Hansard Transcript 1986-Nov-13 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That in the opinion of this House, the practice that retired members of the Legislature or senior civil servants while receiving retirement allowances may also receive remuneration as a member of a board, commission or other body holding office at the nomination of the Lieutenant Governor in Council is improper and fiscally irresponsible; therefore, this House, recognizing the inequity of the present policy and the need for fiscal integrity relating to taxpayers' moneys, recommends that this practice be ended, while at the same time the retirement contributions made by those affected should be protected.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. McLean: In this resolution, I want to bring my considerations and concerns to the attention of the members of the House and the public. I think government must act in the interests of the people who elect it. When it comes to appointments or patronage, the needs of the people often run last. This is unacceptable.

I have long been concerned over the actions of governments that seem to ignore the average man or woman on the street when it comes to making appointments to bodies in or related in one way or another to the government of the province or the country. I am fully aware that I am referring to the practice of all three political parties. This concern is represented in the resolution now before this House.

Who is qualified for appointments? The man or woman on the street never, or seldom, appears to have any of the qualifications necessary. It appears that you have to be a retired member of this House or a retired civil servant to qualify. Often some people choose retirement and the offer of a government appointment to follow so they may benefit from the double incomes they will receive.

This is what double-dipping is all about. It is the process whereby persons, be they civil servants or former members, with retirement allowances from the government receive appointments to other government organizations or committees. They receive double incomes: their pension benefits and their salaries, honoraria or fees. I believe this is wrong.

My resolution proposes that we end these practices. This resolution will apply to all persons in all parties; so there is nothing political or partisan about it. Constituents throughout Simcoe East have responded positively to the resolution, and they represent the total collective political spectrum.

This resolution simply means a member of the Legislature or a senior civil servant who retires may not draw from two sources of public funds. It means a person must not receive his or her pension income at the same time as he or she is receiving other government income. This income can result from being a member of a government or paragovernment committee or board.

I hasten to add that this legislation will not cause any loss of pension in these circumstances. The pension benefits that would normally accrue earn interest for the recipient. He or she will receive increased benefits when the pension finally begins to be paid.

I have considered this resolution for a long time. With the recent spate of government going-away packages and golden handshakes, I feel the timing could not be more appropriate. Someone has to show some concern for the taxpayers' dollars. We should look at this -- and I have two bills that were presented a few weeks ago -- as a way of returning to fiscal responsibility. As members are all aware, not only do we have to be fiscally responsible but also we must appear to be so.

If the members opposite are under any impression that people on the street are not aware of the generous sendoffs and handsome appointments such as those received by our previous Clerk and former members of this House such as Mr. Di Santo, Tom Wells and Vern Singer; if the government and the third party members are not aware of the disgust of the taxpayers over these matters, they must be asleep. How could anyone in this House not be aware of the taxpayers' concerns? Yet the double-dipping has been going on for years, goes on today and will continue to go on unless we have the courage, and it will take courage, to put an end to it.

I have proposed two bills to deal with this double-dipping. One refers to previous members of the Legislature, and the other deals with civil servants. To my way of thinking, it is morally wrong for people retiring on very generous pensions to use the inside track to appointments such as those given to Ian Deans or Stephen Lewis. Yes, those are federal matters, but nevertheless it is morally wrong, whether it is in this House or not.

There are many people in this country and this province who have the qualifications of former members such as Mr. Di Santo, who is now the director of the office of worker adviser. Mr. Di Santo gets a healthy pension as the former New Democratic Party member for Downsview and a salary that I am sure we would all like to have as an extra income. Did Tom Wells need a double income after he left the Legislature? Did Jim Breithaupt? Did Russ Ramsey? Did Stuart Smith? Did Michael Cassidy? They all have retirement benefits from this House, and they all have appointments to other government posts as well.

I believe there must be many people who could have served in the positions now held by the people I have mentioned. If for some reason only Frank Drea was qualified to be the chairman of the Ontario Racing Commission, he should have to accept the fact that his pension as a former member would be held in abeyance -- earning interest, of course -- until he completed his term as chairman of the commission.

Government boards and agencies are filled with retired government employees, be they former civil servants or members of this House. The list is endless, it seems. The Workers' Compensation Board has seen a Lieutenant Governor as its head; currently, Bob Elgie, a retired cabinet minister, has that job. I believe John Smith, a previous Minister of Correctional Services, still works there. The Ontario Police Commission, the Ontario Municipal Board and other boards, commissions and chairmanships are filled with former civil servants and legislative members.

The situation is unfair. It was bad practice in the past, and it is bad practice today. It is fiscally irresponsible to appoint without open competition. It is immoral to provide a double income from the taxpayers, on top of the impropriety of appointing people based on their inside track position.

I urge each member of this House to search his or her conscience. I urge members to take a stand that will demonstrate and prove to the people of Ontario that they want to end the practice of double-dipping. I urge them to end a bad practice so the future can be made right. I urge them to have courage and the necessary intestinal fortitude to support this resolution to end what has been for many years and is still an irresponsible practice.

However, I wonder why this should take courage. Courage is what the soldier needs to go into battle and face the enemy. Where is the enemy in this case? The public is not the enemy. We are not enemies of each other. We argue and debate on behalf of the taxpayers who put us here, but we all have the very same goals: to care for the citizens of Ontario and to do what we can to improve their lot where possible and practical. We must not therefore be hindered by the past. The past is a teacher and we are its students. We must learn from the past, from the good and the not so good of the past, and apply this knowledge to the future if we are to serve the people.

10:10

On the matter of the double-dipping, which has been going on for a long time, we have the capability of ending it now. Perhaps it was not so terrible a thing a decade or more ago, but times change. Things are different now. There are not the dollars around now to allow such generosity as there were before. We all have to tighten our belts a bit.

Perhaps measures such as I proposed in the two bills introduced previously are truly necessary. The measures are not so serious that anyone is going to starve by having one source of income removed for a time. We are not taking anything away that a person requires for his or her basic substance. We are saying to this House that in the future we must take a responsible position in the matter of what one can and cannot take from the government's pocketbook, which is the taxpayers' pocketbook.

We will have to face the facts of life, act in a manner related more accurately to the facts of this generation and not let past precedents totally influence our present decisions and future actions. The status quo is an unacceptable thesis. People have to share the moneys of the public coffers, and one place to begin is to eliminate the practice, which has been all too prevalent, of filling both pockets with taxpayers' money when one pocketful is sufficient reward. I am looking at the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), because I know he would like to have both pockets full.

We have to tighten our wallets and seek means whereby the available dollars can go as far as possible. We on both sides of this House know this to be true, even if we may sometimes disagree on the means to accomplish it. However, this should not be one of those times. We have at our disposal a way to begin the battle in bringing fairness and equity into one specific area that has need of fairness and equity, where retired members of this House and senior civil servants are receiving pensions while at the same time they are receiving salaries or fees from the same government pocket.

I said a few minutes ago that we are not enemies but that we do need the courage of a soldier who is facing the enemy. It may appear a little contradictory, but we do need a great deal of courage in this matter. We are all affected by the present practice. We may well be affected in the future when we ourselves retire and perhaps seek future employment with a government body.

I hope this resolution and the bills to which I referred receive the full attention and support of this House. In doing that, members will demonstrate to the taxpayers of this province a readiness to redress what has become an unacceptable practice and one that must end. Whether or not members are concerned about what the taxpayers think about their actions in this regard, members by supporting these bills will play a credible part towards fellow members in bringing honour and credibility to affairs of the state here in this Legislature. I urge all members to consider and support this resolution.

I would like to make one clarification. At the start I indicated people were drawing extra salaries. I also realize there is one former member drawing a pension who is also elected by the people and who does not qualify in this case. I refer to Michael Cassidy, formerly the member for Ottawa Centre, who is now a federal member. However, several others have government appointments and are drawing double salaries.

I will retain the balance of my time for the end.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is retaining eight minutes and 15 seconds for his wrapup.

Mr. Breaugh: I am interested in the fact that it was the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) who put forward this resolution this morning. I appreciate the fact that he has been born again. For 42 years this was an all-right political practice. For 42 years there was nothing wrong with double-dipping and patronage appointments; all that was fair.

Just last year it was okay for Clare Westcott, as one example, to have his pension doubled and then take an appointment in the public sector. There was no need for courage then. There was no need to speak then. I appreciate that before Margaret Scrivener, as another example, took her appointment -- I believe it is to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board -- the member did not raise this point.

As one example, it is a pretty good concept that a member retires from a cabinet position with a good pension. Ordinary members do not have good pensions here, but if they have been in the cabinet, they do. They make as much on pension as they would as an ordinary member here, as some in the 14th century club are discovering these days. On top of that, they pick up appointments at $60,000 a year or so. It is not a bad or a cruel thing. However, the courage that was called for this morning was noticeably lacking that a short time ago.

We have done some research on this, and while I appreciate it is in the spirit of being born again, which is laudable, I have a little trouble. The member for Simcoe East said, "If you line only one pocket, that would be enough." There are those of us who might suggest that lining even one pocket may be wrong in some circumstances. The problem with the resolution -- and it is not a bill; it is a resolution -- is that it is a broad brush. It is too simplistic an answer to what is a very complicated problem.

Let me go in sequence on ways in which we could do something positive. First, on the appointments themselves, we have recommendations being considered by the government that a new appointment process with a review provision be attempted. This government seems a little less enthused over it now than it was a year ago, but it has not discarded it totally.

I wanted to read into the record this morning a list of the appointments -- and here is the appointments book, now a matter of public record for the first time in better than half a century; so we are making some progress. I leaf through the book. I could find in here about a dozen people I recognize from opposition benches or from the previous government who have made their way into the new appointment process. It seems to follow the pattern set by Brian Mulroney: appoint one person from the opposition side and 1,000 of your own and proclaim that is balanced. I do not think it is balanced. That appointment process is wrong, and it needs to be looked at.

Let me be more specific on some research we did that is pertinent to the case at hand. We looked through the appointments. One of the things on which all members will agree is that there are some glaring examples of unfairness and wrongness that one can quote.

It should also be pointed out that of the 1,928 appointments this government has made since it came into office -- and as I said, I found about a dozen from the opposition side who have made it through that process; so it is that fair -- about 50 of those almost 2,000 appointments could be considered to be full-time, well-paid jobs. Those people have not retired, and if they are getting an appointment that brings in $50,000 to $60,000 a year they do not need their pensions from here.

However, the rest of them, by and large, are appointments to conservation authorities, local boards and commissions, the administration of Old Fort Henry, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission and things of that nature. It would seem to me we would want former members of the assembly to be participants in that kind of process. Most of them get a per diem. They get an expense allowance. They get a trip to an annual convention somewhere. I do not have any problem in the world with saying those people are fine; leave them alone.

I would rather see an appointment process that is public and subject to review. That would do us some good. It would be fair to pinpoint, and we can do that, those appointments that are full-time jobs and relatively well-paying. By relatively well-paying, I mean they pay about $20,000 a year more than members of the assembly get. It is not hard to nail those down and to say that for those jobs, those people have not retired and so they should not pick up their retirement plans here and the full salary in the public sector somewhere else. The really gross appointments are not among the members. The really gross ones come from the civil servants who get salaries at twice the rate of members and have a tendency to pick up the larger public appointments. That is where the real atrocities occur.

10:20

I would find this concept supportable if the member were to redefine his target here. That is important. For instance, the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) has been here for a long time. If he ever decided to retire -- and that does not appear to be very likely; he may be here for another century -- I would be happy to suggest that he would be very fine on a parks commission or on a conservation authority. He has some expertise that should be used. He should not be forced to pay the penalty, because he has been an ordinary member, of giving up part of his pension to take such an appointment. I want a clearer target and a more public appointments process. That needs to be said.

Second, on the larger question, we do have to look at this. There are atrocities, and the member has named some. For example, I find it very difficult to talk to people who are on fixed incomes, pensioners by and large, in my own constituency. It is pretty tough to explain to them how someone out of this place gets a pension that amounts to several million dollars. It is tough for me to explain to people who are struggling to get passes on public transit, or discounts more likely, why it is necessary for the assembly to provide a car and driver for a former employee. That is a little tough to explain, because there is no rational explanation in the world.

It is not acceptable to say to our pensioners, "We are going to give you a four per cent increase in your pension;" and to someone else, "We are going to double your pension and give you a $60,000-a-year appointment as well." People understand the blatant unfairness in all that.

The member could have chosen, and it was his choice, to be a little more specific in his target. The concept is right, if he had been a little fairer, but he lumped everyone into it. He made the correction himself at the end of his introduction.

Michael Cassidy was a member of this assembly for a long while. The argument could be made that running in a federal election is an appointment process of sorts, but it pretty well is open to anybody who wants to run and it is hardly a government appointment. He did just that; so to lump him into the scheme is quite wrong.

The member may challenge the validity of making appointments from former cabinet members or former members of the assembly, but I would argue that people such as Margaret Scrivener, with whom I never agreed in all the time I was here, is a competent person who can serve well on a number of boards and agencies.

My argument is not against that kind of process. I do not think former members should be blocked from doing that or penalized for doing that. I do feel, however, that if the member targeted this kind of resolution a little more carefully, he would very soon sort it out.

By my count, there are about 50 positions that would be considered appointments in the public sector; they are full-time, good-paying jobs. The member can make a very good argument that the people in these jobs have not retired but have changed jobs and are doing something else. If the member redefined the resolution to say those people should not be permitted to take a pension and still have that kind of employment, I would be very supportive.

I would be even more supportive if the proposal did not come from a Tory member who has been around here. To be honest about it, the Tories put in place the patronage system in Ontario. I find it difficult to accept, now that they are out of office, that they are suddenly fiscally responsible, born again, very moral and full of courage, when I go through the book and see that the vast majority of the appointments in Ontario came from that old patronage system.

It is changing ever so slowly, ever so mildly and not nearly enough. I want major changes, and then I will be prepared to look directly at this kind of resolution, more clearly put and more precisely put, to catch those where there is something wrong. In doing that, I do not want a broad brush that prevents former members of this chamber from using the expertise they have learned in years of public service on a local board, agency or commission. That would be dreadfully wrong.

