxic chemical waste"?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the member asks me whether I stand behind my leader, the answer is yes. That happens in this party.

I will try not to sound partisan in this regard. The member knows I try to do that in the House. One of the things I found while I was at Fighting Island was that some problems that had been identified had not been addressed. They required an international connection. On Fighting Island, as the member mentioned, there are two problems: the visual problem or the nuisance problem and the potential for serious toxic substances.

In conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources in Michigan and the two national bodies, we have done extensive studies that will pinpoint the specific problems related to Fighting Island. When we pinpoint those in a very specific way, we can come forward with the abatement program that is necessary.

JANITORIAL SERVICES

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Will the minister tell this House what he is doing about the 22 cleaners, 20 of them women, members of Labourers' International Union, Local 183, who have lost their jobs at the Aetna building, formerly York Centre, as a result of the contract with Concord Building Maintenance being put out to tender for the first time in 14 years by Olympia and York, after the workers managed to get organized and negotiated a collective agreement? Surely the minister has been around long enough to recognize straight union busting.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are looking at the individual circumstance. We have not made any determination on whether what the honourable member suggests is actually going on. As I previously indicated to the House, we are also looking at this whole issue in a very active way. It is a very complex one. We are looking at it as part of a general review we are making of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister will recognize that these cleaners, who have now lost their jobs, join those at the Elizabeth Briar Health Centre in Ottawa, who did manage to get back to work at a loss of $3 an hour, and those at the Gateway post office in Mississauga, who could be out of work at the end of the month. Does the minister not understand the desperate job situation of these people? Can he tell us when he will take action to ensure, through successor rights legislation, that they do have some protection in the jobs they have? How many more have to lose their jobs before we see some action?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I understand the member's concern. It is an issue that is perhaps a touch more complex than the member makes it out to be. I assure the House we are looking at it very carefully. It is a problem that appears to be most specific to that industry in that area. I am well aware that the group most often affected is female and often immigrant workers. We are looking at it very seriously. In trying to solve the problem, we do not wish to create new and even greater problems and an even greater degree of unfairness.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Ms. Fish: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Last year, in answer to a question from the Project for Environmental Priorities, his leader responded to the following question, "Will you support a strengthening of the Environmental Assessment Act by restricting the exemption process and by extending the full application of the act to private sector projects?" with a simple yes. Can the minister tell me why he has not done so?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I find that a rather interesting question from the member for St. George, when she is presumably speaking on behalf of her leader, who goes to one end of the province and says one thing then comes into the House and says something else. He goes to a business group and he gives one story about exemptions and he comes into the House and has his critic ask a question that involves bringing in the private sector. I am wondering what her party's position is on this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Fish: I am sadly disappointed that the minister has refused to answer and that he treats the question as a flip one; so I will ask it again.

Last year, in answering the question, "Will you support a strengthening of the Environmental Assessment Act by restricting the exemption process and by extending the full application of the act to private sector projects?" his leader answered yes. Particularly in view of a May 2 letter to the minister from a group called PORT, dealing with private waste disposal sites, will the minister move now to extend the application of the act? Why has he not done so to this date?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am interested now I know what the position of the member's party is. It wishes the act to be extended extensively into the private sector. When her leader goes to the regional conferences, which he does for the Progressive Conservative Party, that is the position he has to give.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: They report back to me when they go there. Believe it or not, I have good friends in the Conservative Party.

In response to the question the member asked, we evaluate applications and requests on a case-by-case basis. if there are any cases that require extension into the private sector, we are certainly prepared to do that. The member knows that.

Mr. Harris: That is not what the Liberal Party leader said and it is not the position the minister had a year ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call for any further supplementaries.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Premier. Women in Ontario do not know why we are being asked to wait for equal pay legislation, but perhaps we can learn a little bit more about what we are being asked to wait for, in particular on the question of coverage as it will affect equal pay legislation in this province.

I would like the Premier to comment on the many submissions made to the hearing panel, including that by the Chinese Canadian National Council, which said, "To apply size restrictions on the application of pay equity" -- that is employer size -- "would be analogous to limiting the coverage of minimum wage regulation." They pointed out that many Chinese-Canadian women, especially new immigrants, are ghettoized into the low-paying jobs, particularly in garment factories, service industries and within their own ethnic communities.

Can the Premier tell us whether the equal pay for equal work legislation is going to cover all women who work in Ontario?

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We spent time today being criticized for speaking out ahead of time about what is going to be in the policies when we announce them. We cannot win in this House. We get criticized whatever we do. It is not easy being in government with all this criticism.

I was not aware of the specific brief the member talked about, but I think I have some understanding of the general point made. That is the kind of problem we want to address.

A final determination has not been made on the details. That is why we are consulting so very widely across the province. I know my friend is impatient with us and would have liked us to move some long time ago. As she knows, there is a massive consultative process going on. We want the legislation to be right and we want to hear the views of all the people who want to express their views on it. That is why I am not in a position to tell her the answer to her question today.

Ms. Gigantes: I think what is going on is not a massive consultation; it is a massive confusion in the Liberal Party about whether they are going to address, not details, but principles in the legislation on equal pay for work of equal value. Does the Premier remember a gentleman who said: "We have had enough public discussion on this matter. We have had hearings and debates and all of us who believe in progress are disappointed there has not been more progress"? It was the Premier in 1983. Does he remember that? Where is the principle? Who is going to get covered?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minute we had the opportunity to do so, we adopted the principle. That is something that had never been done before. Now we are into the specifics only and we are working on those specifics. We will have a program after wide consultation. We have said we are moving on the project. I do not know what more assurance the member needs. She can stand up every single day with her suggestions that we should move faster, and that is fair enough. However, it is like a lot of other things. It would have been nice to move faster on the housing package brought forward today. It is very well thought out. There has been a tremendous amount of work put into it by a lot of thoughtful people. What we produced in the House today is right. We will do the same thing with the equal pay legislation.

FOOD LAND PRESERVATION POLICY

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Does he approve of the use of class I agricultural land as landfill sites in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No. I think the member is aware of our food land preservation policy, which has been disseminated widely for comment. Some comment was not very favourable and other comment was quite favourable. I think the member knows my stand. We should preserve class I agricultural land wherever possible. My ministry gets to comment on most of the land that is being designated for other purposes. If it is class I land, they comment that it is land that should be preserved for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Rowe: The minister has mountains of rhetoric out there pretending to be the protector of the farmer. Can he tell me why the Ministry of the Environment is forcing a landfill site in Tiny township on 150 acres of prime agricultural land when all four surrounding municipalities are opposed to the move? Why has the minister sold the farmers out to the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is obvious the question list over there is pretty well exhausted. These are questions on the spur of the moment. The member knows the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is not forcing that issue.

DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE

Mr. Martel: I have another question for the Minister of Labour, who looks after the swamp. Does the minister recall that in January I asked him to send an inspector in to Imperial Oil because it was threatening to fire a man by the name of John Buklis, who was a company appointee hired to look into occupational health and safety?

If the minister can recall that, can he tell me why his inspector went in and spoke to management, then got on the intercom and phoned the worker to tell him to come to the main office, where the worker found himself dismissed. Because I am not going to get a supplementary, maybe I will ask my supplementary right now. Will the minister investigate this man's dismissal?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I recall discussing this matter with my friend the member for Sudbury East. If I am not mistaken, this is the gentleman in Sarnia. I remember the discussion we had.

One of the problems I want to share is when the inspector goes to the plant, usually it is kind of difficult for the inspector to find the worker without somehow having him paged, telephoned or whatever. Obviously, what grew out of the problem is the concern of my honourable friend. I will look into what happened at the end of the process. We will not be very pleased if that company has taken that action for those reasons.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to draw your attention to Orders and Notices and the inquiry of the ministry standing in my name, question 282. You will note I tabled this question on May 15, 1986. It is my understanding, according to the rules of this House, the ministry must respond within 14 sitting days.

Three weeks have now gone by, and we still do not have an answer. I ask you to review this matter, bring it to the attention of the ministry and direct the ministry to follow the rules of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I know the member is fully aware of the rules and I am certain the government House leader will take note.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) about the courthouses in Ingersoll and Woodstock. He replied, "I will doublecheck that and be sure to get back to the member this week with an answer to those issues in those two centres." I have not received that answer.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for the point of information. I am sure the minister will take note of it.

POWER FAILURE

Mr. Speaker: The members are aware that earlier today the member for York South (Mr. Rae) created some darkness in the chamber. The Minister of Government Services would like to explain why.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I want to shed some light on the occurrence during question period when the power failed. I know many members of this House were concerned that perhaps it was caused by sparks raised during the somewhat exuberant and theatrical performances of question period. Others were concerned that perhaps the leader of the third party had created such a storm that the lights went out.