I know what the member is saying. He has a good intention, but I am amused that the intention came to the fore only at this time and was not present three or four years ago. I simply want the target redefined. Until he does that, I cannot support the resolution.

Mr. Mancini: I hope the member for Windsor-Walkerville is not the only one here. Where are the other guys going?

I wish to take this opportunity to make some comments with regard to the resolution put forward by the member for Simcoe East. I found the comments made by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) interesting indeed. What we heard was a dissertation. Actually, we heard two dissertations. One was for the public at large, to satisfy public concerns about whether members were being remunerated too well or not well enough and what should happen to members after they leave this House. He was sympathetic to the concerns of the public. His second dissertation was to us as members of the assembly, saying, as a colleague, he wanted all his other colleagues treated in a fair way.

I want to be more specific than the member for Oshawa. I think I can make a case that will sound reasonable for people who have all the facts and that will sound reasonable for people who have served well in this assembly.

My 11 years of experience have shown me that members of this assembly from all parties work very hard and diligently indeed. As a matter of fact, if one were to compare the dedication, work and output put forward by the members of this assembly as a group, we would stand up to any other group in society. We have nothing to be ashamed of as far as our work is concerned. We certainly do not have to be ashamed of our remuneration or of any of the benefits we receive. We seem to forget that we are people at executive levels. We run large offices and handle the problems of many thousands of people, three score thousand and more. On top of all that, we do very complicated work here in the assembly and in committees.

If possible, I want to set aside once and for all, at least for me, the notion that we are not quite up to standard or are not quite up to what we are receiving. As a matter of fact, I think the opposite is true. At the same time, I know members are not here to make money. Therefore, the issue of money in many respects clouds all the other issues that members are concerned about as far as their services and benefits are concerned.

Having said that, I want to make it very clear that as far as I am concerned, I do not find it offensive that the previous government appointed former members of the assembly, outstanding members of the assembly, people who had served their province and their constituents well, to other offices, where they could bring their expertise and continue to serve.

At the same time, I do not find it offensive in any way whatsoever that our new government has appointed Bob Elgie to the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario and Odoardo Di Santo, a former New Democratic Party MPP, to the directorship of the office of worker adviser. George Samis, another former New Democratic Party MPP, was appointed to the Ontario Highway Transport Board, and Donald MacDonald, a former leader of the New Democratic Party, was appointed to the Commission on Election Finances. I can name a few others, but I think I have got my point across.

The member for Oshawa made a similar point, that some former members, some of them former ministers, were asked to serve in a different capacity after they left the assembly. I do not find that offensive or wrong. Members should never forget that the pensions we receive after having served a number of years are -- to some extent, compared to most other pensions; I should say to a large extent -- are paid by us. We are at the stage now where we pay 10 per cent of our gross salary into our pension plan. The vast majority of members have no outside interests after they have been a member for four, five, six, seven or eight years. If they had interests when they came in, after a half a dozen years the interests they had at the time are not as relevant after the passage of years.

10:30

I know the member for Simcoe East is addressing a concern that has been voiced by some members of the public, but I do not think it is fair to say to members that they cannot later serve the people in other ways. Yesterday, we heard the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) would not be running again. That was a personal decision by the member for Port Arthur. All of us know and realize the New Democratic Party member for Port Arthur can serve the people of Ontario in a different capacity when he leaves this assembly. Why should he be discriminated against? Why should he be declared persona non grata just because he was a member of the assembly?

In private practice, in private industry and in private business, many people who have worked for a company and who have decided to leave that company are hired back by the company by one method or another. The individual has decided to work outside the bureaucratic procedures of the company on a freelance basis. The company, realizing the person has a great deal of knowledge, information and commitment, hires the person back. They do not say to that person: "You worked for us a number of years. We will discount the fact that you paid into your pension. You cannot collect your pension and work for us at the same time."

The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who has served this assembly for many long years, has not made any announcements about his intentions. There are a lot of other members across the floor who have not made any announcements of their intentions. All of them would be declared persona non grata. I do not think that is fair. People work hard when they come here. You do not last in this business, as the member for Sudbury East has done for 19 years, unless you are fully dedicated and giving your all and utmost to your constituents, to your party and to the general population as a whole.

People have to start understanding that we are not here on a free ride. There are no free rides in our political lives. The member for Simcoe East must know the demands that are placed on him and on his colleagues. The resolution makes it sound like this: "We have been here for a few years. Thank God, we have qualified for our pension." No comments are made about the 10 per cent of our gross salary that we pay into the pension. No mention is made about the actuarial deductions that are made if one tries to take an early pension; pensions are slashed almost in half. None of those comments is in this resolution.

No comments are made about the fact that the vast majority of members are unable to have any outside interests whatsoever to satisfy their income for future years. We are like everyone else. We have families and obligations. Many of us may want to continue to serve the people in some capacity. Why penalize us? If this resolution is good enough for the members of the assembly, it should be good enough for everybody.

I find it somewhat annoying. I know the member for Simcoe East well. I know he has positive concerns and he puts this forward with a positive viewpoint, but after a while, one gets tired not only of having the general public attack the members of the assembly for benefits or gratuities they think we receive and believe are in overabundance when it is not true, but also of having our own members perpetuate it. That is the main reason I cannot support it.

I want to put this on the record. I hope I have not complained in the past, and I do not recall that in my 10 years in opposition I actually complained or raised a fuss about a former member of the government receiving an appointment. I hope I am not being somewhat hypocritical today. I thank the member for bringing this forward for debate.

Mr. Ashe: Listening to the responses to the motion put by my colleague, one thing that has come forward is that there seems to be some general unanimity in all three parties that possibly the spirit of this resolution is in order in the context of picking out a few examples that are very difficult to comprehend on an individual basis. It is very difficult for a taxpayer to comprehend. Frankly, as I see the resolution, it is much too broad brush in its approach. It is really not appropriate and not one I can support in its written form.

I agree wholeheartedly that if a member, a civil servant or a public servant is retiring with a substantial pension -- and I appreciate and accept that everything is relative -- of $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 or as much as $60,000 a year, he should not be going into another position that is also being paid for out of the public purse in roughly those same terms; in other words, a job paying $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 or in some cases $70,000 or $75,000 a year, over and above his pension. That is the spirit of the resolution that I concur with. Frankly, I do not think that is fair to anyone, especially the taxpayers of Ontario.

I agree with the comments that in some cases an individual may have a particular or unique talent that makes him the best appointment, but surely there is a way to take care of that. As a simple example, if someone has retired on a $45,000-a-year pension and has the qualities and qualifications to earn the right to a job that pays $75,000 a year, surely he is entitled to $75,000. Whether it is $45,000 plus $30,000 or $75,000 and the pension is deferred in this case, I have no problem with it. It is only fair to the individual, to the system and, most important, to the taxpayers.

I do not agree that everyone should be put in the same category and that if you retire from this place, whether as a public servant or as a member of the Legislature, you are not in a position to be able to contribute to society on an ongoing basis because of your interest or unique talent or because you just do not want to retire from active public life.

There are many boards, commissions, agencies or even contract-type jobs that pay only nominal sums, and one may very well need to top up a retirement income; if it is in the area of $20,000, $25,000, up to $30,000, obviously depending on the time frame, probably that individual is going to need to supplement his or her income in any event. If that person can contribute to the ongoing wellbeing and advancement of the province, surely there should not be anything in place that would deter at least the consideration of that individual to continue to serve the taxpayers in Ontario.

Unfortunately, that is what this resolution does. I do not think the member for Simcoe East realized it would encompass this group of people, because I know him to be a fair-minded individual. I do not think he intended to include those people -- to use the examples of my colleague the member for Oshawa -- who may be appointed to boards, commissions, conservation authorities or whatever, where we are talking about only a nominal sum, a nominal per diem, a nominal per annum rate, and possibly some expenses. I do not think this is out of line at all. If anything, it should be encouraged.

If one has been around this place for any number of years, whether in an elected capacity or in a senior public-servant capacity, we hope one has gained some level of expertise in whatever area may have been more attractive to one's particular interest or talent. Surely it is a shame to put such persons out to pasture if there is still an opportunity to utilize those abilities, those capacities and those talents for the betterment of everyone in this province.

10:40

I am not going to take up my full time. The two previous speakers said, in varying degrees, the same thing I did. We are asking, if people have talent, why should that be held against them? At the same time, it is unfortunate that within -- I will be generous and say the past year or two -- there have been some rather glaring examples of the illustration that was used: the golden handshake, the platinum handshake, the full pension situation for an extremely high-paying appointment. These are the glaring examples that I do not think we can justify in any case.

Surely that is the intent of this resolution, but unfortunately, that is not what the resolution says. I do not think it would be fair to the system or to the taxpayers of Ontario to eliminate automatically the talent that is around us. In fact, on the basis of the way this resolution is written, I cannot support it.

Mr. Swart: I rise to take part in the discussion on this resolution because I consider it is a very significant issue that the member brings before us. As has been stated by the other speakers, I think there is general agreement with the principle of this resolution. All of us agree that when appointments are made by a government primarily on the basis of a person's allegiance to or activity in a political party, that is not a good basis on which to make a decision.

It certainly is true that within this Legislature, as within most other legislatures and the Parliament of Canada, that has been one of the factors, and a major factor, in many of the appointments that have been made. We all recognize that there is a cynicism on the part of the public with regard to politicians. Some of it may be justified and some of it may not, but we as elected members will encourage that cynicism if we permit or practise double-dipping, whether it is done for ex-members of this Legislature or for public servants.

It brings discredit on our parliamentary system and on our democracy. I suggest it brings almost as much discredit as do people who may cross the floor of the House in the hope of getting some lucrative appointment, probably still within the political system, when they get on the other side.

Mr. Warner: If they live that long.

Mr. Swart: If they do not get defeated in the next election.

It is a practice not only of governments to do this sort of thing but also of opposition parties to dig up all the scandal they can in this regard and give it a high profile. Certainly, the Conservatives in Ottawa under Mr. Mulroney scathingly denounced the Liberals for all those appointments they made at the end or just before the end of their term. Of course, when the Conservatives got into power there, Mr. Mulroney used exactly the same practice as had been used by the Liberals before.

We see that to some extent in this House, after a government which for 42 years practised the patronage system in many ways. I do not think the member who introduced this resolution would deny that. In fact, I dare say the father of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) had a nice, lucrative appointment by the government of this province that was in power for 42 years. There are other people such as John Yaremko and so on. To this point, I think it is true to say the new government has not blatantly practised that to the same degree the previous government did.

However, having said that, I do accept the sincerity of the member in introducing this resolution. In fact, I believe it is a practice he would like to see eliminated in this Legislature. I accept his sincerity, at least partly, because he did name numbers of people within his own party who had been appointed.

Mr. Shymko: One.

Mr. Swart: I heard at least two.

If he was trying to make a totally partisan remark, he might not have done that, although that may have been for the purpose of deflecting criticism such as mine if he had not named those people.

It has already been pointed out that although he named Mike Cassidy, I think he did that erroneously because, as he well knows, that was not an appointment. He could have been without that job. No government that was in power had anything to do with Mike Cassidy being a member of the federal Parliament at this time. In fact, it vigorously opposed his bid but was unsuccessful, for the good of this nation I might add.

I was surprised a bit at the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), who seemed to spend most of his time defending the principles of the members of this Legislature, the fact that we are all honest people and that the public thinks we are not up to standard, but that we have nothing to be ashamed of. He used those little phrases himself. I do not think we need defending like that. I think he missed the whole point of this type of resolution and this issue.

What we have to be concerned about is the perception of the public in the democracy. As members of this Legislature, we have to be sure we refrain from doing those things the public can construe as fining our own pockets or doing favours to friends. That is absolutely essential in a democracy. It may not be just a matter of whether we are putting in these long hours and doing a good job. I respect members of this Legislature too. I have some idea of the hours they put in and the work they do, but what we have to think about is the perspective the public has of us as leaders. We are the ones upon whom their judgement of democracy is based and therefore we have a very special responsibility.

I feel like the others that the resolution we have before us is badly flawed. To say in the resolution that we recommend that this practice be ended and leave it at that does not really deal with the issue at all. Surely the member must have some idea of the way of ending it. He should have had that in the resolution, whether he wanted to point out that the appointments process is flawed, as my colleague the member for Oshawa has pointed out and with which I agree, or whether he should have suggested a policy such as they have in many of the European democracies.

Years ago, I had two visits to study government in England and in Sweden, mostly local government but also the central government. I found they have a policy there, even for local government representatives, that one cannot be appointed to a full-time position by a government, regardless of the level of government, until one has been out of office for at least a year or two years. It varies from place to place.

10:50

Perhaps that is the route we should go here, because that makes it much more difficult for a member to resign and get an appointment immediately. If he has to wait for a couple of years, he will think twice about taking that appointment and therefore it will deter that kind of practice. Maybe that is the route we should be taking. As my colleague the member for Oshawa said, there should be a much more open process.

In conclusion, I am going to have a great deal of difficulty in voting for this resolution because of its scattergun approach and because it does not propose any means of effecting the principle espoused in this resolution.

We as parliamentarians must give the lead to establishing the standard of democracy we want to have in our society and to the public generally. The matter of special favours, lining our own pockets or lining our friends' pockets, is a very major factor in their determination of that quality. Although this resolution may not be passed, I hope the government will follow up on this and bring in the necessary legislation.

Mr. McLean: I would like to comment on what has been said by members of this Legislature in regard to this resolution. The member for Oshawa made some good points. It is difficult to bring in a resolution that suits everyone and has the proper wording. However, the intent of the resolution was directed at senior civil servants or members of the Legislature who retire, then get an appointment to a board or a commission, draw a salary of more than $50,000 -- some are drawing $90,000 -- and get a pension. That is the intent of the resolution.