What did happen was that there was an electrical storm outside this building and the power was interrupted for a short period. There is an emergency generator here in the building, which takes a few minutes to kick in. I want to assure the members that the power has now been fully restored. We do not expect there will be an occurrence again today.

Mr. Harris: Is this the time for responses to ministerial statements?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not.

PETITIONS

EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Ramsay: I have a petition here on behalf of 123 people in the town of Cobalt. It is to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government. The petition, in its own words, states:

"This is a petition requesting more mining-related, long-term jobs in the Cobalt mining camp. We are waiting to see some kind of action on this jobless situation."

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Ms. E. J. Smith: I wish to present two petitions. The first is from the members of the United Church in the Lindsay Presbytery of the Bay of Quinte Conference. It bears roughly 100 names petitioning against the sale of beer and wine in corner stores.

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

Ms. E. J. Smith: My second petition has the signatures of about 65 citizens of London requesting further funding for the Ontario Humane Society.

3:50 p.m.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 154 residents of the very small community of Missinabi:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ministry of Transportation and Communications provide the funds to upgrade and straighten out a number of dangerous curves on the road connecting Missinabi to Renabie Gold Mines and Missibay Mining Inc."

SOVIET REACTOR

Mr. Henderson: I have a petition, which reads:

"To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are deeply concerned about the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and subsequent Soviet response to the emergency situation, we therefore petition:

"That the United Nations form an international investigative committee of scientists and medical experts to enter the Ukraine to assess the extent of danger;

"That Ontario and Canada declare their preparedness to contribute emergency aid -- medicine, food, technical personnel -- as needed;

"That Ontario and Canada announce an open-door policy for family reunification and sponsorship of immigrants wishing to leave the Ukraine; and

"That the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics permit communication between Canadians and other relatives in the Ukraine.

"Your voice in defence of the physical and mental health of people affected by the Chernobyl tragedy will enable many Canadians to once again open heart and home to those in need."

It is signed by about 20 constituents of Humber.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Curling moved first reading of Bill 51, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Rents charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes.

Motion agreed to.

UPHOLSTERED AND STUFFED ARTICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 57, An Act to amend the Upholstered and Stuffed Articles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am introducing today amendments to the Upholstered and Stuffed Articles Act. In addition to a few minor housekeeping changes, the amendments include a substantial increase in penalties that may be levied for contravention of the act's registration, labelling and other requirements.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 63, An Act to amend the Travel Industry Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to introduce today the Travel Industry Amendment Act, 1986. The bill includes a number of amendments to ensure the best possible protection for the Ontario travelling public and to facilitate the ministry's dealings with failed or failing companies.

In addition to certain housekeeping changes and clarifications, the bill provides for increased communication by Ontario's travel registrar with other regulatory bodies and law enforcement agencies.

New provisions also allow the director of the consumer protection division to apply to court for direction on disposition of the frozen assets of a failing registrant and for an order to appoint a receiver and manager.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 78

Hon. Mr. Curling moves that the order for second reading of Bill 78, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Rents charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes, be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn. Motion agreed to.

POLL

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before calling the next order, and in line with government policy, I want to table a poll entitled, A Summary of Tracking Data from Studies Undertaken between January 1980 and May 1985, for the Ministry of Energy.

House in committee of the whole.

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may Charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: I would remind members that when we left off yesterday, just before breaking, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) corrected his amendment in two places, changing references to section "11" to "22."

Miss Stephenson: Could I just hear that again?

Mr. Chairman: Section "11" was changed to "22." The "11" was incorrect.

Miss Stephenson: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) had the floor when we left off, if she wishes to resume; unless there is a reply to her comments.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Could I ask if there is agreement in the House to stack the votes this afternoon in order to expedite these matters? Perhaps the Conservatives could respond.

Miss Stephenson: "Expediate" means to eliminate. Does the member mean "expedite"?

Mr. Chairman: Is there any agreement to stack votes? No, there is not.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Again, the Conservatives are delaying action on this bill. We are on day four and we are still on section 2. No progress has been made on the ban on extra billing because the Conservatives are deliberately delaying this bill.

Mr. Andrewes: I will make a comment or two about the remarks of the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke). This bill went through very extensive public hearings in committee. At that time, several groups indicated there were concerns. It is probably one of the major issues that is going to confront this Legislature in this year and in many years to come. I would suggest the member is somewhat flippant in suggesting that a bill of such major proportions as this should not receive a fairly thorough debate in this Legislature. We have been three days on clause-by-clause study. The committee downstairs has spent at least three weeks on clause-by-clause study of Bill 30, another bill that is of substantial impact and importance to this Legislature.

4 p.m.

If the member for Windsor-Riverside is going to dismiss this piece of legislation because, in his view, it is simply a matter of getting the job done and everything will be hunky-dory in the world around us, I want to say we have invited his party and the government party to reach a number of compromises on this issue that would save us the kind of turbulence going on in the health care system today. They have rejected those compromises, and we will keep making those offers, either in the form of amendments or in the form of debate. It is the prerogative of a democratic society, and we will be exercising that prerogative.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: So members of the Legislature and anyone who might be watching these debates on television understand, every day the Conservatives manipulate the Legislature on a bill that has very few sections, a bill which cannot be compared whatsoever to Bill 30, which is lengthy and much more complicated with respect to legislation than this bill, amounts to $200,000 more in extra billing that people will never get back in this province.

The principle of this issue has been debated for 16 years. Public hearings were held by health councils last fall. Extensive second-reading debate took place in the Legislature. Public hearings were held by the standing committee on social development. We have had ample discussion on this bill. The reality is that the Conservatives are still lighting the principle of the bill. They do not want a ban on extra billing and they enjoy seeing patients in this province being extra billed at the rate of $200,000 a day. This is a filibuster, and there are no two ways about it.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, are we on a point of order?

Mr. Andrewes: Speaking to the point of order, where does the member for Windsor-Riverside get his figure of $200,000 a day?

Mr. Chairman: We are not on any point of order. The member for Windsor-Riverside stood up to speak and was recognized.

Mr. Harris: What I heard from the member for Windsor-Riverside had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation. If he thinks standing here and wasting time in his speeches, talking about mechanics or his party's or some other party's position on things that have nothing to do with the amendments is helping this process, then I beg to differ with him.

Second, I implore you, Mr. Chairman, let us keep the debate on the subject and never mind the garbage we have heard for the past 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Riverside is not the only one who has strayed in the considerations of these amendments.

Mr. Andrewes: The Chairman is looking at me.

Mr. Chairman: I was not really looking at anyone in particular, but if that person felt guilty, so be it.

Does any other honourable member wish to take part in the debate on this amendment?

Mr. Henderson: I must say to my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside that I am one of those who does not feel there has been enough debate on this bill.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is a tag-team match with those three.

Mr. Breaugh: There are too many Tories on all sides of the chamber.

Mr. Harris: The member does not understand debate.

Mr. Henderson: I understand democracy very well and I understand the use to which my colleague puts the fact I have come to some views that have some similarities with the views of some of my colleagues on the Tory side. We have not conferred. They have not developed their thoughts in consultation with me, nor vice versa.

It happens that people who know something about this issue seem to come to points of view that have certain similarities. I make no apologies at all to the member for Windsor-Riverside for the fact that the views I am offering have a similarity to some that are coming forward elsewhere in the House.

It is a gross and really factual error to say that anybody who proposes a constructive amendment to a section of this bill is fighting the principle. A principle, l suggest, is something to do with an aim, an intent or an objective that one hopes to reach through a piece of legislation, such as a principle of ensuring accessibility or a principle of avoiding a two-tiered system of health care. I endorse that principle. I suspect just about every member, if not every member, of this House endorses that principle. There is, as far as I am concerned, no issue of principle at all in this amendment. The issue is of method and of the details of a piece of legislation by which one hopes to achieve or fulfil a principle to which just about every member of this Legislature subscribes.

This is not, in my opinion, a debate or a discussion about principle. It is a debate about measures of an act designed to achieve a principle in a certain way. The people who, in my opinion, are very constructively proposing amendments are saying there are better ways to go about it. In effect, that is rather what I am saying right now, that this amendment is extraordinarily sensible. It does have some similarities to the amendment I put forward a couple of days ago, and I will say a word or two about that presently. It is going to have what limited bipartisan support I can send in its direction, because I feel this amendment deserves support. We will work on having bipartisan support, but I have some doubts about that.