I concur with some of the comments made with regard to the commissions, the conservation authorities, the local police commission or the local housing authority. There are many boards that are very minimal and that are included in the 1,928 appointments the member mentioned. I concur with that. That is not the intent of this resolution. However, it says "boards and commissions."

The head of the police commission in Toronto is a political appointment, so to speak, making some $80,000 a year. The head of the compensation board is probably making the same amount of money. The chairman of the transport board is making a large salary. The list goes on and on. These are the type of people I am aiming at in my resolution. However, it is difficult to specify in detail in a resolution the ones we should look at. It is not the intent to single out the heads of the other boards and commissions who are appointed and perhaps make $100 a month or $25 a meeting. It is the full-time appointments. Perhaps that could have been better clarified in the resolution.

The member for Oshawa indicates that these appointments have been going on for years and years. I dare say they will continue. I have been here since 1981, so I am not responsible for a lot of the appointments, nor do I want to say they were wrong. When people accept appointments and they have a pension of $30,000 a year, it bothers me that it is all public money. It all comes from the taxpayer.

As the member for Oshawa indicated, one talks to people at home who are on fixed incomes and who have problems making ends meet. They read in the paper and see on television these great appointments being made of members of the Legislature or senior civil servants. I do not agree with that. This is why I brought the resolution forward.

The other reason is that I have two bills, Bills 140 and 141. I would like to see the government show an interest in them as a priority. I do not understand how the member for Essex South can stand up in this House and say he agrees with what is taking place. In essence, that is what he said, that he agreed with it. The reason he agreed with it was that as politicians we probably pay more in pension than a lot of other people do. One has to qualify for the pension with age plus number of years of service. The age is 55. The number of years as a member plus one's age must equal 55 before one can qualify. Lots of people can retire at 45 from this Legislature and draw a hefty pension plus a great salary.

The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) made some excellent points in his remarks. I concur with his comments and his criticism of the resolution. So be it. It is not what I would call a perfectly worded resolution. The intent of the resolution is what I am getting at, namely, people who have an appointment with a large salary should not also be drawing a pension from the public purse.

I was surprised at the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). He mentioned that our leader's father has an appointment. I do not know what it is. I know he is doing volunteer work now. I know he had one in the past. I can only say I know he does not have one now. I was also interested in the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold when he indicated what has taken place in other countries such as Sweden and the policies they have. A further investigation into that is worth while because what he was saying made sense to me. I hope we have the opportunity to have a further look at that.

I think the resolution before this Legislature today is a good one. I still ask for the support of all members. The intent is there. I believe the government should take this resolution and complement it with the two bills I have, Bills 140 and 141, and bring a bill into this Legislature. From the comments from all parties today, this would stop the double-dipping, and senior civil servants and members of the Legislature would be treated equally to everybody else in Ontario.

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved resolution 1:

That in the opinion of this House, the province of Ontario, Canada, should declare itself a nuclear arms free zone and the government should prohibit the deployment of nuclear weapons in Ontario, the testing of nuclear weapons and associated equipment in the province, the construction of nuclear weapons and associated equipment, the transport of nuclear weapons and associated equipment through and within the province and the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms. In addition, the province should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to initiate similar action.

11:00

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

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to reserve some time at the end.

This is called The Chariots of War. It reads:

For 20 years they built it.

When it was ready they started it.

It was the most appropriate of all machines.

No machine had ever howled like it,

spat fire and steel from its maw,

hurled earth around it, as it did.

But having started it

they could not make it halt.

It trampled all beneath it

cattle, children, the ripening fields.

It rushed to towns and ground them underfoot,

moved from land to land, nation to nation

sparing nothing.

When it had maimed everything living

it stopped at last in a meadow, there it still

spat fire and steel from its gullet.

After many generations,

when life began to rise again on the earth,

people built a fence around it

and set beside it an inscription,

which could be seen for leagues:

"This was made by our fathers

in inconceivable insanity."

That poem by a Finnish writer symbolizes what has taken place in terms of the proliferation of nuclear arms, the lack of control out there and the huge trepidation we all have that this machine, once unleashed, can destroy everything we hold dear.

Since April 1983, this resolution we are debating has been resolution number 1 in Orders and Notices. I have gone to extraordinary lengths to make sure it was always number 1, including introducing it the day before the speech from the throne was read, to make sure nothing else got in first. I did that because of its symbolic importance. No issue we deal with in this Legislature has the profound implications and importance that potential nuclear annihilation does. That we address it here in this Legislature and take responsibility for it has been a cause of mine now for these many years.

Listening to the radio these days, with all the golden oldies emphasis that is out there, is a mixed blessing. It reminds us of our youth and brings back great joys, but it also reminds us of how old some of us are getting. The other day I happened to be listening to one of the stations that play these old songs from the 1950s, when I was young. I heard one I had not heard in 30 years, the song about the rubber tree plant and the ant. I do not know whether you recall it, Mr. Speaker, but a line in it went: "Everyone knows an ant can't move a rubber tree plant." The song went on, "The ant had high hopes and with those high hopes eventually moved the rubber tree plant." I have felt somewhat like the ant on this issue in this House, because the previous time I introduced it, it was defeated and did not go as far as I wanted.

I believe it is important to maintain high hopes. High hopes need actions to reinforce them, especially around this issue, on which cynicism is so profound and the sense of powerlessness is so great that those of us who have responsibility should take it. We are debating here today whether we have the responsibility on this issue, whether we want to say we have power or are powerless -- I hope we do not wish to say we are powerless -- whether we are sovereign or only pawns in this whole proliferation horror around us and whether we are tethered by cynicism or liberated by hope.

Three years ago, when we introduced this resolution for the first time, my friend the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) did me the honour of using his time to bring it in that fall, almost at this time. We had a whole week of events to try to encourage people to participate and to get interested in this issue. We did unique things such as holding a play in the Legislature, besides the theatre of the absurd in which we often participate on a regular basis. It was written by Erika Ritter and was a wonderful thing, which basically asked, if a nuclear war were just about to happen, who among us would get into the government bunker? In that I am still on the opposition side, I presume I never will; but perhaps the Conservatives, now being on this side, may have more interest in that debate than they did three years ago.

In a more serious vein, we also had one of the survivors of Hiroshima here, and there were many moving moments, none more moving than the debate itself. I will always remember the speech of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney). As members who were here may recall, I had great difficulty maintaining my own emotions after he spoke. It was perhaps one of our best afternoons here in terms of the quality of debate and the attitudes of members; but the vote, unfortunately, went against.

Many things have changed since 1983. Manitoba has declared itself a nuclear weapons free zone. We do not have to worry about being the first or about what will happen to us. The government of Manitoba was actually re-elected, I remind people. It does not have to fear. The balance of power throughout the world was not unduly upset by Manitoba's declaration, but it was a little beacon of light for all of us to look at and take hope from.

New Zealand, on the other hand, took major action and has caused somewhat of a furore within its alliance with the United States because of its statements around nuclear weapons free action, but what it indicated was that it can mean something. It does not have to be just a statement of principle; it can mean something in terms of a new force on the superpowers in taking action.

I remind members who do not know that Spain made its entry into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization conditional upon not having nuclear weapons placed on its soil. Iceland, the recent host of the summit and one of our allies, is also a nuclear weapons free zone.

Here in Ontario we have gone from just a scattering of municipalities that had declared themselves nuclear weapons free to 51 that I know of as of today. More than a third of the people in the province have voted municipally to say they want to be free of this umbrella of nuclear madness that all of us are living under. If municipal politicians can say it is their responsibility to act and make a statement, then surely we as provincial politicians can do so as well.

There has been another change for me. I have a child now whom I did not have in 1983. If I understood what the member for Kitchener-Wilmot was talking about and what other people were talking about, when you have a child and you understand what our gift of the future may be to the next generation, that is no future at all. It adds another whole layer of emotional import to this kind of discussion.

On the other hand, during the same period we have seen an escalation in the arms race. Even in spite of the fact that the majority of Canadians are against cruise missile testing, the cruise missiles are being tested in our country. We have seen the failure at Reykjavik. I do not know how other members felt about it, but when I saw them come out in the afternoon with the joy in their faces and a seeming solution there, and then saw the results that night, I was crestfallen. I felt absolutely let down and betrayed by the leaders of the two superpowers. I think that has deepened the cynicism in people.

Of course, we have the Star Wars escalation, which is supposedly a solution but which, as any of us can gather, is just another way of adding more weapons to that enormous stockpile. I remind members who do not remember the statistic that there are about 50,000 nuclear weapons in total on both sides at this point. No matter how you balance it out, the overkill capacity is just enormous.

I thought the cynicism that had developed because of that would immobilize people, and I have noticed among the peace movement that people no longer want to march or to take the walk to city hall in Toronto, as they did when we used to have 20,000 people out. They want to see action, and there is a determination and a quiet resolution in people's minds about getting action that I had not seen in 1983.

In this campaign, I presume many members have been called by people in the peace movement or by interested people in their community who knew the resolution was coming up and who have talked to members quietly about why they feel this is important.

11:10

Going back to that whole golden oldie business, a song that was very important to me was one by Buffy Sainte-Marie; it is called The Universal Soldier. I do not know whether members remember it, but the words to that song were:

He is a universal soldier and he really is to blame,

His orders come from far away no more,

They come from him and you and me, and brother, can't you see,

This is not the way we put an end to war.

I believe people now understand that we all have individual responsibilities. It is crucial for each of us to take whatever steps we can at whatever level we have influence to try to change the path that seems so inextricably drawn to our total annihilation.

I remind people of the studies that have been done on the attitudes of children concerning nuclear war. Please remember that in studies done in Boston, a majority of kids in high school these days, when asked what their future was going to be, said they had no future. They could not anticipate living more than another 15 to 20 years, because they presumed we would all be destroyed. What does that do to the moral fibre of our nation, to the sense of hope and of improving our society that all the next generation should have?

I am pleased there are some students in the gallery today from places such as Welland and Burlington who are expressing other feelings and are here to ask us to support this resolution. A couple of high schools in Brampton have declared themselves nuclear weapons free in the past couple of weeks. It is another statement of this need to act wherever we can.

What are the elements of our complicity that we as Ontarians should deal with? There is the whole question of the production and sale of tritium, which for generations we have been selling from Chalk River to the United States for the development of nuclear arms. What are we going to do with Darlington? Are we going to continue that export? What kind of controls will we put on it to make sure tritium is not used for the construction of nuclear weapons? This resolution says there has to be at least control.

What about defence contracts? We do not know how many there are, but we know that Litton, for instance, produces the guidance system. This resolution says that kind of production should not be possible in Ontario. How we, as a Legislature and as a government, will deal with this is another matter. I presume we all agree there should be no loss of jobs. No company that has gone into a contract legally in this country should be penalized because we are now expressing a new will. We should find ways to make sure companies do not have to resort to the undertaking of defence contracts for nuclear weapons production or component parts production in Ontario.

Research is going on at the University of Toronto and the University of Waterloo. We should know what that is and whether it is for direct defence contracts or whether it has a more general use that we can support. There is transportation of goods for nuclear weapons through our province, and this summer we had port visits by ships that may have had nuclear weapons on board.

Let me remind members what this resolution is about. This is just their expression, as individual members of this House, of a principle they want to have enunciated. That is what we are talking about. If members pass this, it is one small tiny step towards what we must do. If we do this, I presume the next step is to say to the government, "There is now a moral obligation on you to take some action that reflects the principles of this motion."

That could take a number of forms. It could mean introducing conversion legislation to help companies such as Litton convert to production for peaceful high-tech purposes. It could mean setting up a small group of us to get together to work out policies that would reflect this principle and together to produce that kind of statement. It would also allow us to talk with the federal government and say: "Manitoba and Ontario together make up almost 50 per cent of the country in population. It is time the federal government looked at this as an issue that has national consequences."

I will come to the final matter in a minute, which is reciprocity, because the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) touched on a very important issue in his proposed alteration of my resolution.

First, let me deal with the neutrality question. Even the Toronto Star, which has been a great proponent of disarmament issues for the past little while, in opposing this resolution has made one of those fundamental errors in logic that a lot of us make from time to time. It has said that for us to act here on this kind of issue and to make a statement of our desire to be nuclear weapons free is to express neutrality; it is to say we must withdraw from the North American Aerospace Defence Command and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Those are things I might personally be in favour of, but they are in no way part of this resolution. That argument is an insult to Spain and Iceland, and it is an insult to everything Papandreou is trying to accomplish in Greece within the context of NATO; they are saying there must be room to move.

To make the argument that we, as a sovereign Legislature, cannot express our will or make a statement along these lines, I suggest, is to make the argument that as a true ally, of the US in this case, we must always accept unequivocally what the strongest ally in the alliance wishes us to do. The final result of that would be to say we are obligated, if they asked us, to place nuclear weapons on our soil. It would be an abrogation of sovereignty to do so. We have to understand that there is a balance in this. I am not suggesting we should do anything that undermines the alliance.

The other thing I am not suggesting is that we need to trust the Soviets in all this. I do not trust the Soviets, and I say that very clearly. I have seen no reason why they should be trusted. As a democrat, I have an absolute abhorrence of their totalitarianism. I stand here, as do all members, with the ultimate privilege of free speech. We cannot be touched in anything we say. That privilege is one of the most magnificent rights that can be conferred, and it is not permitted in the Soviet Union. I also abhor their suppression of many of the national groups that are under their bloc's control at this point; however, they are there, they have enormous power and they must be dealt with on whatever terms we can try to do so.

The very last section of this resolution therefore becomes very important; that is, the question of reciprocity, what I put down as encouragement of other cities and states to participate. How we want to change that from this resolution into government action is something I leave up to the members of this House.

I do not think it is a correct parallel, I might say to the member for High Park-Swansea, to say that one of the Soviet republics should twin with Ontario. In my view, the equivalent of that parallel would be to say that a number of the US states should parallel with one of the major republics within the Soviet Union. However, it is possible to say that within the satellite sphere of Romania, Bulgaria or any of those countries, we should be looking for somewhere to parallel with, looking for some sign of reciprocity.