There are several points of difference in this proposed amendment from the one I put forward. My amendment said nothing about premium assistance under the Health Insurance Act. That could have been introduced at some point under my amendment by regulation. That was provided for, but the notion of premium assistance under the Health Insurance Act was not incorporated in the suggestion I put forward in my amendment to section 2; nor was any mention made of disability pension under any public or private pension plan. That was not a part of my amendment. It could similarly have been covered under regulation but was not spelled out in the amendment.

No mention was made in my amendment of vocational rehabilitation services under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act. That was not provided for in my amendment; nor was any public financial assistance prescribed by the regulations mentioned in my amendment.

This amendment, therefore, differs in those respects on the groups excluded from being billed at a rate greater than the plan rate.

Another difference in my amendment is that the whole question of quotas was introduced in my amendment and has not been mentioned in this amendment. The idea I put forward was that, given that a sufficient number of practitioners in a particular area, clinic or hospital would be opted in, or given that a particular practitioner would opt in for half of his practice, the patient would indeed be assured of choice in this matter of the contractual arrangement he wishes to have with his physician. There would be no impairment of accessibility nor any step in the direction of a two-tiered system. That feature of my amendment, which is nowhere suggested in this amendment, is yet another paint of difference; so I think whoever made the argument this amendment is the same as the one I put forward is wrong.

As for these points of difference, I do not wish to make an issue of them. It may be that some of them have to do with the fact that more minds went into the preparation of this amendment than went into the preparation of mine. That is okay. My amendment carries with it a certain assurance of individuality, which may or may not be seen as an advantage.

4:10 p.m.

With regard to subsection 2(2) of this amendment, I find myself wondering whether, should such a proposal become law, it might be just a little easy to abuse. Perhaps I should say it would be necessary to decide what would be put in place to ensure that a physician who inadvertently billed someone more than the plan rate was doing so inadvertently. I do not know quite where the burden of proof would fall with this subsection of the amendment. That might require some thought.

With regard to subsection 2(3) of the amendment, the question of repayment is a useful principle. If it is a valuable idea, I hope the fact of it being there in principle might be enough. I imagine the actual arrangement for repayment could become rather cumbersome if it turned out to be necessary on a substantial scale. However, it is a fine idea, a sensible provision to put forward for dealing with a so-called infraction that seemed to be technical rather than of any particular moral imperative, if it were an infraction at all; of course, it would be under the terms of some versions of this bill.

As to subsection 2(4), I am not exactly sure what "reasonable prior notice" would mean. I hope it could be very much individualized, but I do not know whether the realities of legislation and the facts of bureaucratic administration would allow for as much flexibility as might seem to be optimal. Obviously, what "reasonable notice" is depends a great deal on whether you are talking about some procedure for elective surgery that is booked three months ahead or whether a patient is being rushed to a hospital for an emergency appendectomy.

I want to echo the comments of the member for York Mills that this amendment puts before the House yet another opportunity to consider in a very serious and sober way whether some of the measures of the bill are necessary in pursuit of the objectives that are set forward, which as I have said I think we all embrace.

I think sober second thought and reconsideration is very much the advisable order of the day, even given the comments of the member for Windsor-Riverside about the fact that this has been kicked around quite a bit now. I suggest that "kicked around" is precisely what has occurred. What is needed now, and I hope this committee of the Legislature can play some part in it, is some real, rational, reasoned, sober, reflective examination -- politics and rhetoric aside if possible -- as to whether the specific detailed measures of the legislation are going to help achieve the worthwhile objectives that are put forward. In my view, this will not be the case.

Similarly, I echo the views of the member for York Mills, who emphasized that the primary responsibility of physicians is to patients. If a third party has to be introduced into the arrangement, and I am not saying there is never a place for that, it had better be done with great care and sensitivity, because the relationship between a patient and a physician is a far more delicate and sensitive thing than most people who have not been on the other end of the stick appreciate. There is no place for bulls in china shops in this business of tampering with the physician-patient relationship.

I believe the measures of this bill intrude on the physician-patient relationship in a way that is going to be extraordinarily detrimental to the overall pattern, style and practice of care, particularly in certain areas and fields of the province. It is one thing to allow for large scale opting in. Goodness knows, we have achieved 88 per cent or better. It is another thing to legislate it. The implications for professionalism are extraordinarily different depending which way it happens.

The member for York Mills observed that we have to pay attention to the needs -- I think I can quote her reasonably well -- of the present productive, enthusiastic and helpful physicians. Those kinds of adjectives refer to a state of mind as well as to a state of training and technical excellence.

State of mind is not something in clinical practice that you graft on top of clinical skill. It goes with the nature of the practice. There is no technically competent, technically excellent medical care that does not include a caring and sensitive state of mind on the part of the practitioner. The measures of this bill are going to have a very profound effect on the state of the minds of the practitioners of Ontario.

They are extraordinarily angry; they are very, very angry. They are becoming increasingly militant. They are resorting to activities that would have been unthinkable and to many of them are unthinkable even as they go about doing them. In my opinion, the state of mind of the practitioner, and I do not think very many clinicians would disagree with me, is an extraordinarily crucial component of the quality, let alone excellence, of clinical care. I believe this bill tampers with it.

l have been frustrated, and I know others who have tried to speak with reason and rational second-thought about this bill have felt frustrated, that even the most carefully articulated, carefully reasoned comments tend to be engulfed in the ubiquitous rhetoric of political life. I am very sorry about that. I have bent over backwards, as I know many others have, to try to speak in a moderate, sensible, reasoned, experienced and reflective way.

I wish that once in a while it was possible for us to set aside our partisan political stripes and meet as a collective of legislators, to sit down and try to reason and dialogue together, and to decide, politics aside if that is possible, on the best way to approach a problem of accessibility or a problem in the delivery of clinical service.

To conclude these comments, this proposed amendment seems to me to be a sensible one. It differs in some significant respects from the one I have put forward, although perhaps the intent is in some ways comparable. I will be happy to support it. I hope we can continue to have this kind of dialogue and debate in the reflective consideration of further proposed amendments to this bill.

Miss Stephenson: I rise at this point to support the statements made by my colleague the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson). It is unfortunate that there is debate about the fact that we should be having a debate and that there is less than temperate language used in the discussion of the proceedings of this legislature, which are, I believe, entirely in order.

Mr. Chairman: That is not really speaking to the amendment.

Miss Stephenson: The amendments are being put forward in this chamber rather than in the committee because it was decided by government that debate on the bill should take place in this chamber. The amendments have been put forward, as my friend the member for Humber has suggested, in the very positive mindset of attempting to resolve the very serious difficulties which have been rearing their heads in unpleasant fashion. I fear they will continue to do so in even more unpleasant fashion unless there is some reasonable compromise in the light of the direction the government is pursuing.

These amendments very specifically attempt to solve the problem of those individuals for whom it is, or would be, or even could be a hardship if there were billing at the level beyond the benefit of the Ontario health insurance plan. We have delineated fairly clearly the groups within our society which deserve that kind of careful attention.

4:20 p.m.

The member for Humber has suggested that the section related to exceptions might lend itself to abuse. I accept that, but I would like him to understand, and I think he does, that if there were some quiet, unobtrusive way in which those individuals could be identified, the chances of abuse would be eliminated almost totally because there would be some kind of identifying mark to ensure that billing at a level beyond the OHIP benefit would not occur.

I know all honourable physicians would abide by the law if that were the law and if that practice were part of the implementation of the law. There is no doubt in my mind that we could eliminate totally the confrontation, the impasse, the conflict currently in existence in this province if there were the kind of compromise that would permit this choice on the part of both the patient and the physician.

I am also confident that if we were to pursue this course and to reduce the very small amount of billing beyond the level of the OHIP benefit to almost nothing, as would obviously happen if this were introduced, we would have resolved the problem related to the federal government. With reasonable discussion between men of goodwill -- and I say "men of goodwill" specifically in this instance because they happen to be two men who would be talking to one another; I am sure women could have resolved it a long time ago -- we should be able to settle the small remaining part of this in a way that would not be damaging to --

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member for York Mills had her chance to eliminate extra billing a long time ago and she refused to act.

Miss Stephenson: I was never the Minister of Health. I remind the minister I was the acting Minister of Health in 1976, before the Canada Health Act was even thought of, let alone introduced.

Hon. Mr. Elston: But not before extra billing.

Miss Stephenson: There is no such thing as extra billing. Let us get rid of this pejorative term. There is billing at the level of the OHIP benefit and there is billing beyond the level of the OHIP benefit. Extra billing is not a truthful term, if I may say so, because it implies there is something shady, dishonest or beyond the law in the action of physicians who, having duly notified government that they are not going to be opted-in physicians, pursue the course of ethical procedure outlined by their profession to bill within the guidelines provided by the profession for the services rendered. This is not something that should be frowned upon.

If it does constitute a problem -- and we have accepted the fact that it does for some people -- and if we are proposing a method of dealing with those problems in an appropriate, sensitive and foolproof way, then why on earth do members of the Legislature not accept this, knowing they will ensure the removal of the current tempest, which is very damaging to the relationship between physicians and the ministry and will be very severely damaging in the future, I fear, to the health care system per se?

It is almost unbelievable to me that the members of the Legislature, who are here by choice, do not understand that those who function in roles by choice almost always do so with a greater degree of commitment, dedication and real concern about what their role will be than do those who have been forced into that kind of position.

If members had been conscripted to be members of the Legislature against their will, do they believe they would have been as concerned on a daily basis about all the small problems that arise in relation to the functions they carry out as ministers or as constituency representatives? Do members really believe they would have been able to do that?

Does the minister understand the very major concern, which has been demonstrated throughout history in a way that is probably more dramatic than almost any other I can imagine at this point, that those individuals -- they were always men in the past -- who have been conscripted into the service of their country in armies have not turned out to be as dedicated or as committed to the service of their country in all circumstances as those who volunteered?

Does he not understand that volunteering or functioning in a voluntary way, ensuring that what one is doing is what one wants to do, is probably the best way to ensure the quality of the program one is attempting to serve? If he does not understand that, I really do not think he understands human beings. In that case, I can understand why this legislation is written in such a destructive fashion in terms of the human relationships that are essential to the preservation of the quality of the health care system in Ontario.

I would have thought that those who are learned in the law, those who have had the benefit of experience in attempting to help people to resolve their human problems by means of legal torts, would have some greater appreciation of the need for sensitivity in human relationships. I am anxiously awaiting the next piece of legislation the minister will bring into this House, or that an Attorney General will bring in when the Attorney General is no longer a lawyer, that will conscript the legal professionals in this province into the position where they must all function in a way that serves the people of the province but accept payment at the legal aid level .

That is the kind of thing the minister is talking about. He is talking about the conscription of people into a plan that the government has devised for certain purposes. No physician in this province would have us return to a position before insurance.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: In case you and the member for York Mills did not realize, we had second reading debate on this bill several weeks ago. Either speak to the amendment or let us get on with the vote, but quit the delay.

Mr. Chairman: In fairness, I have been listening very carefully to the member and she is talking very closely to this amendment on subsections 2(1), (2), (3) and (4), which talk about amounts being billed beyond the amount payable under the plan. She is relatively close to being on subject. She started to stray when she got into the services, but she did come back on topic.

Miss Stephenson: Was I not straying when I was talking about lawyers? I am not sure whether I was or not.

Mr. Chairman: By analogy with legal aid, no.

Miss Stephenson: Analogy is a useful form of example and illustration which I hope will be accepted within this House.

It is a matter of grave concern to me that the very high quality of health care delivery we have had in this province has depended very heavily upon a profession that has had the opportunity to play a part in the development of the legislation. To play a part in the development of legislation that would resolve the problems of extra billing would have been a very appropriate role for the physicians of Ontario. They have offered to do it in conjunction with all the other health professions. That is an offer I do not think we can afford to turn down.

I believe the quality of that system in many instances depends upon the commitment and dedication of the physicians who are participating within that system. I hope members of this House understand that and recognize that rather than forcing, legislating and subjugating a profession, we should provide it with the flexibility inherent in the amendments that have been introduced.

I can say without equivocation I am sure that will provide for the kind of continuing, enthusiastic support for the system that has been developed, which ensures high quality care to people. The concern being expressed by the health care professionals is not a concern about anything other than the kind of traditional freedom this society has afforded to these professionals who have helped to develop and maintain the health care system. Surely that is what we want to maintain.

If there are deficiencies in the mechanisms for dealing with exceptions in our amendments, as were pointed out or suggested by the member for Humber, I do not think there is any doubt we would be most willing to listen to and play a part in the development of alternatives that would remove those deficiencies.

4:30 p.m.

There is a need to ensure that there is an opportunity for immediate recompense of the individual who has been inappropriately charged. I do not believe the kind of mechanism being suggested by the minister, which involves the whole bureaucracy of OHIP in the repayment of the individual patient, is an appropriate use of that manpower. I believe very strongly that this one-to-one relationship between the patient and the physician would be enhanced by this kind of action, rather than being derogated, as it would be with the introduction of yet another intrusion of a third party into the relationship.

If there is a rationale for some of the quota suggestions which were inherent within the implementation scheme of the member for Humber, that could be a subject of negotiation, discussion and agreement with the medical profession. It could be legislated as well. Although they might not like it very much, I think they would accept that kind of approach, because they know the amendment in toto is dedicated towards maintaining the quality of the health care system as a result of maintaining the quality of the people involved in delivering health care.

Therefore, I would be happy to consider seriously further amendments or other action which would be appropriate in the area of regulations related to this bill to ensure that the kind of security which the quotas suggested by the member for Humber would guarantee to patients might be introduced. However, these sections within the amendment that we have proposed will solve the problem at present. They will ensure there is not a continuing air of confusion, distress and conflict in the health care field in Ontario; which did not need to be there at all, I might say. I would like to make sure members of this Legislature are aware they can eliminate it today if they will accept the amendments to section 2 of the act which have been put forward by my party.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to direct myself to Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

I was delighted to hear the member for York Mills finally bring into question, in the debates that have gone on so far, the matter concerning the Canada Health Act. That is what brought about the proposal to penalize the provinces in the area of extra billing. It was passed in about 1984 and supported by all three parties in Ottawa. As I understand it, the penalty clause now involves $100 million that Ontario has not received in transfer payments from Ottawa. It has until April 1987 to qualify for that.

Much dialogue has gone on in this Legislature and outside of it in public committee hearings; it has been a long, drawn-out affair. Apparently, there is now an impasse between the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association at the bargaining table. I look at it from the side of a union man. When there is an impasse, someone has to make a final decision. There is no indication that there is going to be a settlement unless this bill is finally passed in the Ontario Legislature. It is not the first time we have had to curtail an impasse in labour disputes. We did it with the elevator operators' strike and we have done it with school teachers. Apparently, we are now going to do it with this bill.

If we have to carry out the intent of federal legislation, there is no alternative but for this government to move in that direction. We in Ontario cannot afford to lose $100 million or $150 million. There are problems in the health field. However, $150 million will provide more than the nursing home that is required in my constituency of Erie and other health care services in Ontario.

I have no grudge against a doctor about the income he earns, because I believe he earns every bit of it, just as a plumber earns his income. I suggest that in some cases the plumber may earn more than the doctor on a service call. I am well aware of that. Since we have federal legislation applied to this Legislature, we must move in that direction to protect and provide a uniform cost for all the residents in Ontario.

As I look at the amendment, it goes on to say if one, "(a) is 65 or more years of age;

"(b) is receiving,

"(i) premium assistance under the Health Insurance Act,

"(ii) assistance under the General Welfare Assistance Act."

These are all good things, which I believe should be in the regulations. I know of the difficulties for a person who wants dental care. One has to apply to the Ministry of Community and Social Services and it may -- it does not say it shall -- provide it. I am delighted to see the opposition is now moving in the direction to say these people are entitled to health benefits under the act. That $150 million which is coming from Ottawa will supply that need.

As I said before, [ am delighted we finally had somebody talk about the federal act, and that is important. I believe we must follow the legislation. Other provinces have followed it without too severe a difficulty on the medical profession. I suggest the bill may come forward. Once it is passed, it is open for further discussion and debate at a later date. The previous Tory government has been battling this since 1982. We have had a curtailment in providing services to the community, a threat at that time. The government responded in some measure to please the Ontario Medical Association.

I am sure the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has already provided a new working schedule for fees for the medical profession. I suggest the problem lies where there are specialized medical staff or doctors in special areas. The fees should be upgraded to the degree that is acceptable to the medical profession. When I think of some of the specialized surgery that is required, such as open-heart surgery, and the cost involved, I am thankful we have a good medical profession that can provide that excellent service.

Once the bill is passed and the impasse is settled, then I believe we can sit down and come back to the process of bargaining. As I said, I look at it as a union member, and government is a process of bargaining. It is a tough course at times, but sometimes this is the only route one has to take. When there is an impasse on both sides, one looks for a third party to come in and make that final settlement. This is where the Legislature comes into it. I hope things will smooth out with the medical profession and I am sure they will.

I have not had time to talk to Dr. Railton in the Niagara region, but I know his father, who was a former federal member in Ottawa, was a strong supporter of a universal health care scheme in Canada. I am sure we all agree with that. Again, I suggest we get on with the bill and see where the chips fall.