I welcome the notion that we should be pushing for that. If it were the will of this House and of the government that we should hold up a final statement on our policy until we find and try our best to negotiate that, I personally would be happy. That would be a major step forward and a wonderful thing for us to do in terms of a sense of empowerment.

Before I stand down to hear other people, there are a number of people I must thank. First, there are the peace movement people, who have worked so hard to try to talk to members and convince them to support this resolution. Second, I want to thank two members of the House, the member for York East (Ms. Hart) and the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), for the work they have done within their caucuses. This is not something usual in terms of private members' hour, and I do appreciate their assistance. Third, I want to thank my own party, the New Democratic Party. It has made this its policy very strongly at conventions, unanimously at conventions.

We were trying to find somebody to be the second speaker for our caucus, but how do we choose? Should we choose the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), who introduced it last time, because of what he has done, or the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), who has done so much work in Thunder Bay on the issue? The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) wanted a chance to do it, and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) asked whether he might do it. In the end, we decided the most appropriate person to be our second spokesman was our leader because this issue is so fundamentally important to us. I am very privileged that the member for York South (Mr. Rae) has decided to do that for us.

Before I sit down -- I obviously will not have any time for a rebuttal, Mr. Speaker, but with my incredible sense of timing I am going to use up every second -- I would like to plead with the members one more time that today can be a very historic day for this House, in stating a principle we wish to follow. Then there is much work to be done in terms of how we would implement that and how we would refine the definitions that are within my motion to reflect the reality of the province. I would welcome working with each member to make this symbolic gesture a very practical reality.

[Applause]

The Deputy Speaker: I remind the people in the gallery that demonstrations of any kind are prohibited under the rules of the House.

11:20

Mr. Henderson: I am very pleased to rise and support this motion as vigorously and energetically as I can. I thank the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) for the superb job he has done over the years in championing this cause. I cannot quite bring myself to thank his party, but I am sure that deficit will be made good by others. I want to spend a few moments responding to some of the arguments made against the thrust of this resolution. I will use the last part of my time to offer some facts and figures of my own in support of it.

The comment has been made that this resolution goes too far, that it speaks not only against nuclear weapons on Ontario soil but also prohibits the construction of nuclear weapons and associated equipment and the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms. The argument, so it goes, is that this makes it too broad, too all encompassing and too difficult to enforce and that it dilutes the thrust of the member's motion.

The second argument is that by virtue of Canada's obligations to NATO and NORAD, it is hypocritical to pass a resolution such as this, that it amounts to a declaration of neutrality on the part of Canada. I state these objections only to say I cannot agree with them at all.

It does not seem to me necessary at this time to become too involved in the details of whether associated equipment or materials and construction are covered. What we are looking for is a strong and very vigorous endorsement of the principle that Ontarians want no part of nuclear weapons and nuclear escalation. This motion says that very clearly. As well, it seems to me that it is simply not so to say that our obligations to NORAD and NATO require that we defeat a resolution such as this. To put the matter somewhat starkly and baldly, war, armaments and treaties have been around an awful lot longer than nuclear weapons. While I am not in favour of any of those things, it seems to me that one can decide to do away with nuclear weapons without necessarily dismantling Canada's entire network of treaty arrangements.

The third argument against this motion centres on the fact that we cannot trust the Soviets. With respect to the Soviet bloc, as the member for High Park-Swansea observes in his memo -- I apologize for anticipating his remarks, but I will not get a chance to speak after he does, so I am going to make one or two comments now -- the Soviets have not declared one square inch of their territory as nuclear arms free zones. Fair enough; to the best of my knowledge, that is so. He says that perhaps it would be appropriate for us in Ontario to pass a resolution that will make the declaration of nuclear arms free zones in parts of the Soviet Union a reality. I wish we could. It seems to me, however, that we are into the time-honoured difficulty of everybody wanting somebody else to take the first step. Distrust and suspicion abound on both sides. We saw that only a few weeks ago at Reykjavik.

Everybody wants somebody else to take the first step. Surely the time has come when Canadians and Ontarians can have the courage to take the first step. Perhaps by doing so, the goodwill we will generate, if not the sense of one-upmanship we will generate, might encourage, provoke or persuade the Soviets to reciprocate in kind.

I want to say a few things about the holocaust of nuclear war. If my city of Etobicoke were bombed with a modern nuclear weapon, every man, woman and child would be vaporized. No sidewalks would be left to bear the shadows. The deaths of those at ground zero would at least be painless. One has that consolation because where once stood Etobicoke would instantly stand a very large, hot, radioactive crater.

In 1981, a large group of atomic scientists, statesmen and military people, some from nations of the Warsaw pact, met in Washington. A year later, they met in Cambridge. They agreed that a one-megaton weapon, one twentieth the strength of those now available, if exploded over any modern city, would demolish all its structures, kill 90 per cent of all people within a four-mile radius, burn, blind or cripple 60 per cent of others within reach of the initial blast and create 300-mile-an-hour hot winds.

It would kill or disable 60 to 80 per cent of all physicians, nurses and aides, almost totally destroy clinical facilities and drug supplies and virtually abolish medical care for the tens of thousands of blinded, maimed, burned, crippled and emotionally wrecked survivors who would be in such desperate need of help. It would condemn a third of all adults and half of all surviving children to the dangers of leukaemias, diminished resistance to infection, neurological disorders and cancer, and it would destine their offspring to abnormal genetic pools for endless generations. That is a nuclear weapon of one twentieth the strength of those now available.

Let us do what we can in Ontario to rekindle the spirit of Reykjavik. Let us demand that our governments stop the nuclear arms race and work with the other side to abolish nuclear weapons everywhere.

I want to make mention of the huge economic price we pay for the nuclear madness that prevails in the world today. The cost of training and equipping a single modern soldier would subsidize a child's health needs from birth and cover his or her education through to the end of college.

For the price of one atomic submarine, hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers put into service could eradicate endemic diseases throughout the world that constitute 80 per cent of all illness. If the $1.5 billion spent daily by the nations of the globe in war readiness were diverted to human purposes, one third of the world's population that is now dying from disease and starvation could be rescued. Ethiopia could become a land of plenty.

Among the tens of thousands of children thereby rescued would be hundreds or thousands of new Pasteurs, Einsteins, statesmen and peacemakers. I am told that Harry Truman, God rest his soul, made that fateful decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but who among us really stands blameless? Who among us has not participated or been tempted to participate in those rationalizations we all hear about of having to bomb Japan to end the strife and save the lives of thousands?

Let us face it, the United States did not bomb Japan to save lives; it bombed Japan to win the war. It knew people would die and it figured better it should be Japanese than Americans. That is the mentality of total war. The innocent suffer and die too.

I have been told that Japanese scientists, working on their version of the bomb, who knew of the American work, none the less mounted a go-slow campaign in defiance of their war ministry because they were sure the Americans would never use the bomb on people. So much for man's humanity for man.

Even rich nations cannot afford the nuclear arms race. They print or borrow money to cover war expenditures. They devalue their currencies and fuel inflation. They raise taxes and interest rates. They divert resources from the central industries. They close factories and set into motion a worldwide rise in unemployment and economic insecurity. I am not an economist, but those kinds of consequences have been traced to various aspects of the nuclear arms race by men and women who are more expert in that field of endeavour than I am.

I believe we must mobilize every possible influence to end this waste of mankind's precious resources. We must develop world institutions and world bodies that can resolve global conflicts. We must turn our human efforts to mutual and creative advantage. We must combat the ignorance, poverty and illness that fuel the hideous spiral towards nuclear tragedy.

11:30

The countdown is approaching. I am almost out of time, but let me tell the members, the countdown for humanity may well be approaching too. I join the member for Scarborough West in urging every member of this assembly to support this very worthy motion.

Mr. Jackson: It is an honour to stand in support of a resolution declaring Ontario a nuclear arms free zone. Like all members of this assembly, I participated in the hallowed observances on Remembrance Day, November 11, just two short days ago. The message that day was clear. We seek an everlasting peace in memory of those who gave their lives so that we could have the freedom to achieve a lasting peace. Amidst my re-elections on Remembrance Day, I found time to read an article in the Toronto Star. The headline -- "Arms Talks Break up in a Shouting Match" -- was both frightening and prophetic.

The article carried a Washington dateline and began as follows:

"Serious arms-control negotiations between Washington and Moscow are unlikely to resume until the spring, say aides to US Secretary of State George Shultz, after a meeting last Wednesday turned into a shambles.

"Both sides repeatedly screamed at each other `like children,' one aide said."

It is frightening to imagine that the future hope for nuclear de-escalation is in the hands of these adults; yet how prophetic that this conduct is styled as being childlike. Have they really listened to the children of the world? They are certainly not listening to the young children in Burlington who this week gave testimonial in our community newspaper, the Burlington Post, when asked the question, "What would you do to make the world a better place?"

Here is a sample of what they said. Greg Staskovich, a grade 5 student at Lawrie Smith School, said, "Get rid of nuclear weapons." Devin Williams, a grade 3 student at Lawrie Smith School, said: "We should choose governments who won't make weapons or buy them." Collin Neal, a grade 2 student at Lakeshore School, said, "Stop making guns and give people food and schools."

I think Collin understands what is happening with declining enrolments as well.

Susil Gupta, a grade 2 student at Lawrie Smith School, said: "Stop shooting guns and bombs." Mark Louis, a grade 2 student at Lawrie Smith School, said: "Don't spend money on bombs. Give it to poor people for food."

Perhaps the most insightful comment came from a grade 4 student, Stace Smith, who said: "Dismantle the bombs. It's like suicide if we don't."

Children all over Ontario are becoming increasingly aware that the nuclear arsenals of the two superpowers currently contain the explosive force of all the munitions exploded during the Second World War times 6,000. That is 6,000 Second World Wars.

Children such as Stace Smith are growing up with the threat of global nuclear suicide. When I was in university, I used to question why would I want to bring up a child in that kind of nuclear-threatened world. Now, as a father and as an MPP, I must do something about that on behalf of my daughter Amy, because our children will continue to have nightmares and tremble at the apprehensions that not joy but terror "cometh in the morning." Early childhood researchers are concerned about the powerful psychological threats posed by nuclear weapons right now to the capacity of children to imagine a human future.

That is why it matters very much what we think and how we vote on this important resolution as individuals, as a province and as members of the human race. Thanks to the doom-and-gloom theorists, our children have clear thought models for what a nuclear end might be. What is conspicuously lacking from today's political leaders is a positive model for peace. We need more thinkers and leaders who can hold before us an alternative to a nuclear holocaust, to empower us and unleash the positive energy of our collective will.

Again, for those who will listen, there are encouraging signs from Ontario's young adults. On October 20, the United Nations Club of Aldershot High School in Burlington held the Halton region's first peace conference to celebrate the International Year of Peace. That United Nations Club is a group of young Canadian students very concerned about world peace. It provided a forum for Halton youth to express their views on the subject. The students of Aldershot High School believe it is not enough simply to reject the apocalyptic view of human destiny. They feel a need to say yes with heart and intellect to a wholly positive alternative. They agreed at their conference that world peace could be achieved only through responsible and positive action taken by a joint effort of all peoples and governments.

Our younger generation is also aware that man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish either all forms of human poverty or all forms of human life. The Annual Report on World Military and Social Expenditures suggested that in the last 40 years the world has spent $17 trillion on military spending. That is 17 plus 12 zeroes. Most recently, it has been spending at the rate of $1 million a minute. Four hours of such spending could eradicate malaria from the earth. Less than 10 hours' worth would end the world's hunger problem.

The modern globe is far too small, its nuclear weapons too destructive and its disorders too contagious to permit anything short of a resolution towards peace. In fact, this resolution is on behalf not only of Ontarians but of all humanity. This resolution is not really ours as a Legislature; like so many other social initiatives today, it has come from the people. It is the result of efforts that began with individuals and groups across this province and across this country that are concerned about our future. They cross partisan lines and they cross ideological lines. Nearly 50 communities have declared themselves, by referendum, nuclear arms free zones. In the last municipal election, the people of Burlington, by a margin of four to one, declared themselves in favour of a nuclear weapons freeze. They are the grass roots that all three parties defend with such eloquence and seek out with such diligence.

The people want an end to the arms race. They expect from us as legislators a sign that we too want an end to it, because if we do not succeed in extricating ourselves from this vicious $1-million-per-minute cycle, we shall all of us be lost together; and the longer we continue to march ahead on this fateful road, the more difficult it will be for us to leave it. It is the fate of this generation to live with a struggle we did not start, in a world we did not make; but as we know, the pressures of life are not always distributed by choice. While we hope and pray we will never experience a nuclear Armageddon, never has there been a generation more willing and able to meet the challenge of developing a positive model for peace and a positive framework for nuclear disarmament.

Members of the Aldershot United Nations Club are present in our assembly this morning to bear witness to our responsible and positive actions. They know our responsibility will be discharged not by a simple pronouncement of virtuous ends but rather by nonpartisan, all-party support of this resolution to ensure at least a first step, namely, that Ontario will declare on behalf of its citizens that it is a nuclear arms free province.

Mr. Rae: I rise on behalf of my colleagues, first of all, to thank the member for Scarborough West for having once again brought this resolution forward and for having made all the members of the Legislature aware of the importance of this issue. I know on behalf of all my colleagues and, I think, on behalf of the members of the Legislature that we owe a debt of thanks to the member for Scarborough West for the work he has done in making all of us more aware of the importance of Ontario's taking a stand.

I speak as leader of our party, but I am also speaking very personally. Just the other day I was chatting with my daughter about the meaning of Remembrance Day. She is five years old and she wondered why I was wearing a poppy and what the meaning of Remembrance Day was. My wife and I were talking to her and said that it was because there were wars. She said, "What are wars?" We said that wars happen when countries fight. She said, "How can countries fight if they do not have arms." Out of the mouths of children come questions and truths that need some answers.