Miss Stephenson: The member for Erie has raised two or three very interesting points. The first, I remind him, is that the Canada Health Act was introduced by the former Liberal government. It has been challenged with respect to its constitutionality. It is said by the current Attorney General of Ontario (Mr. Scott) that it should be challenged regarding its constitutionality because he, when he was a private attorney and a constitutional expert, advised the Canadian Medical Association that there were extremely good grounds for that challenge and he felt they would be successful. Therefore, that challenge has been made.

The reason nothing has happened at the federal level is they know that challenge is there and they are trying to find out whether there is constitutional support for the action Monique Bégin said had to be taken related to withholding funds.

That must be settled. I believe very firmly when that is heard before the Supreme Court, there may be some change of heart on the part of the government.

4:40 p.m.

In addition to that, I remind the member that the task force looking at government expenditures at the federal level has recommended strongly that monetary sanction be removed by the federal government from the Canada Health Act because it believes it to be inappropriate and unconstitutional.

Honestly, I recognize that the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) is a whole, warm-hearted human being who feels strongly as a trade unionist that you can solve all problems by negotiation. I believe you can solve a lot of them if the parties will negotiate. However, the government in this matter is not a third party; it is a party to the negotiation. That government did not, I believe, negotiate in good faith, because it did not ever consistently say it would discuss anything related to the position that the OMA had put forward. It simply stated unequivocally -- at every single sitting, apparently -- that there was to be no negotiation about the total banning. There was absolutely no negotiation of the government's position. Is that negotiation?

If one established negotiations with conditions before one discussed anything, the member as a unionist would say: "That is bad negotiation. That is negotiating in bad faith." That is what the government has been guilty of. It has not negotiated. It has simply said: "This is our position. You accept it or else, and if you do not accept it, we will simply impose it and then we will discuss the ways in which we are going to carry it out."

I do not believe that is negotiation. While I understand the position of the member for Humber, I recommend strongly that he talk to Dr. Railton today and find out just how distressed, how disturbed, how angry and how militant are the vast majority of the members of the medical profession in this province.

He will hear from all the news media, because they pay more attention to Philip Berger and the doctor reform group, or whatever it is called, which has, I understand, about 30 physicians in it -- that all the members are not supportive of it. Of course they are all not supportive. The OMA is not a trade union.

Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The member for York Mills referred to the member for Humber. I am sure she meant the member for Erie, because I do speak to Dr. Railton from time to time. I am well aware of the feelings of my colleague.

Miss Stephenson: Oh, I am sorry. I apologize profusely. It was the member for Erie whom I should have mentioned, because the member for Erie actually represents Dr. Railton, and Dr. Railton is the incoming president of the Ontario Medical Association.

Mr. Haggerty: He is in Welland-Thorold.

Miss Stephenson: He is in the area of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart)? However, he is a good Liberal; the member knows that. His father was the Liberal member for Welland.

Mr. Breaugh: There is no such thing. Come on. The member cannot use that kind of language.

Miss Stephenson: There is no such thing as a good Liberal? Of course there is. There are even some good New Democrats, for goodness' sake.

Mr. Gillies: Name one.

Miss Stephenson: Name one? Ah! I am hard pressed, but I shall think of one.

Mr. Breaugh: I never thought I would hear those words coming out of those lips.

Miss Stephenson: None the less, I do believe the member for Erie should carry out that conversation now. I have been around for a long time. I am older than all the rest of the members, as a matter of fact, except for the member for Erie, and I have known physicians for a long time. I have also known them to go through a lot of the exigencies that have occurred in the development of health care in this country. They have never been as angry; they have never been as concerned, as distressed or as absolutely denigrating of the Minister of Health as they are right now. That bothers me because that really should not happen. There should be some kind of reasonable rapport between the government and the medical profession, because they have to work together.

The Minister of Health cannot deliver health care. I do not care what he says; he cannot deliver it. He is not a physician, he is not a nurse, he is not a physiotherapist, he is not a podiatrist, he is not a chiropractor and he cannot deliver health care. Therefore, he is going to have to rely on the health professionals. It would behoove the Minister of Health to get along with the health professionals instead of causing conflict constantly.

Interjection.

Miss Stephenson: My heart is fine. I hope the minister's heart is.

It would be a salutary experience for the member for Erie to talk to Dr. Railton within the next day or so. My concern is that we solve this impasse, which is of government manufacture -- it may be federal; that is before the courts. It may not even hold up; it may not be in line with the constitutionality of Canada, and that is what has to be determined. There is no reason for the government to leap into this abyss right at the moment and to cause all of this consternation until that decision has been taken.

Hon. Mr. Elston: All of a sudden? Twenty years.

Miss Stephenson: It is before the Supreme Court right now. I do not know when it is going to be heard. That is the problem. It is there, the writ has been issued and the legal defence and the legal position have been developed.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Is this on the topic?

Miss Stephenson: This is on the topic of this legislation and the need for this amendment in order to maintain some equanimity within the health care system so that the system can function effectively. The minister knows, and I know full well, that it will not function effectively if the vast majority of those who are delivering services are so disturbed about his attitude that they refuse to negotiate, discuss or talk to him, in most cases.

I feel very strongly about this. I am aware that the minister and the government tell people there are a lot of physicians who do not agree. Sure, they do not agree. As I have said, the OMA is not a trade union. It is a voluntary association which expends time on behalf of the public of Ontario as well.

Mr. Ward: Carry a banner.

Miss Stephenson: I will carry a banner, and the banner will be that the maternal mortality rate in this province is the lowest in Canada. Why? Because in this province we have had an active committee for maternal welfare, manned and established by the OMA in conjunction with a provincial government. As a result, good legislation has been developed. That is the kind of rapport we need to maintain. It is the kind of attitude that needs to be kept in Ontario, and the minister is destroying it with the bill before us.

The amendments we have introduced will help to recover that kind of excellent attitude. It is not worthy of him to destroy the ambiance that has made the health care system function within this province. That is precisely what he is attempting to do, at least in the perception of physicians.

The minister keeps telling me that politics is perception. I always thought politics was the facts of life, but none the less he tells me it is perception. The perception out there is that he is attempting to destroy the health care system because he wants to subjugate physicians. The amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party, which was passed yesterday or the day before and which the minister supported, just fortified that in their minds. They believe he now not only has added insult to injury, but also has put another nail in the coffin of good health care delivery in Ontario. It became absolutely obvious that what he is trying to do is not anything to improve health care, but to subjugate the medical profession.

The minister can sit there and shake his head and say he has no intention of invading the practice of medicine or the delivery of health care any more. He has already invaded it so badly that it may not survive the kind of infection he has introduced. That worries me. Therefore, I believe it to be appropriate that he consider seriously the amendments we have introduced, which I know will at least control the infection, reduce the fever at present and allow the patient to recover appropriately.

Mrs. Marland: In all of the debate I have listened to, especially from the Liberal members, I have not heard of any plans of the Minister of Health to address the problems after this bill has demoralized the specialists, and in particular the specialists who staff the faculties in our universities.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What does this have to do with the amendments?

Mr. Cureatz: She is coming to it.

4:50 p.m.

Mrs. Marland: It has a great deal to do with the amendments because part of the argument from the opposite side of the House has been that we need to end extra billing, to use the minister's words, because these people are affected by extra billing. While we are talking about who is affected by the subject of Bill 94, I want to address the future of the universities and the medical faculties within those universities in our province.

After the minister has demoralized the specialists, who give their time to the medical faculties and train the future specialists within this province, albeit for a very pittance of an honorarium, they still are taking time out of their offices to teach for several days a week. I have heard of no plans or discussions where, after we have told the specialists they are of no value to us above anyone else in the medical field, that everybody must be treated equally and that no one can have any privilege to practise within his own choice, we are then going to say we still expect them to staff our university faculties of medicine and still have in the future the kind of graduates we have had in the past.

It was very encouraging to hear the member for Erie say we do have a good medical profession. It was encouraging to hear a Liberal member, apart from the member for Humber, acknowledge that. This afternoon, when the member for Humber talked about the state of mind of this profession, he said very succinctly what this whole issue is about, and the fact that one should support this amendment --

Mr. Callahan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Under standing order 19(d)2, how can what has been said thus far have any bearing whatsoever on the amendment that is being proposed? I suggest the member is directing her speech to matters other than the question under discussion and she is out of order. That has continued throughout this debate.

The issue before this House is the question of exclusions of certain people from extra billing by doctors. It has no relevance to talking about university doctors, no relevance even to the member for York East with reference to what she was talking about either. I mean the member for York Mills. It is totally irrelevant. It is totally out of order. It is filibustering.

Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The honourable member is totally out of order, incorrect, and I ask you to allow our speaker to continue with her remarks.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. D. R. Cooke): The position of the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) is being considered, but I believe the speaker has made some reference to the amendments. Carry on.

Mrs. Marland: It is interesting to hear the member for Brampton refer to a Conservative as being the member for York East. If there is one riding in this province at the moment that everybody recognizes on which side of the House it is, it has to be York East. It is interesting that all the member for Brampton ever seems to be able to do is stand up and quote rules. He does not seem to be able to stand up and debate in any other way.

My concern with Bill 94 and the reason I am supporting the amendments that are on the floor is that I see it as a way to deal with the issues that have been brought into this House as a reason that there is a need for Bill 94 in the first place. It would be encouraging if the members who are opposed to these amendments would become a little more enlightened on the long-term issue that is before us. That is not one of the issues they have yet spoken about in this House. Why fix a problem if there is no problem?

Mr. Henderson: I am moved by the remarks by the member for Erie, who seems to have departed, to make one or two comments. In consideration of the feelings of my colleague the member for Brampton, I will do my best to keep on topic to the amendments.

The member for Erie stated that when one gets into an impasse in the course of negotiation, somebody has to make a decision.

Mr. McClellan: Why does the member not cross the floor?

Mr. Henderson: That is absolutely irrelevant to what I was going to say. I would love to digress, but then I would be out of order, so I will not do that.

The issue is that when somebody has to make a resolution of these points of impasse, it is not usually one of the parties to the dispute. That is the particular dilemma of government in this situation. Government is one of the parties and is also called upon, wearing its other hat, to make some kind of resolution of the issue. That is one of the inherent dilemmas of government. It is also a factor that might commend the notion that has been raised from time to time lately of finding a so-called objective intermediary to try to bring in a fresh point of view, one that is cognizant of the issues on both sides and one that attempts to take into consideration some of the realities on both sides of this issue.

The member for Erie said something about incomes. I have always said that is not the issue, but since it is touched on in this amendment, I want to take a few sentences to defuse that element of the issue. It is naïve and quite erroneous to say the issue is income or level of income. Surely we are beyond that.

I know of a very conscientious physician, a hardworking doctor who spent time with his patients and tried to give them what he felt they deserved. Only a year or two ago, in the course of his work he came up with an annual income from his office, with a day from 8:30 a. m. to 6 p. m. , of about $18,000 or $19,000. His income was more than that because he worked weekends in emergency and went in and took night calls and so on. He got extra income from the hospital, but his income for working more than an ordinary day, allowing for his overhead and the real expenses of clinical practice, was around $18,000. That is not a very substantial income for a professional person in 1986.

Mr. McClellan: That is very typical, is it?

Mr. Henderson: I am not really interested in whether it was typical. He was a hardworking, conscientious doctor who worked long hours and spent time with his patients, and that was the income he came up with.

This whole question of the Canada Health Act is being overworked. I am not addressing the constitutionality of it now, but health being a provincial issue, I think we ought to make our own decision about something as important as health care accessibility. If the feds will not go along with something we consider to be a reasonable solution to the problem of accessibility and to the standoff between physicians and government, that is another question. I do not think we ought to allow ourselves to be dictated to, let alone, to use a strong word, to be blackmailed, or if that is too strong a word, to be very forcibly dictated to, by the federal government on a matter under provincial jurisdiction.

If we at the provincial level can come up with a reasonable solution that guarantees accessibility and guarantees we avoid a two-tiered system, I hope the feds can be convinced to be flexible in their implementation of the Canada Health Act. If they cannot, surely we have a right to demand the transfer payments that are ours and to receive them if we put forward a reasonable argument. In the last analysis, if we do not, I do not think most people care whether health care is funded from the provincial coffers or the federal coffers. What they care about is fair taxation. If the feds insist on withholding funds that belong to the people of Ontario, the people of Ontario can rightly say, "Make a corresponding adjustment in the federal income tax we pay because that money rightfully belongs to us."

Mr. Andrewes: This amendment by the Progressive Conservative Party was put in good faith. As the member for Humber alluded, it was put as a compromise to the bill. It was put in an attempt to bring a truce in what we see as a matter that could degenerate into an unholy war in the health care system. We see both sides in this debate becoming increasingly entrenched, and that entrenchment is inviting what in our view could be catastrophic circumstances and consequences as a result of this legislation, legislation that was described by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as draconian. We urge all the members to consider their support for this amendment.

5:23 p.m.

The committee divided on Mr. Andrewes's amendment to section 2 of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 23; nays 57.

Mr. Chairman: We are finished with section 2. Shall section 2, as amended, stand as part of the bill?

Section 2, as amended, agreed to. On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: We now have in front of us the amending motion of the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) to section 3.

Mr. Cooke moves that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "3. (1) In this section,

"`amount payable' means the amount payable under the plan in respect of the rendering of insured services to insured persons;

"`association' means,

"(a) the Ontario Medical Association in respect of physicians;

"(b) the Ontario Dental Association, in respect of dentists; and

"(c) the Ontario Association of Optometrists, in respect of optometrists.

"`negotiating committee' means the committee referred to in subsection (3).

"(2) The minister and the association may by agreement, with or without referring the matter to a negotiating committee, determine the amounts payable under the plan in respect of the rendering of insured services to insured persons.

"(3) There may be established from time to time as provided under subsection (5), in respect of physicians, dentists or optometrists, a committee to negotiate the amounts payable, and to be composed of,

"(a) three voting members appointed by the minister;

"(b) three voting members appointed by the association; and

"(c) a chairman, who shall not have a vote, to be appointed jointly by the minister and the association.

"(4) The remuneration and expenses of the chairman shall be shared equally by the Ministry of Health and the association.

"(5) The minister or the association may, by notice in writing to the other, require that negotiation of the amounts payable be conducted by a negotiating committee.

"(6) Not later than seven days after the notice has been received, the minister and the association shall each appoint three persons to serve as members of the negotiating committee and shall jointly appoint a chairman of the committee.

"(7) The committee shall begin its negotiations as soon as reasonably possible on a date to be named by the chairman.

"(8) If, after both sides of the committee have negotiated in good faith, the minister or the association believes that the committee's negotiations have reached an impasse, that person, by written notice to the chairman and the other person, may request that the chairman make a report to the committee concerning the negotiation of the amounts payable.

"(9) The chairman may obtain and use any relevant information that the chairman believes may be useful in making the report.

"(10) The chairman shall make the report to the committee within 30 days after being requested to do so and shall provide the committee with the information upon which the report was based.

"(11) The committee shall resume its negotiations within seven days after receiving the chairman's report.

"(12) At any time after the committee resumes its negotiations under subsection (11), the minister or the association may make public the report and the information upon which it was based, after first giving the other person 24 hours' written notice of the intention to do so.

"(13) If, at any time in the negotiating process, a majority of the committee, including at least two persons appointed by the minister and at least two persons appointed by the association, agree on the appropriate amounts payable, the chairman on behalf of the committee shall submit those amounts to the minister and to the association as the committee's proposal."

Order. Excuse me a second. There is some discussion going on here by two members standing up. Other members near them cannot hear. Would those two members either take their seats, please, or leave the chamber?

"(14) The minister and the association shall notify each other in writing of their acceptance or rejection of the committee's proposal within 14 days after receiving it.

5:30 p.m.

"(15) If the minister or the association rejects the committee's proposal, the committee shall resume its negotiations within seven days thereafter and this section applies as if the committee had not made a proposal.

"(16) The minister and the association may enter into a written agreement respecting any aspect of the negotiation of the amounts payable, and in the event of a conflict between a provision of the agreement and a provision of this section, the agreement prevails.

"(17) If, after both sides of the committee have resumed negotiations in good faith under subsection 11, the minister or the association believes that the committee's negotiations have again reached an impasse, that person, by written notice to the chairman and the other person, may require that determination of the amounts payable be referred to arbitration under the Arbitrations Act.

"(18) Within seven days after the notice has been delivered, the minister and the association shall each appoint a member of a board of arbitration and within a further seven days the two members shall appoint a third member who shall be the presiding officer.

"(19) The provisions of the Arbitrations Act apply to a board of arbitration appointed under subsection 14 as if a submission had been made under that act.

"(20) The decision of the board of arbitration shall be made within 60 days after the date of the appointment of the presiding officer or within such further period of time as the minister and the association may agree upon."

Mr. D. S. Cooke: One of the major arguments the Ontario Medical Association and the other two groups affected by this legislation made to the committee was that they were concerned there could be a unilateral setting of the Ontario health insurance plan fees by the government. I think that is a legitimate concern. If doctors and optometrists will have their income determined by the plan under this bill, there must be a negotiating process in place that is fair to both sides.