11:40

The history of our civilization, alas, has been that countries do have arms. They have generations of young men and women who have gone into battle and been killed in the name of national sovereignty. They have arms in the sense of weapons that have been used as the means of defence and as the means of destruction over the course of the last thousands of years.

Yet, and this is the crucial change that has to take place in our thinking, there is a difference between the generations that followed 1945 and every other generation in human history. We have to come back to this point time and time again. Whenever we talked of war in times past, we talked of people dying and of people being killed. We talked of people fighting for a purpose, of people defending and of the response to and fro. Never before in the history of mankind has mankind had not simply the ability to destroy a city, village or town or even a country; for the first time in our history, we have in our hands the ability to wipe out the human race itself. It is this fact that has been leading us over the past number of years to have to come to terms as a people and as a civilization with this change.

It is a sea change, a change of quality and a change of a kind that our thinking cannot quite comprehend. It is not simply that we have the ability to destroy part of ourselves. It is that we now have the capacity in our hands, technologically, to destroy history itself, to destroy not simply a country or a town but also to destroy the entire notion of civilization itself. This is a fact so awesome that it is almost impossible for us to comprehend.

What is so tragic about these debates is that we continue to have these debates as if we were talking about a technology that was based in the 19th century. So much of the military strategy that is thrown back and forth is based on the premise of the old technology that is no longer in place.

When I hear President Reagan say, "All we need to do is find yet another technology that will protect us for ever in a purely defensive way from the threat of nuclear weapons," I think of those generals who believed before the First World War and the Second World War that all one needed to do was to build another trench, another line, another wall, and that would be the ultimate defence. Nations paid the price for that kind of thinking before 1914 and before 1939 and 1940. Civilization, life itself on this planet, will pay the price for that kind of arrested thinking when it takes place in 1986.

The objective of our resolution is not simply that Ontario become nuclear-free. I speak for all the members of our party when I say the objective of this resolution is to make the world free of nuclear arms and weapons, free of what President Kennedy called this sword of Damocles which hangs over not a particular country, town or even leader, but our civilization itself.

There are a lot of arguments against this resolution. There are those who say that for us to move unilaterally is somehow sending the wrong message. There are those who say that this represents a unilateral act of disarmament on the part of Ontario, while on the other hand we have a Soviet empire which is clearly not interested in disarmament.

Let me try to respond to that as best I can. Many comments have been made about my past. I see the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is here again today. I am proud of the fact that my father served this country overseas for many years. One of the things he did -- I am sure the Treasurer is aware of it -- was serve as Canada's representative at disarmament conferences from 1946 to when he retired in 1980.

As a young boy, I attended many of those conferences. I can remember as a high school student in Geneva going to the Palace of Nations, which was the old site of the League of Nations, and watching the group of 18, as it was then called, talking about the possibilities of disarmament and the various arguments made. For a young person, it was enlightening and frustrating, frustrating because there never seemed to be a sense that anything would ever happen. Official positions would be stated. Documents would be exchanged. At the same time, arsenals were being developed, new generations of weapons were being developed and, again, official statements being made back and forth.

There have been small breakthroughs, such as the breakthrough in 1963 with respect to the test ban treaty and the breakthroughs with respect to SALT I and SALT II, but they have been so slow in coming. It is so difficult to get any sense of momentum or appreciation among the leaders of both superpowers, that the world has, somehow, to find a voice, a way of expressing its deep-seated feeling. It is not just a question of reducing, little by little, the nuclear arsenal; it is a question of wanting to eliminate it altogether.

I share the thoughts of the member for Scarborough West. Watching the outcome of the Reykjavik conference, I thought most people around the world did not view it as a triumph. When I saw President Reagan put on that military hat and cheer to the soldiers, I felt a deep sense of depression. We missed an opportunity at Reykjavik. I say "we" because I think many in the world felt cheated of an opportunity finally to take the world on a path towards a nuclear-free future.

That opportunity was missed, and this resolution in its own small way for Ontario gives us a chance to express the opinion of this province and this group that we want to make sure, for our part at least, that we do not want to have anything to do with nuclear weaponry.

Ms. Hart: Although I cannot match my colleagues in eloquence, I rise to speak in support of the resolution to declare Ontario a nuclear arms free zone. I think it particularly fitting that we are engaging in this debate during Remembrance Day week. Just two days ago, many of us gathered at cenotaphs across Ontario to honour the thousands of women and men who died fighting in two world wars and in Korea. I am convinced that those noble Canadians did not shed their blood so that we might hold a few more yards of muddy ground, nor was their youth extinguished for the hollow honour of victory. They went, they fought and they died so that future generations of Canadians would live in peace.

11:50

My generation is one of those for whom they sacrificed. Born after the Second World War, we have not known the immediate pain of loss, as did our mothers and our grandmothers. What we have known all our lives is a more generalized fear, the fear of nuclear annihilation. It is a fear which clutches us at root and informs our perception of the future. Last spring the graduating classes of Ontario high schools were asked what concerned them most. These young people, supposedly in the most carefree time of their lives, spoke again and again of nuclear war. Their idealism and hopes have been supplanted by pessimism and fear. Today, as private members, as legislators, we have an opportunity to take the first step in addressing that fear.

It is true that the passage of the resolution is symbolic in nature and does not require any specific steps to be taken. I have been asked how such a symbolic gesture advances the cause of peace one whit. My answer to that challenge is that every great river is born as a few drops of water, a mere trickle high in the mountains. The peace movement is not new. Think of the poetry spawned by the First World War. An example is Siegfried Sassoon's Aftermath. In his words:

The past is just the same and war's a "Bloody game."

Have you forgotten yet?

Look down and swear by the flame of the war

That you'll never forget.

We in this House can most effectively demonstrate that we will never forget by standing up and being counted on the side of peace. It is only a small step, but in talking to my constituents in York East, I believe it is an important step. The strong desire for peace is no longer the province of the literati. There has been progress. It is now the desire and the hope of many ordinary Ontarians that we will have a future and that the future will be nuclear arms free. Let us stand up and cast a vote for all Ontarians in support of the resolution of the member for Scarborough West.

In closing, let me say we can best remember those who died, by working for peace. May I leave you with the words of Vera Brittain, a nurse in the First World War, as was my own grandmother, and a courageous pacifist when it was not fashionable to be so. These words are from The Last Post, a poem she wrote in Etaples, France, in 1917.

The stars are shining bright above the camps,

The bugle calls float skyward, faintly clear;

Over the hill the mist-veiled motor lamps

Dwindle and disappear.

The notes of day's goodbye arise and blend

With the low murmurous hum from the tree and sod,

And swell into that question at the end

They ask each night of God --

Whether the dead within the burial ground

Will ever overthrow their crosses grey,

And rise triumphant from each lowly mound

To greet the dawning day.

Whether the eyes which battle sealed in sleep

Will open to reveille once again

And forms, once mangled, into rapture leap,

Forgetful of their pain.

But still the stars above the camp shine on,

Giving no answer for our sorrow's ease

And one more day with the Last Post has gone,

Dying upon the breeze.

I urge the members to speak with one voice in making sure that never again will the last post be sounded in war.

Before I take my seat, I wish to compliment the member for Scarborough West and the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) particularly. This is an issue which transcends partisan concerns and party lines. It is an issue which speaks to the very future of our children and our children's children. If we want that future to be peaceful and not to have our children annihilated in a nuclear war, then we must vote together.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park-Swansea for two minutes.

Mr. Shymko: I want to express concern. It is unfortunate that on such an important topic this party is not given time equal to that given both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party in debating this, particularly for a member of the Legislature who may have a different point of view. I have been given two minutes and I will do my best to express my concerns.

War is madness, and nuclear war is the ultimate madness. There is no one on this side of the House whose remarks, if expressing reservations on this resolution, can be accused of promoting war or in any way being opposed to the process of peace.

When the member for Scarborough West introduced his resolution on November 24, 1983, he said, "When I introduced this resolution this spring -- a rather silly, in a sense symbolic, gesture -- I did not expect...I would be participating in a debate of the quality we have heard."

I do not want this to become a silly and symbolic resolution. I cannot support a resolution that remains silent on the millions of people whose territory has never been declared a nuclear free zone -- not one square inch of it. When Manitoba, New Zealand, numerous American states and one third of this province, as was pointed out by the member, declared themselves nuclear free zones, it had no impact on the other superpower.

I am concerned about the words of our UN ambassador, Stephen Lewis, the previous leader of the third party, who said: "It is unfortunate that the Soviet Union believes that nihilism is preferable to negotiation, butchery is preferable to bargaining." We would like to see a resolution that is bargaining, that is negotiation, that is bilateral, that says, "Take so many square miles of territory -- half, a third, 20 per cent of Manitoba and Ontario and your federated states -- and declare it a nuclear free zone." That is what I suggest should be supported.

Mr. Speaker: The allotted time has been used for private members' public business. We will deal first with Mr. McLean's resolution.

REMUNERATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

The House divided on Mr. McLean's motion of resolution 64, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Andrewes, Caplan, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cousens, Curling, Dean, Ferraro, Gordon, Harris, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., McCague, McFadden, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip, Pierce, Pollock, Scott, Sheppard, Shymko, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., South, Sterling, Swart, Sweeney, Treleaven, Yakabuski.

Nays

Ashe, Bossy, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Cooke, D. S., Epp, Gigantes, Grande, Grier, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Johnston, R. F., Knight, Laughren, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Poirier, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Reycraft, Stevenson, K. R., Ward, Warner, Wildman.

Ayes 35; nays 33.

12:16 p.m.

NUCLEAR ARMS

The House divided on Mr. R. F. Johnston's motion of resolution 1, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Andrewes, Bossy, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Caplan, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Curling, Epp, Eves, Ferraro, Gigantes, Gordon, Grande, Grier, Harris, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Knight, Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McCague, McClellan;

McFadden, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, Philip, Pierce, Poirier, Polsinelli, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Reycraft, Sargent, Scott, Sheppard, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., South, Stevenson, K. R., Swart, Sweeney, Treleaven, Ward, Warner, Wildman.

Nays

Ashe, Cousens, Dean, Mancini, Mitchell, O'Neil, Pollock, Shymko, Sterling.

Ayes 61; nays 9.

The House recessed at 12:20 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr. Sheppard: October 8, 1986, marked the 40th anniversary of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. This authority is one of the original three authorities in Ontario. At 11 o'clock tomorrow we are unveiling a plaque in the town of Port Hope in remembrance of 40 years of dedication.

In the 1920s and 1930s, there was a general concern in Ontario about the extensive soil loss and flooding problems that had become prevalent as a result of severe drought and deforestation. In 1942, the provincial government appointed the interdependent committee on conservation and rehabilitation to consider these problems and the most effective means of dealing with them.

The Ganaraska watershed was selected as a model area to identify conservation needs and make recommendations for remedial work. A report was published in 1944 and two years later the Conservation Authorities Act was enacted. In the same year, the Ganaraska River Conservation Authority came into being, with only six member municipalities at that time. The first major project of the authority was the establishment of the Ganaraska forest, which was officially opened in May 1947.

Today, the authority, with eight member municipalities, is known as the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. The Ganaraska forest, now more than 10,000 acres in size and offering watershed residents programs in conservation education and outdoor recreation, is still a major project of the authority.

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION

Mr. Mackenzie: The Society of Ontario Professional Engineers and Administrative Employees, a society representing 6,500 employees of Ontario Hydro, applied for certification on November 5. This will be the largest group of professional employees applying to the board for certification. They already have a voluntary agreement with Hydro, covering all 6,500 employees. They also have 200 exclusions to the current voluntary agreement. These cover management positions.

The word out in the field is that Hydro will be requesting up to an additional 1,500 exclusions from this bargaining unit. We should recognize that if this is the intent and if this is what they are trying to do, it totally negates the right of workers to organize, workers who already have an agreement and exclusions specifically set into that agreement.

I want to serve notice on the government that I hope it will take a look at this and decide who is running the show, Hydro or Ontario. Do workers have the right to this kind of certification? Why can the current numbers and exclusions not be the basis of the certification? Anything less would be an insult to these workers. I hope the government recognizes the battle we may be in very shortly on this issue.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Callahan: I would like to do something new. People in and outside the Legislature often do not thank the government for its sincerity and its sensitivity in dealing with particular issues.

In my riding, we had a school, Notre Dame Senior School -- young people were being housed in a public school. It was a very crowded arrangement and very difficult. People were being bused in. I want to say thanks to my government and to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) for being so kind as to allocate moneys so that these young people can eventually get into a school that will serve their needs.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Do not forget the Treasurer.

Mr. Callahan: I am sorry, I forgot to thank the Treasurer; I do so now.

CREAM PRODUCERS

Mr. Pierce: I wish to address the House today on a serious problem of discrimination by this government against the cream producers in northern Ontario.

Despite the fact that our northern cream producers are residents and taxpayers of Ontario, they are not eligible for the cream quality programs announced by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) on June 19, 1986. The order in council that outlines who is eligible for the programs states that a producer must be a member of the Ontario Cream Producers' Marketing Board and an Ontario resident.

The cream producers in the Rainy River district, through no fault of their own, sell their cream in the Manitoba market because of the poor cream market in northern Ontario. Therefore, these cream producers are forced to belong to the Manitoba cream board.

The cream producers in northwestern Ontario were forgotten and neglected when the cream quality programs were initiated last spring. The government has continually emphasized to the House its knowledge and support of the residents of northern Ontario, but how can this be the case when northern Ontario residents are excluded from provincial programs because the government does not recognize the difference between northern and southern Ontario?

I am requesting that a change be made to the order in council to make available to the cream producers in the Rainy River district the programs for which all other cream producers are eligible. As the member for the Rainy River riding, I ask the government to make northern Ontario cream producers eligible for all provincial grants.

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Laughren: A little less than a year ago, Falconbridge purchased Kidd Creek Mines in Timmins for approximately $600 million. At the same time, it continued to ship its ores to Norway without their being refined in this country, which we find very offensive.

This year in negotiations with the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, the proud union in the Sudbury area, the company sought concessions. The union said, "No, we have difficulty granting concessions but we will take back shares in return for any concessions." The company hard-lined it and said, "No, that is not acceptable."