Recognizing that, we have put forward a proposal that includes arbitration, but the entire process is the process that now is followed by the OMA and OHIP in negotiating their fees. The addition to the process is the application of arbitration. With the passage of this amendment, there would be no way the OMA, the optometrists or the dentists could say that government can unilaterally set their fees under the plan.

For the information of the Conservative Party, under section 16 of this amendment it states clearly that if any other negotiating process is negotiated, that negotiating process will supersede this amendment. Any fear the Conservative Party has that this amendment will impose a specific negotiating process on the profession is not accurate. Other negotiating processes can be negotiated by mutual consent.

This amendment would go a long way in meeting the concerns of many reasonable professionals. It will not meet the demands of the leadership or the executive of the OMA. I know that and the members know that, but it will meet the requirements and requests of, in particular, a great number of general practitioners who simply want to go about practising medicine and providing health care and be guaranteed there is an independent process in place that in the end will determine their fees and will be fair to them and to the taxpayers of this province.

If this amendment is passed, many of the protests that are being launched by the leadership of the OMA will lose even more support amongst its members. This protects the members of the profession and the taxpayers. It would bring a process of sanity, guaranteed in legislation, to the members of the bargaining units, the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Association of Optometrists and the Ontario Dental Association.

I ask the Conservative Party to consider this amendment. I know that party is opposed to the principle of the bill, but the principle of the bill will be passed. There will be a ban on extra billing when this process is over. It is incumbent on us as members of the Legislature to make sure there is a fair process in place to determine the fees. This is a fair process. If the profession decides to negotiate an alternative process, there is provision for that in this amendment.

The amendment the Conservative Party will later place, if it defeats this one, is incorporated in my amendment under subsection 16. However, the Conservative amendment does not provide all the other protections that are provided in our amendment.

The reason we must have this lengthy process is that we cannot have automatic application of arbitration without forcing both the government and the association to go through a negotiating process. One of the more positive aspects of this amendment is that if there is an impasse, there is provision for a fact-finder -- that is, the chairman of the committee, who does not vote and is appointed mutually by both sides -- and there is provision for this report to be made public so that if the association or the government is not negotiating in good faith, those facts will be made public for all the taxpayers and all the consumers of this province to learn.

There is real incentive in this process for good-faith bargaining and to get a negotiated fee under OHIP for all three professions. If the negotiating process fails, there is a guaranteed process of arbitration that is reasonable, fair and would go a long way to diffusing this difficult situation in our province.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I appreciate the opportunity of speaking. With respect to the amendment, the government has not adopted its policy of coming up with binding arbitration in all situations. This is one where we do not think binding arbitration should be put in the legislation. We are prepared under section 3 to enter into discussions with the various groups to come up with a way of dealing with the dispute resolution.

This amendment is very much the same as the Joint Committee on Physicians' Compensation for Professional Services, which currently exists in Ontario, with the exception that beginning at about subsection 17 and to the end there is attendant to that process reference to the Arbitrations Act and otherwise. The situation is that the JCPC has been suggested by the OMA executive in its committee visit as being an appropriately functioning mechanism at the time. We are prepared to continue that under the current legislation, if that is what is desired.

As well, we have some concerns about the manner in which the Arbitrations Act is used in this amendment. Just so the members of the committee will understand, the Arbitrations Act -- and I believe I have been advised appropriately -- is little used and actually causes difficulties with respect to the functioning of a binding arbitration situation. Although we will not be supporting this amendment and asking that binding arbitration be legislated in the act, it is of concern to me that if it is the expression of the committee as a whole on voting on this that there is a will to implement binding arbitration, those sections I have referred to must be cleaned up considerably to make them function in a worthwhile and workable fashion. Currently, the mechanisms are unwieldy and would cause us considerable problems.

I can speak, however, for our party, that we will not be supporting this amendment in its entirety, although I recognize the place from which the honourable member got the main body of this amendment. It is not dissimilar to what was considered during our discussion of Bill 54 and in which we adopted a portion of what this amendment would be to act as a dispute resolution mechanism under Bill 54.

5:40 p.m.

First, we will not be supporting it. Second, if there is some consensus among members as a whole that there is a desire to look at binding arbitration, this particular procedure must be cleaned up so it will function very well.

Mr. Andrewes: I listened carefully to the comments of the member for Windsor-Riverside and to those of the minister. I must say at the outset that, with respect to the amendment, the comment of the member for Windsor-Riverside that it was an amendment that put in place a fair negotiating process is one I can agree with. The member for Windsor-Riverside indicated essentially that it is a process, as it is used now, to arrive at a reasonable and satisfactory solution to discussions on OHIP fees, and in subsection 3(17) and from that point on it brings in the impact of the Arbitrations Act.

The minister has alluded to the JCPC and the activities that go on with respect to the JCPC group, the discussions that occur under that mechanism, and has suggested that they are quite similar to what the member for Windsor-Riverside has proposed in the first 16 subsections of his amendment.

I want to make one comment with respect to the suggestion by the member for Windsor-Riverside that he feels we have some concern about imposing a process on any group. It is very clear to us that in matters such as this, where associations, representatives of associations and the government sit down at the table to negotiate monetary issues, the process has to be one that both sides agree to and the process has to be one in which both sides can feel comfortable and willing to participate.

What is at stake here in many cases is the continued delivery of the health care system. Currently in Saskatchewan, medical practitioners have withdrawn services selectively over this very issue, because they have not been able to arrive at a satisfactory agreement with the government on the question of a fee schedule. It is very important that we clearly endorse the principles of an agreed-to process between both parties and that we clearly endorse the rights of both parties to exercise what is available to them under existing statutes.

I will elaborate for a moment on what I mean by that last statement. We are somewhat concerned that the amendment of the member for Windsor-Riverside is unnecessary. If I may refer to the Canada Health Act -- with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to stay to the topic at hand -- subsection 12 (1) of the Canada Health Act begins by saying:

"In order to satisfy the criterion respecting accessibility, the health care insurance plan of a province

"(a) must provide for insured health services on uniform terms and conditions and on a basis that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly whether by charges made to insured persons or otherwise, reasonable access to those services by insured persons."

That is the premise on which the government has introduced Bill 94, the premise on which the federal government has held back an estimated amount of money in transfers to the provinces for health services, held back an amount of money approximately equal to an estimated amount billed to patients over the OHIP fee schedule,

If clause 12(1)(a) is what has predicated Bill 94 in this House, clause 12(1)(b) says a health care insurance plan of a province "must provide for payment for insured health services in accordance with a tariff or system of payment authorized by a law of the province;

"(c) must provide for reasonable compensation for all insured health services rendered by medical practitioners or dentists; and

"(d) must provide for the payment of amounts to hospitals, including hospitals owned or operated by Canada, in respect of the cost of insured health services."

We come to subsection 12(2) of the Canada Health Act. It says:

"In respect of any province in which extra billing is not permitted, paragraph (1)(c)" -- remembering that (1)(c) says the province "must provide for reasonable compensation for all insured health services rendered by medical practitioners or dentists" -- "shall be deemed to be complied with if the province has chosen to enter into, and has entered into, an agreement with the medical practitioners and dentists of the province that provides:

"(a) for negotiations relating to compensation for insured health services between the province and the provincial organizations that represent practising medical practitioners or dentists in the province."

The section of the Canada Health Act that is pressing here, that which requires compensation to be paid to practitioners, "shall be deemed to be complied with" if there is a process for negotiation. We are saying that this process for negotiation, as set out in the existing section 3 of Bill 94, is one that must be mutually agreed to by two parties entering into that negotiation.

Clause 12(2)(b) of the Canada Health Act says clause 12(1)(c) "shall be deemed to be complied with if the province has chosen to enter into, and has entered into, an agreement with the medical practitioners and dentists of the province that provides...for the settlement of disputes relating to compensation through, at the option of the appropriate provincial organizations referred to in paragraph (a), conciliation or binding arbitration by a panel that is equally representative of the provincial organizations and the province and that has an independent chairman; and

"(c) that the decision of a panel referred to in paragraph (b) may not be altered except by an act of the Legislature of the province."

5:50 p.m.

I hope to convince my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that what they have set out in this amendment is clearly provided for under the Canada Health Act, with one exception. Bill 94, the subject of debate here, also includes the profession of optometry. It specifies medical practitioners, dentists and optometrists. What is clearly missing in the Canada Health Act is the mention of the profession of optometry.

It is with some reluctance that I say we will not be supporting the amendment of the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), but we will be moving our own amendment. In our view, this encompasses all that is desired in the member's amendment without binding the parties to a process, leaving them with some flexibility to determine the appropriate negotiating process that entitles all parties, including optometrists, to the rights of conciliation or binding arbitration as is their choice.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly, I refer the Conservative Party to subsection 16 of my amendment, which reads, "The minister and the association may enter into a written agreement respecting any aspect of the negotiation of the amounts payable, and in the event of a conflict between a provision of the agreement and a provision of this section, the agreement prevails."