Since then, Falconbridge has announced it is laying off 275 hourly rated employees and a number of salaried staff as well. Following that, an ad hoc committee in the Sudbury basin, consisting of the local members of Parliament, the MPPs, the area mayors and the regional chairman had a meeting on October 25. We decided unanimously to have a public inquiry into the intentions of Falconbridge, because there have been some disturbing rumours that Falconbridge may be using its facilities at Kidd Creek in Timmins to refine some of the ores it extracts from the Sudbury basin.

We now, and will be continuing to, call on the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to implement a public inquiry into the intentions of Falconbridge. We think the community has a right to know what its future holds.

HERITAGE ISLAM SOCIETY

Mr. Offer: It is my pleasure to inform the House of the anniversary of the Heritage Islam Society of Mississauga. This organization plays a vital role within the social, cultural and educational life of the Islamic community and in Mississauga as a whole.

As such, it has made a rich contribution to the achievement of multicultural harmony. Every one of the members can and should he proud of his association with such a tradition of service and goodwill.

It is the work of associations of this nature and many others, in meeting the challenge in their determination, energy and commitment, that makes certain this province remains a multicultural mosaic, where heritages, ethnic backgrounds and cultural identities are secure and remain identified within the province as a whole. I compliment the Heritage Islam Society in Mississauga for the work it has done over many years.

ONTARIO WINES

Mr. Andrewes: I have a timely reminder for all members of the Legislature and for others who participate in the daily activities of the assembly that this week marks the introduction of nouveau wine from four Ontario-based wineries.

Bright's, Inniskillin, Hillebrand and Château des Charmes are introducing wines of both the red and white gender. This is the first wine from the 1986 vintage. It is produced by a process known as carbonic maceration.

As members know, 1986 has not been an easy year for grape growers and wineries in Ontario. The excessive rains and the lack of proper heat units and sunshine have added to the miseries of the growers. This normally means that a less desirable vintage will be produced. However, it appears that the quality of the nouveau wine is exceptional; the best they have had for about seven years.

As members consider what new technology they might use in entertaining, I would certainly commend to them the products of the vines of Niagara.

13:41

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COURTHOUSES

Hon. Mr. Scott: I wish to report to the assembly on plans being developed with respect to courthouse construction, maintenance and repair.

Under the Constitution Act, it is the obligation of the government of Ontario to provide courtroom facilities for all courts held in the province irrespective of whether the judges are federally or provincially appointed. We thus provide court facilities for judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, the district courts of Ontario, the provincial courts of Ontario, criminal, family and civil divisions, and the unified family court. Courthouse facilities include not only the courtroom itself but space and staff for a wide variety of support services.

At the present time we provide courtroom space and services in 246 separate locations in 48 districts. Many of these locations are more than 100 years old. For structural and historic reasons, many of them are difficult, if not impossible, to modify or modernize effectively. Many courtroom facilities are located in premises leased from counties or municipalities. With funds in short supply, the obligation of the municipalities to maintain and repair these premises to fully acceptable standards is difficult to discharge.

Apart from the physical inadequacies of many premises and the burgeoning volume of court work over the last generation, the increasing complexity of criminal and civil litigation long ago made the problem of courtroom and support service space a critical one.

Since taking office as Attorney General, one of my priorities has been to establish for the first time a strategic plan based on consistent principles by which courtroom space could, over the next generation, be provided and maintained. We have begun to develop such a plan and in doing so have established a number of general principles to guide the allocation of resources for court facilities. These principles include:

1. Facilities will be provided only -- and I emphasize "only" -- in response to proven need.

2. The Ministry of the Attorney General is responsible for the management and administration of the court system. The assessment of need is a critical part of that responsibility and the assessment will be made by the Ministry of the Attorney General and no one else.

3. Courtrooms will be utilized to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, starting now, a courtroom can no longer be assigned permanently to any one particular division of the court.

Pursuant to these principles, we have identified a number of policies that will assist in our decision-making as we provide and manage courtroom space. These policies include:

1. The quality and size of courtrooms, judges' chambers and court offices will be based upon objective standards and will be consistent with the prudent use of public funds.

2. The provision of new or additional space will be considered only after all other viable options to resolve the problem of need have been exhausted.

3. As a matter of long-range planning, courts should be located in buildings designed for that purpose.

4. As a matter of administration of justice policy, crown attorneys should be located within the principal courthouse or its environs.

5. In situations of need where additional and traditional courtroom space cannot be quickly provided, we are prepared to consider using modular portable facilities, a model of which is available for inspection.

As part of the development of a strategy for the short and medium term, for the first time in Ontario history we are assessing the needs of our courts on a county or district basis. That process involves developing a profile of the judicial district that includes consideration of the economics, the population, the growth potential and existing facilities in each district. We intend to use available funds in consultation with local users and municipalities. As profile reports are completed, I will therefore be sending copies to members of the judiciary, the bar, police forces, municipalities, interested members of the public and our own local staff for review and comment. Very shortly, the first such profile report for Niagara South will be available.

By late autumn we hope that the most critical profile reports will be completed and submitted to local users. Thereafter, we will be in a position to establish our project priority list. In this way, we hope our plans for allocation of available funding against demonstrated need will be made in consultation with affected users and the local community. Our determinations will be a matter of public record.

I recognize that maintaining and improving our court facilities is a major challenge during a period of fiscal restraint when there is so much competition for scarce resources and a significant history of protracted neglect. I believe, however, that by embarking on a strategic approach utilizing significant public and user input and by developing a multi-year plan in which priorities are clearly established, we will be in a stronger position than in the past to maintain the future course that the administration of justice must take if our facilities are to remain responsive to the needs of the people.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to comment briefly on the Attorney General's brand-new, great strategy to deal with courthouse accommodation in the province. I think he is really injecting another step to forgo the need to provide the funds necessary to build proper courtroom facilities across Ontario.

I note in his principles and in his operating policy that he deals with judges, courtrooms and his crown attorneys, but he does not deal with the needs of the public and what the public should have in each and every courtroom. He does not deal with the much-needed waiting rooms in the halls for people waiting for their turn in court, with the needs of defence counsel to meet with their clients or with proper accommodation for our juries.

When our government was in place, we had priorities. We spent $50 million of $120 million in capital construction in the Ministry of the Attorney General. This policy is nothing but a stall. What we need is commitment, action and money for our courthouses.

Ms. Gigantes: I will respond very briefly to the statement by the Attorney General concerning the strategic planning of renovation and expansion of the court facilities in Ontario. The statement is common sense and it is a wonder it did not occur to him before. I will raise only two mild points.

In the last paragraph, the minister refers to the problem of improving and maintaining facilities during "a period of fiscal restraint." One wonders when the government is going to give up repeating that phrase and how much money the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has to have rolling around in his pocket before we no longer hear that phrase in every statement.

I thought it a little mean-minded of the minister not to name the program for what it is, the Gerry McAuliffe court facilities program. I think we should honour it with that name and give Mr. McAuliffe credit for the hard work he has done to make the Attorney General move forward on courthouse facilities.

FUNERAL SERVICES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: After extensive consultation with the funeral services industry, memorial societies and consumer groups, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and I have agreed that there is ongoing need for shared responsibility of the funeral services sector by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

We also agree that there is an immediate need for the strengthening and realignment of responsibilities so that there is greater consumer protection relating to the $200 million held in trust for prearranged funerals. The government will be proceeding as quickly as possible with new legislation in this area.

There is a need for further consultation surrounding the appropriate realignment of responsibilities between the two ministries. I am releasing today two reports made by ad hoc committees studying this matter and reporting to the government that reflect our ongoing consultation and resulting recommendations.

The first report, prepared in 1985, made several specific recommendations concerning the commercial aspects of funeral services. The government will consider these recommendations in discussions with the interest groups over the next several weeks.

The second report being released today deals with factors concerning shared jurisdictions. I want to assure the House we are moving quickly to deal with the concerns contained in these two reports.

Mr. Runciman: First, I will respond briefly to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on his announcement in respect to the Funeral Services Act. We on this side of the House are glad to see that the Minister of Health won out in that little tussle. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was saying publicly several months ago that he was going to consolidate everything under his ministry, and of course that caused a great deal of concern within the funeral service industry and within this party as well. We have certainly made our views known. Obviously, the Minister of Health shared those concerns and we have seen some action today.

I also want to make reference to one comment about the fact that a study will be undertaken on cemetery-funeral home combinations. They are going to look at this on a separate basis. I would point out to the House that a study was done on this matter some years ago, a study known as the Turner report, I believe. I have personally made two requests of the minister to have that report made available to me, the members of my party, the members of the monument-building industry and other interested parties from the public, and we have consistently been refused access to that report, which deals specifically with what they are now going to set up another study on. It seems redundant to me. It certainly has to appear that way unless access is provided to the public and to members of the opposition in reference to the Turner report.

I would ask the minister, before he proceeds any further with this additional study, to make that report available to members of the opposition and to the members of the industry to determine whether another study is warranted at this stage. I suspect it is not.

Mrs. Grier: I am glad the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations recognized the importance of the funeral services sector and has agreed to make a statement on that sector. Like the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), when I heard the minister say he was going to release two reports, I assumed that one of them was going to be the Turner report. I would like to associate myself with the request for the release of that report, which has been in the hands of the ministry for quite some time now.

When I looked at these statements, which I have not read in detail obviously, I hoped there would be some mention of the concerns expressed on numerous occasions to the ministry about the monument builders. They make up one independent sector of the funeral services industry, largely peopled by small businessmen who find themselves very much in need of the realignment of jurisdictions and the re-examination of the legislation that the minister is contemplating. When we get down to the details of the implications of the statement, I hope they will not be forgotten.

INSURANCE RATES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In my capacity as Minister of Financial Institutions, I wish to take this opportunity to inform the House of the government's response to Dr. Slater's Ontario Task Force on Insurance as it relates to aspects of tort law that have been identified by Dr. Slater, the public and the industry as creating uncertainty in the insurance market. Later in my statement, I will also address some other areas discussed by Dr. Slater.

Dr. Slater indicated that tort reform would in the long run help make the tort liability insurance system more predictable and less costly. Members of the public and the insurance industry have raised these issues as being of more immediate concern.

Let me set out three examples of these concerns.

One concern is the waste and duplication that arise when courts allow injured victims the right to retain benefits received from collateral sources such as private disability insurance or public assistance schemes. By failing to include the collateral benefits in the calculation of the actual loss, courts are said to allow a double recovery on some items. Double recovery can only add to the cost of claims and insurance premiums.

A second concern arises because of the present prejudgement interest rules. More plaintiffs now are delaying the expeditious resolution of their claims in order to increase the prejudgement interest award. Such delays are not only costly but are also a disservice to both plaintiffs and defendants.

A third concern deals with that large part of a lump sum personal injury judgement that reflects a tax gross-up component, an additional sum of money intended to meet the tax obligations that occur when the lump sum is invested.

An example of this arises in the much-cited case of the young man from Brampton who was so tragically injured. Of his $6.3-million award, approximately $3 million is compensation for the actual injury, lost income and future care. The other $3 million represents the necessary gross-up to deal with the tax consequences of investing a lump sum award over a number of years. Again, we are looking at an issue that only adds to the cost of claims and insurance premiums.

The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and I have begun discussions with the federal Minister of Finance on our concern with gross-ups and we have recommended amendments to the Income Tax Act that would result in the elimination of tax on lump sum payments.

I would also advise members that the issue of gross-ups, along with double recovery and prejudgement interest, is now under study by Professor Stephen Waddams of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. Professor Waddams is currently examining the broader issues of compensation for personal injury and death. We have asked the Law Reform Commission of Ontario to expedite its examination of double recovery, prejudgement interest and gross-ups.

In addition, the Family Law Act and the issue of joint and several liability are currently being examined by the law reform commission. The commission's team includes advisers from the legal profession, consumers and the industry. We have asked that this study be accelerated, and the project is expected to report by next summer.

As well, the subjects of Good Samaritan legislation and limitation of actions are under active consideration by the policy development division of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

There has been much discussion about capping or placing limits on damage awards for pain and suffering. About 34 American states have recently passed legislation dealing with this issue. In Canada, however, there is no need to place legislative limits on pain and suffering awards because a $100,000 ceiling was imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1978. With inflation, this amount is now $184,000. I see no need to further limit such awards.

I would like to point out that not all of Dr. Slater's recommendations were directed to the government. A number of them called for action by the insurance industry itself.

The insurance industry should know that Dr. Slater's task force pointed out the significant differences between the American judicial system and the tort system as it operates in Ontario. The task force concluded that in terms of damage awards and compensation levels, Ontario is not California north, yet sceptics within the insurance industry state this is so. I urge the insurance industry to develop the statistical and analytical program to support its argument, as Dr. Slater proposed.

I would like to summarize briefly this government's activity in some of the other areas relating to Dr. Slater's recommendations.

Dr. Slater called for the government to encourage formation of industry-based insurance pools where there are capacity problems. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Financial Institutions have all responded to that recommendation; the most recent example being the creation of a US products liability insurance pool for manufacturers and businesses in Ontario who would otherwise be unable to export products to America.

Dr. Slater also recommended that we encourage the establishment of reciprocal insurance exchanges. These co-operative pools of self-insurance will expand the capacity of the insurance market and provide a reliable source of insurance to their subscribers. We are currently assisting a number of groups, including municipalities and school boards, in the process of developing such reciprocals.

In addition, there are several important items of insurance legislation pending, all of which were recommended by Dr. Slater. Among them:

Legislation on the operation of a Canadian insurance exchange that will operate as a domestic reinsurance market, reducing our dependency on the foreign suppliers such as Lloyds of London. This will make a significant contribution towards relieving some of the capacity difficulties being experienced in the marketplace. We are targeting January 1, 1987, for opening of the Canadian insurance exchange. Further actions pending includes amendments to facilitate the expansion of capacity of the farm mutual insurance companies to write insurance policies and thereby increase the availability of insurance to Ontario's consumers, particularly in rural areas, and changes that will provide the framework for Ontario's participation in a national compensation plan for the general insurance industry.

The latter plan will be financed by the industry for the benefit of policy holders and claimants of an insolvent insurer. As well as protecting the public, the plan has been developed with a view to reducing the possibility of insurance company failures through the implementation of new standards which include increased capitalization levels and higher regulatory requirements. This plan will enhance confidence in the general insurance industry and benefit the consumer immeasurably.

I wish to conclude by saying this government is committed to ensuring a reliable, effective insurance market for Ontario. I will continue to keep this House apprised of relevant matters.

Mr. Runciman: The comments of the Minister of Financial Institutions and his response to the task force really constitute a statement of failure on his part. The government has been in office some 16 months and now he is talking about further delays and further consideration. I have to assume the emergency debate yesterday had some impact, in view of the statement released today and the fact that everything he is mentioning in here I recommended yesterday during my brief comments, but these actions should have been taken many months ago.

We are talking about the Ontario Law Reform Commission being asked to expedite its recommendations. They have been dealing with that for some time; now, at this late stage of the game, we are asking them to expedite their recommendations. The minister and the government should have been doing that 12, 14 or 15 months ago.

We should have had a legislative committee dealing with tort reform. We could have had a package to deal with the crisis brought to the House this fall. All we have now is further delay. Everything seems to be magically targetted towards the middle of next year. I do not know why, but all the reports dealing with the insurance crisis seem to be some time mid-1987.

We are concerned about the government's lack of action in response to the insurance crisis. We urge the minister to move up this schedule and bring solid recommendations to the House as soon as possible.

REPORT, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to release the final report of the advisory committee on municipal liability insurance in Ontario.

Comme vous le savez, Monsieur le Président, en février dernier, j'ai formé un comité chargé d'étudier les problèmes de coût et de couverture dans le domaine de l'assurance-responsabilité des municipalités de l'Ontario.

Ce comité a publié un rapport provisoire au mois d'avril, qui a été ajouté au rapport de M. David Slater, président du groupe de travail sur l'assurance.

The committee has subsequently held some 20 formal meetings and received many representations from the private sector, the insurance industry and other provincial and municipal government jurisdictions in Ontario and elsewhere.

I am looking for the widest possible input on the committee report and its recommendations. Interested parties will have until the end of January 1987 to comment on this report. After a review of those comments in co-operation with the Ministry of Financial Institutions, proposals will be submitted to cabinet. I will also welcome comments from the honourable members.

Au cours de la journée, j'aurai l'occasion de remettre ce rapport aux membres de l'Association des municipalités de l'Ontario et j'espère recevoir leurs commentaires, de même que ceux de toute autre personne intéressée par la question.

The report will be circulated to all heads of councils, the insurance industry and other interested parties.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the municipal liability insurance report.

Most of us who deal with municipal councils know the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has worked very hard with the ministry this year to find some solutions to the various insurance problems that municipal governments and others have had over the past year. I want to commend the AMO for its efforts to try to participate in this process and to provide some practical solutions to these problems.

I cannot let the occasion pass, though, without noting that no one in the world will know how much money has been spent by municipal governments, by school boards and by various agencies out there in attempting to get reasonable and proper insurance coverage in the past year. It would have been such a wonderful thing to see, another minister of the crown it is true, but another minister in the same cabinet, take some initiatives that would allow these people to provide decent insurance coverage to all these municipalities, school boards and agencies.

Some of them, such as municipalities, have the financial resources to weather the storm. However, many of the smaller agencies, probably reporting directly to municipal governments, are in some danger with their programs because they cannot get proper insurance.

It is a reasonable approach to set up committees and studies and examine all these things from the industry's point of view; but it is sad comfort to say, as a minister of the crown has been saying lately, that they can get some coverage somewhere as long as they allow themselves to be ripped off by an insurance company. Even though it may be true that they can get some coverage somewhere, the problem with that is that we have wasted literally thousands of dollars in insurance moneys this year.

This report tries to resolve those problems; but it is not looking for a quick fix, it looks for a long-term solution.

The tragedy is that literally thousands of tax dollars have been wasted in trying to see that proper insurance coverage is given to these school boards, municipalities and agencies and they have had very little help from this government.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would like to introduce three special guests in the Legislature this afternoon: Mr. H. Oka, the Consul General of Japan; Mr. Y. Shimooka, a director of Maruzen Co. of Japan; and Mr. A. D. Parker, the president of Utlas International.

Prior to coming into the Legislature this afternoon, there was a signing ceremony in the Premier's office in which a high-technology deal valued at $9 million was signed between Japan and Ontario. This was the direct result of the Premier's trip to Japan.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

Mr. Hennessy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity, and I think all members of the House will join with me in wishing the former member of Port Arthur riding (Mr. Foulds), who yesterday announced that he will not be seeking re-election --

Mr. Wildman: The former member?

Mr. Hennessy: He is still a member, but he is not here in person, unless you can see him and I cannot.

Interjection: Which would not be unusual.

Mr. Hennessy: That is right, but the leader of the third party can do anything, so there is no problem there.

However, yesterday the member for Port Arthur announced he would not be seeking re-election.

Mr. Epp: The member for Fort William is going to announce today.

Mr. Hennessy: No, no. I have not been offered enough.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am waiting for the point of order.

Mr. Hennessy: The point of order is that I wish the member well and I think all members wish him well. Thank you very much.

14:09

ORAL QUESTIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Andrewes: My question is for the Minister of Health. I want to draw to his attention a serious health care deficiency in northern Ontario.

The minister should be very familiar with the problem of obtaining anaesthetic services in northern Ontario. St. Joseph's General Hospital in Elliot Lake is a well-equipped local hospital with a dedicated medical staff, but it faces a real dilemma because it does not have a resident anaesthetist. With winter closing in and with bad weather on the way, access to other hospitals may be very seriously limited.

What action is the minister taking to resolve what is, and will continue to be unless he is prepared to act, a serious health care accessibility problem?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have been aware of that particular problem and I am well aware that this difficulty has existed for many, many years; it extends back for as many as 12 years or more.

I have met with the people from St. Joseph's hospital. When they were here at the Ontario Hospital Association convention, they brought their concerns to me. I met with two members of the community of Elliot Lake when they were visiting Toronto as participants in the underserviced area program, and they apprised me of the concerns they have. They have received contacts and support from the underserviced area program people under Dr. Copeman, and they have been trying to make contacts to see whether they can alleviate some of the difficulties.

I cannot tell the member I can demand that anaesthetists take up residency in Elliot Lake, but I can tell him we are pursuing actively, through the ministry support people, through the underserviced area program, every effort we can to provide them with assistance to take some of the pressure off the anaesthetists who are already performing the services there.

Mr. Pierce: The Ministry of Health has been engaged in a study to develop a program that would utilize Dash-8 aircraft to pick up patients who require operations and transport them to the larger centres in northern Ontario. At Atikokan a mother is required to take three days off and bear the costs of transportation and accommodations when she takes her son to Thunder Bay for a simple tonsillectomy. What is the minister prepared to do to assist hospitals such as Atikokan General to perform this type of surgery, and what is he prepared to do for the people who are required to take this amount of time out of their schedules to go for those kinds of operations?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With reference to the tonsillectomy problem in Atikokan, I am not well apprised of that situation. I will take it under advisement and get back to the honourable gentleman.

As he knows, one of the things we have done for northern Ontario is to provide support services for the transport of people to larger centres. In this situation, we are looking at our northern transportation network to provide support for those people. We have taken steps to ensure that travel is available and that we are able to respond to the needs of the people of Atikokan and other areas in the northern part of our province.

Mr. Harris: The minister will know that accessibility to quality health care in northern Ontario is deteriorating every day he is supposedly in charge. Until this month, North Bay used to have four anaesthetists to provide epidurals. Today this service is no longer available in North Bay. I wanted to ask the minister what he was doing, but I know he is doing nothing, so I will ask him why. Why is the minister doing nothing while the level of these services deteriorates throughout the smaller centres of this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable member for his question. He knows right well that we are doing several things, that we are increasing the access of people to health services right across Ontario. If particular people wish to send out letters indicating they are no longer interested in providing services -- that is, independent practitioners in a profession that is well recognized as being independent -- they certainly can take that initiative.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that concerns are expressed about the opportunities available for people to take special training to provide anaesthetic services, and I am pursuing those avenues as well. I cannot speak for the individual practitioners who decide they will no longer provide services. I cannot force people to deliver services if they do not wish to deliver those services.

HIGH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I would like to ask the minister about a loan of $900,000 that was made by the Ontario Development Corp. to Documented Circuits Inc. of Kingston. The loan was made with the intention of helping high-technology development in the Kingston area and was backed by an agreement that stipulated the company's assets could not be moved without the ODC's approval. However, in June, Documented Circuits shipped its newly developed computer to its parent company's headquarters in California. As this clearly violated the agreement, what action has the minister taken to recover the $900,000 and the technology that was developed with taxpayers' money?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am aware of the case the member talks about, the circumstances that have happened and the transfer of that high-technology piece of equipment to the United States. Our ministry is working very closely with the company and the individuals concerned. We hope the company will be restructured through additional assistance from the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.

Mr. Runciman: That is a nothing answer. The fact is that the computer was developed with money from the Ontario Development Corp. As a result, it belongs to the people of Ontario. As I understand it, the company has served the government an ultimatum that would see the technology remain out of the country. Regardless of whether we get repayment of the $900,000, it is still unacceptable that technology developed with taxpayers' money is allowed to be pirated to the United States. Is the minister content with this type of blackmail or is he going to take legal action to ensure that the technology is returned to Kingston where it belongs?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We are taking steps and negotiating with the parties concerned. Hopefully, that will be returned to the Kingston area and the company will again be viable and able to hire people in the area.

Mr. Runciman: Hopefully is a favourite word of this minister.

This is not the only instance where we have seen a transfer of technology to the United States. Recently, Mitel announced it would be laying off more than 300 workers in Renfrew and transferring production to the United States. As well, the government has in recent weeks written off a $5-million loan to Graham Software and has seen its $17.5-million planned investment in Exploracom questioned. There are some other matters that we will not get into. In the light of these blunders, will the minister now admit that the government has completely failed to turn Ontario into a high-tech paradise, as promised in the April throne speech?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I do not believe that at any time in the history of this province have we seen such advances, not only in manufacturing but also in technology. The introduction of the Premier's council is doing great things for Ontario, and I hope Kingston and area will share in that prosperity.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions about the insurance ripoff. Following the questions I asked him yesterday, the minister has still not provided the House with an explanation of why brokers are still treating all young people as if they were high-risk drivers. Is it the position of the Ministry of Financial Institutions that all people under 25 are high-risk drivers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party knows the insurance industry categorizes risks in sections. It is a fact of life that in the industry all single male drivers under 25 have the highest rating. I am not saying I agree with it, but that is the case. I am sure the member knows what we have done. It was challenged before a judge and the judge ruled in favour of the young man who challenged it. It is under appeal, but in the meantime, I have asked the industry to prepare an actuarial base so we can do away with classification based on age, sex and marital status and instead use a classification whereby it would be done on driving experience and traffic or accident record.

Mr. Rae: The minister has not understood the problem. The problem is not simply one of discrimination against all people under the age of 25. That is one problem, and we discussed it yesterday. Today I want to ask the minister to deal with another problem, and that is the fact that even within that category of drivers between the ages of 16 and 25, brokers are continuing to refer those drivers, but not to a higher rate -- not simply to requiring a payment of $2,000 or $2,200. They are relegating all of them as a category to the high-risk group, to the Facility Association rate, to the maximum rate that is supposed to be only for hard-to-insure cases.

14:20

Is it the position of the Ministry of Financial Institutions that all young people should be treated as being hard to insure?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is not our position.

Mr. Martel: Then put a stop to it.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Facility Association is not at fault for the situation we have now. The Facility Association is there, because we have compulsory insurance in Ontario, to help people get insurance.

I understand what the member is saying. It is true some companies are referring their hard-risk young drivers to the Facility Association.

Mr. Rae: All young drivers.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is not true. It is not all young drivers. They are referring a lot of them there. There is no question about that, but that is happening because the brokers do not want to send them to their competitors. I am not saying that is right. It is something I have addressed to the Facility Association to see whether we can rectify it.

Mr. Rae: The minister has fallen into his own trap. Four months ago, he said this was a problem. Four months ago, he said he was going to talk to the industry. I have the clippings here from the Globe and Mail. He said he would talk to the industry clearly and deal with this situation because something had to be done about it. He was going to be meeting with the insurance representatives by mid-August or late August. He was going to ask for action to stop the increasing numbers of people being forced to seek Facility coverage.

That was months ago. A random survey, conducted by a member of our research staff, produced two brokers who would not deal with anybody under age 25 at all, and another nine who said their policy as a matter of rule, as a matter of course, was to require all younger drivers to pay the Facility Association rate. How can the minister explain that survey? He is faced with a problem he is not dealing with.

When will he deal with the fact that all young people are being labelled high-risk and are being treated as people to be insured only as a matter of last resort? It is grossly unfair, and he knows it. Why does he not do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is correct. In August I did meet with the Facility Association. There were rumours to the effect that the Facility Association was at fault, but he has to understand that all it does is receive the applications. The problem rests with the insurance brokers. I have met with their association and we have identified the problem. They are working on the problem and we are trying to resolve it.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: My second question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware, having suppressed the information in its report for six months, that the Crittenden committee has been disbanded. He will be aware it made one report to the minister in March 1986. He did not choose to release that information until September 1986. He is shaking his head. He cannot deny it. That information was not made public until September.

Since the committee has been disbanded, can the minister tell us where people in nursing homes who have complaints not covered by the Nursing Homes Act go with their complaints? Where do they go when they have concerns about the quality of life and not simply about specific infractions of the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The complaints can still go to residents' councils, which are active in a number of the nursing homes. Complaints can still be made to us directly as the ministry in charge of quality of care. There are ample opportunities for those items of complaint to come forward to us. Some of the information about complaints and quality of service and care comes to each of us as members of the Legislature as well. There are a number of areas in which those complaints can be made.