Obviously, this provides for the flexibility that I agree must be put into this section. My problem with the Conservative amendment is that it gives all the advantages of arbitration but none of the public accountability processes that are provided for in this amendment. I suggest to the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) that subsection 16 gives him everything that he requests, but the entire section provides for a public and fair process and puts on pressure to try to get a negotiated settlement rather than immediate access to arbitration.

Mr. Andrewes: I ask the member for Windsor-Riverside, what is not public about provisions to the Canada Health Act? What is not public about the Joint Committee on Physicians' Compensation for Professional Services process that goes on now?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: There is no provision in the member's amendment for a fact-finder's report. A fact-finder's report would put out all of the information that has led to the point where there is an impasse, just as we did on Bill 100 for negotiation of teacher-board settlements.

Before there is access to a strike by teachers, there has to be a public fact-finder's report, which in many cases has put considerable pressure on teachers' federations and on boards of education to negotiate a settlement in good faith rather than going to either a strike or arbitration.

Miss Stephenson: I wish I had as much faith in the efficacy of the publication of a fact-finder's report as the member for Windsor-Riverside. I am aware that most of those disputes under Bill 100 are negotiated to settlement, but I am not at all convinced that this --

Mr. Haggerty: In the Legislature most of the time.

Miss Stephenson: No, very few. I am not at all convinced that the publication of the factfinder's report, as it is currently published, has any effect at all, because there usually is a précis of the fact-finder's report, which is written in relatively technical language that members of the ordinary public cannot understand. It is less than clear to me that publication is the pressure which is necessary to solve the situation.

The negotiations that were carried on in 1982, which were difficult, did enjoy what might have been called the report of a fact-finder because Dr. Weiler's report was made public. It was the basis for the decision which was reached in the agreement by the government and profession.

The proposal we are putting forward, which is very much in line with the relevant sections of the Canada Health Act, would allow for the establishment of that kind of proposal, if it were felt to be appropriate. I am not sure one needs to have three pages of mechanisms set in there and then a paragraph that says if one chooses, one can go some other way. I am not sure that is an appropriate way in which to draft this legislation.

The sensible thing to do would be to follow the routine which has been established, at least in terms of the medical profession. The committee has been effective in all circumstances to this point, and I see no reason that it should not be in the future. I could well recommend the establishment of a similar committee in the other circumstances as well, but we do need to make specific provisions for optometrists because there is not that provision within the Canada Health Act, and those individuals are included in this act as recipients of funds for services under OHIP.

I know the rationale for the position of the member for Windsor-Riverside and I understand the background and the debate which has occasioned his support for this type of procedure, but I really feel the simpler method of including a paragraph which permits the continuation of the current process and allows for the development of similar negotiating mechanisms for dentists, and for optometrists particularly, is the appropriate way in which to proceed with this act.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I will not prolong this, but I would just ask the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) to look at subsections 9 to 15, which are all the processes she is referring to. This is exactly the process that was followed by her leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), in 1982. All we are suggesting is that it should be put into the legislation so that optometrists, dentists and doctors have access to it. Since we are not going to allow for extra billing in the province, there has to be a final mechanism of arbitration in case there is an impasse in the negotiations. We have followed in this amendment the exact process that was followed in 1982 by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

We have taken the member's advice. I agree totally with what the member has said. I agree totally with what the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) said. It would be totally irresponsible to put into the legislation, "You can have arbitration, but no process leading up to arbitration." That would not be appropriate. There has to be some protection.

From our debates on Bills 54 and 55 and our discussions where we have chatted about arbitration and some of the potential dangers of arbitration, the member knows we cannot allow that automatic access to arbitration without some protections that allow for negotiations and for some accountability before we go to arbitration, for both the medical profession and the taxpayers of this province.

I accept the member's comments and recommendations. They are in the amendment. I ask the member to take a look at the amendment and support what she has said.

Mr. Andrewes: I think we are into a reasonable debate on this amendment. It is a substantive amendment and I hope members will understand that we need to have some questions answered.

I want to ask the member for Windsor-Riverside whether there is anything that currently prevents the publication of the fact-finder's report if both parties agree to the publication of that report?

Second, what is accomplished by the publication of that report?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: l am sure that anything can be published by mutual consent, but the reality is that this amendment does not say that it is by mutual consent. This amendment says that if the doctors feel the government is negotiating in bad faith, the doctors can force that report to be made public to embarrass the government, and vice versa. That is what the mechanism is for.

Mr. Andrewes: The member is saying the publication of the report could be used by one side or the other to justify publicly the position it is taking in the negotiations.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The purpose of publishing the report is to build accountability into the system so that if one side is negotiating in bad faith, the taxpayers of this province will be able to see that it is negotiating in bad faith. That is the purpose of it. It builds an incentive into the process to negotiate in good faith.

6 p.m.

Mr. Andrewes: Does it not also build into the process the adversarial situation that one hopes to avoid in negotiations such as this? Remember that we are talking about a health care delivery system that we want to make sure stays in place throughout sometimes rancorous and difficult negotiations.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We are not going to agree on this, but I think it builds the opposite incentive. It builds an incentive to negotiate in good faith that alleviates some of the adversarial nature that any negotiations will have.

The member is not going to tell me that in 1982, when the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick was negotiating a fee schedule with the doctors, there was not an adversarial position. Obviously, there was. It would not matter whether the Conservatives, the Liberals or we were in power. In negotiations with doctors, optometrists, dentists, hospital workers or United Auto Workers members, it is the nature of negotiations that they are adversarial. The fact that we would have a fact-finder's report that could be made public would build some accountability into it.

I say in all seriousness that this amendment will alleviate a lot of the problems. We are going to have Bill 94 in some form. If we do not have a negotiating process in the bill, if we just leave it open, as it is in Bill 94 now or even as it is in the Conservative amendment, there will be no accountability in it whatsoever. The Conservatives' amendment will not carry, because it is not appropriate and it is not responsible. If we leave it the way it is now, where, before we can even have a negotiating process we have to negotiate a negotiating process, we are presenting an even more difficult situation than need be the case.

Miss Stephenson: I ask the member for Windsor-Riverside whether he has taken the opportunity to look at the numbers of instances in which, in spite of the procedures and processes inherent in Bill 100, there have been applications to the Education Relations Commission related specifically to charges of bad-faith bargaining. There have been a considerable number.

There is no doubt in my mind that this process may persuade some people, but it certainly is not a panacea for making the statement that people are bargaining in bad faith. That is simply not one of the results of the publication of a fact-finder's report. I am not sure that kind of argument is going to be actively supported in terms of looking at this recommendation.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: This will be my last comment. I used to be a school board trustee and I went through two sets of negotiations with secondary school teachers when we had a labour dispute and a strike. The fact that there was a process and that the fact-finders' report was made public did have some effect on the board. When that information came out, many members of the board did switch their position. Public accountability is important.

The other thing is that when Dr. Myers and the Ontario Medical Association were before our committee, they said very clearly they supported the process that was followed in 1982. I accept that, and we put in the amendment the process the OMA follows. The member has letters from the Ontario Association of Optometrists that support my amendment. I have not talked to the Ontario Dental Association, but two of the three professions have indicated support for the process, and I think it is incumbent upon us to put it in the legislation.

Mr. Andrewes: I do not have a lot more to say on this amendment without getting into arguments that I propose to make on our own amendment. Perhaps it might help the member for Windsor-Riverside if I did put the case to him that if this amendment fails and our amendment fails, clearly one profession that is referred to in Bill 94 is denied the process of binding arbitration. To me, that is a discriminatory aspect of Bill 94. The process is not provided for under the Canada Health Act. Therefore, clearly one profession will be left out and, as a result of being part of Bill 94, its implied right will be denied it.

6:26 p.m.

The committee divided on Mr. D. S. Cooke's amendment to section 3 of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 13; nays 57.

Section 3 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole house reported progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, June 9, and Tuesday, June 10, we will continue clause-by-clause debate on Bill 94 in committee of the whole House. On Wednesday, June 11, second reading and committee of the whole is needed on Bill 13, Sudbury assessment; Bill 79, municipal bonuses; Bill 43, shoreline property assistance; Bill 11, condominium conversion; and Bill 98, the Foreign Arbitral Awards Act. On Thursday, June 12, in the morning, there will be private members' business standing in the names of the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) and the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow). In the afternoon we will continue clause-by-clause debate of Bill 94, if necessary.

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.