To be frank about it, I am looking at ways of providing other opportunities for access for complaint-lodging and for strengthening certain roles of the residents' councils to accommodate better action on concerns about quality of care in nursing homes.

Mr. Rae: As I understand it, the answer is that having disbanded the Crittenden committee, which was the only non-nursing home act method of complaint, the minister has set up no alternatives to that whatsoever. There are now in existence in the Ministry of Health no official avenues through which a complaint can be resolved and dealt with; that is what he is admitting.

I have two files here: one on extended care at Oakridge Villa and one on the Country Place Nursing Home. They are both thick with correspondence going back several years. I could do the same for a number of homes across the province.

Specifically, what is the minister going to do to ensure that these complaints, these concerns, receive an independent assessment by an independent group of people who have the interests of the residents at heart, who are not tied to the Ministry of Health and who can fight for these residents to make sure they get justice while living in our institutions in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member knows that a number of those complaints can be made by any number of people who are independent of the home, if he wishes it in that particular manner. If he wishes them to be independent of the Ministry of Health as well, there are support and family people who are involved with residents. The complaints can be made directly to me as minister. They can make them to a number of groups that have been formed to provide avenues of expression of concern as well, and those avenues are still open.

I am looking at strengthening the quality of care in nursing homes. That is no surprise to anyone here. I expect we will be able to enhance the manner in which quality care is delivered in our nursing homes through the implementation of several amendments to nursing home acts which will be coming forward.

I am sure the critic for the third party has provided some of the information to the member as well about the amendments he has seen. I hope that we have the support of all members of the House to help us to improve the opportunities for quality of care enhancement in our nursing home system.

Mr. Rae: Just to clarify what the minister has said -- I do not want any misinterpretation -- first, there is no bill of rights for residents in the amendments he presented to us; second, there is now no way for residents to complain about the quality of life. That is now the position of the Minister of Health. There is no bill of rights and no avenue of redress for those with complaints that go beyond the Nursing Homes Act.

I know the minister has seen, as has the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the recommendations of the Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities with respect to the establishment of a plan called Advocacy Ontario. The plan would deal with the needs of all those vulnerable people who are in institutions in Ontario, who do not have an official place to go and who do not have a means of getting their complaints heard and addressed.

Can the minister tell us the position of the Ministry of Health with respect to Advocacy Ontario? After 42 years of misrule, when he has a chance to do something to clean up these institutions, why has the minister been dragging his feet and doing nothing to deal with these problems when the needs are so great?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As is the usual way with the member who represents the third party as leader, he totally misconstrues what is happening in the industry and refuses to recognize that we have increased the opportunity of providing more programs for seniors in our institutions. He fails totally to acknowledge that there are options for us to follow outside of nursing homes to provide quality service for the people of Ontario.

He knows my friend and colleague the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) is developing programs that will help us provide choices to people so that they will not necessarily have to be in institutions.

As a group, we are very actively looking at new programs that will help us provide better service for the people of Ontario. In fact, when there are concerns expressed, we go out of our way to consult and take the message to the people of the province so that they can tell us how we can increase the opportunities of people to be provided with better quality service, whether they are in institutions or outside institutions.

The member is not aware of all the developments with respect to our amendments in the Nursing Homes Act. We will proceed to increase the quality of care for our seniors in this province whether he acknowledges it or not.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Hennessy: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Late yesterday afternoon I learned that Great Lakes Forest Products was closing its stud mill at a cost of 60 jobs in my community of Thunder Bay. This is a result of the minister's failure to protect Ontario's interests in the duty case for softwood lumber. What measures is the minister taking in Washington to fight for jobs in Thunder Bay, and what is he going to do to help the laid-off workers in Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I appreciate the question from the member and his concern for that area. We also have concern for those jobs. It is not a permanent closure, but a temporary closure while they assess what is happening. However, we hate to see those jobs lost, even temporarily.

As I mentioned yesterday, we are continuing to fight this case. We have visited Ottawa, and we have had many meetings with the other provinces, the federal government and the industry. We will be meeting next Tuesday with the federal trade minister to discuss the same topic.

Mr. Pope: Four weeks ago, this minister and this government put some distance between themselves and the federal government and the national position it was advancing in Washington. Now the minister is saying he is back in the national fold and will not fight as a member of the Ontario government for Ontario interests or Ontario jobs. Why does he refuse to go down to Washington, file an intervention, get into the hearing on December 1 and protect Ontario jobs? Why is he sitting on the sidelines while the forest products industry of northern Ontario goes to hell in a handbasket? Why does he not stand up and fight?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: That was basically the question the member asked yesterday, and the answer is similar to the answer I gave yesterday. We have been continuing to fight, we have been in Washington and we will continue to fight our position with the federal government and with the rest of the people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Oakwood would like to ask a question.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Grande: My question is to the Minister of Housing. On August 5, 1986, the minister assured the Claxton Boulevard Tenants' Association that its buildings "are not exempt from the act," meaning Bill 11. However, on September 22, 1986, Gillian Burton, a solicitor for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in concurrence with Susan Taylor, co-ordinator of the rental housing protection legislation, told the tenants and the city of York, "It is our view that these buildings are free of the act at the present."

Can the minister tell us what the tenants and the municipality are to believe, the words of the minister and his commitment or the decision his bureaucrats have made?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the honourable member will send the specific case over to me, I will be able to assess it. He is asking what the tenants are to believe. We have an act here to protect the tenants. Bill 11 is there to protect tenants from being thrown out of their residences because of excessive renovation that displaces them and by other means. If the member will send the case over to me, I will address that situation.

Mr. Grande: I thank the minister for telling me to send over the case and he will look at it, but he should know that on October 9 in cabinet he changed the regulations, which effectively take tenants' homes away from them. When confronted with the first real test to Bill 11, he ran to cabinet and changed the rules of the game. How can any tenant in this province believe the minister is interested in protecting affordable housing when his actions place him squarely in the back pockets of the landlords?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Bill 11 is there to protect the tenants. When the member says I changed the rules in cabinet, he knows we run a very democratic government here and any change that comes about will be properly discussed, debated and voted on.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Given the minister's interest in pay equity, I want to provide him, by way of a question, with an opportunity to give us a timely and positive response. There currently exists a pay gap of 70 cents between the fees charged by physiotherapists to the Ontario health insurance plan, under what is known as the G code, and those fees charged by doctors. I wonder whether the minister responsible for women's issues wishes to correct that disparity.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The question is no doubt timely and a matter of concern to the honourable member and all of us. As he is aware, Bill 105 is in committee. Bill 105 is not my responsibility. It deals with the pay of the Ontario public service. If these people are Ontario public service employees, they will be covered by the bill.

Mr. Harris: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am just coming to it. If they are not public service employees, any rights they have will be under the private sector and broader public sector bill, which will be presented to the House in due course.

Mr. Andrewes: I thank the minister for the lecture. I remind him that a bill is not required to correct this disparity. This profession is primarily made up of the female gender; it is a profession dominated by women. It is not compensated on the same basis as the medical profession. This is a clear case of discrimination. Why does the minister not want to sit down with the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) today and correct this discrepancy?

Hon. Mr. Scott: What I have said to the member remains the case. If there is a gender discrimination problem of the type he describes -- and I accept his word for it -- and if it is a broader public sector or private sector discrimination case, it will be remedied when that legislation is introduced. My concern is with pay equity. If the member has any concerns about compensation payable under health schemes, that question should be directed to another minister.

WOMEN EMPLOYEES

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Yesterday I raised the case of Nancy Bailey, a qualified carpenter who has been made a bus sweeper by the Toronto Transit Commission after a year and a half of working as a carpenter for the TTC. The minister suggested she should take her problem to the union. He said, "She will have to understand that the terms of the working conditions are effected by the collective agreement that has been negotiated by the trade union acting on her behalf." In essence, he said it was the union's fault and she should go to the union.

How can the minister take that position, knowing full well the union does not have the same kind of power as management does to determine how such an employee is treated? How can he blame the union in this situation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member is very anxious to have me blame somebody. I do not blame anybody. The reality, on the basis of the facts given to me yesterday, is that if Ms. Bailey is an employee found within the collective bargaining unit for which the collective bargaining agency has made a collective agreement, her terms of employment, apart from any rights she may have in statute, are provided for in the collective agreement. The member knows that. She may not like it, but that has been the law of the province for 25 years.

Ms. Gigantes: When is the minister going to change the law of the province, which in terms of helping women has been such a wet noodle for the past 25 years? When will he meet the commitment his party made during the election of 1985 to bring in employment equity programs in the public sector and to bring in contract compliance, so there will be employment equity programs in the private sector in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the member wants a change in the collective bargaining law, which she seems to want, I will refer that question to my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). If she is concerned about pay equity in the broader public sector or in the private sector, as I am and as I am charged to be, I remind her the bill will be presented to this House very shortly.

14:40

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. Harris: I would like to give the Treasurer an opportunity to redeem his party on women's issues and ask him whether he agrees with a statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of November 5, as reported in the November 6 Toronto Star, that the government has the money for implementing private and public sector equal value legislation. Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I always agree with the Premier, and on the rare occasions when it turns out I do not agree, I change my mind.

I think he was referring to the financing needed for an expanded pay equity bill that would be envisaged by the one the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was just referring to, which would be introduced into the House soon. The budget of the province this year and that envisaged for next year has a commitment of between $80 million and $90 million that is required for the funding of Bill 105. If the House passes another bill and funding is required for it before that budgetary period elapses, we will have to make additional plans.

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer is all over the map on this. The Premier says, "Yes, now," and the minister says, "No." The minister responsible for women's issues hides behind both of them and has been doing that for the past few months. I would like to ask it one more time. The Premier made it very clear. He said it was an election promise and the government has the money now. Why does the minister continue to argue against his own Premier when he says we do not have the money and it is not budgeted for this year?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The government has the money to pay for the costs of anything enacted by this House that is supported by a recommendation from His Honour. That is the way the system works, and I trust that is the way it will continue to work. It is democratic. It is parliamentary.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Premier. I was very interested to hear the Premier tell the Conservation Council of Ontario last month that he supported a federal-provincial, industry-based fund for the cleanup of hazardous waste dumps. We all know how long federal-provincial negotiations can take. Is the Premier prepared to follow the lead of several states in the United States and establish here in Ontario, for Ontario, an industry-based cleanup fund?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am delighted the honourable member was there to hear that speech, and I am glad she agrees with our initiative in that regard. She will be aware that the minister has suggested a national fund to his colleagues. I am told the general idea was extremely well received by his peers across the country. Active study is under way at present to look at the matter. I understand there is a fairly high degree of commitment.

Let me respond to the specific idea of having a provincial fund. It is not a possibility one would rule out, but it is preferable to do it nationally. If one takes some of the distortions out of the competitive positions across the country, it puts everyone on an equal footing. That is our intention. Where possible, it is this government's preference to work with the other provinces and the federal government, as difficult as the federal government makes it for us from time to time. We are patient, and we are prepared to show leadership in this matter as we have shown leadership in almost every other matter the member could raise in this House.

Mrs. Grier: What the federal-provincial conference of environment ministers agreed to do was to study the feasibility of having such a fund, and that is a long way from seeing a fund. We in Ontario generate a lot of the industrial wastes in this country. We are now shipping our pathological waste to Quebec and our industrial waste to Alberta. The state of New York, in the elections last week, passed the Environmental Quality Bond Act, which allocates $1.2 billion for the cleanup of 500 sites in New York state. Why does the Premier not think Ontario has an equal responsibility to look after our own problems with our own funds?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We do have a responsibility, and I remind my honourable colleague opposite that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is considered the leader in North America in pursuing these matters. I thank the member opposite for her gracious help when it is required for the honourable minister from time to time.

It is not a possibility we have excluded. We recognize our responsibility and we are actively attacking these matters. However, I repeat that it does create distortions, as she knows, and our preference is to work on a national basis. What did please us very much was that there was a general agreement with the principle and there is some advancement towards that cause.

I can tell my honourable friend we will not wait for ever, obviously. I can cite many other issues where this government did not wait for the federal government but provided the leadership across this country. We are prepared to do that, but we would prefer to work with our sister provinces in solving this one.

ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Baetz: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, a fine gentleman but a tad too inclined to be a laissez-faire man. My question relates to the Ottawa and District Association for the Mentally Retarded, through which agency the minister provides essential services to approximately 400 mentally retarded in Ottawa and district.

Is the minister fully apprised of the very serious and protracted dispute going on between the professional workers and the management, which in all likelihood will end in a disruption of services? More specifically, is the minister aware of the very highly irregular, inflammatory and bizarre manner in which the executive director of that agency resigned during these negotiations and was replaced within a few days by a board member at an inflated salary of about $70,000, all of which took place within a few days and without going through even the most elementary search and employment procedures?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have been apprised of this issue on a daily basis for at least the past four weeks. Yes, I am fully aware of what is going on there. My Ottawa area staff have been in daily consultation with the board members and with the executive staff of that agency and have drawn up contingency plans, which quite frankly we hope we will not have to use.

With respect to the resignation and replacement of the executive director, that was done by the duly constituted board of directors. The man who is now the executive director has the qualifications necessary to do the job, and there is no reason in the world for us to say they cannot hire such a person.

Mr. Baetz: In the light of the very irregular way in which this man was appointed within three days, especially during these very tense times of negotiating, is the minister going to take another step beyond being simply apprised by his Ottawa staff and take a good, close look to see what has happened there and make sure this agency is not going to end up with a serious disruption of work?

I remind the minister that this agency is his only avenue to provide these essential services to the mentally retarded. He is sitting on a time bomb. What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I remind the member that another strike in that general area was settled recently.

Mr. Baetz: "Yes, but the one at the Roberts-Smart Centre has not been settled."

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: No; with another association for the mentally retarded. This one is going to be settled, I hope, without a strike. We have indicated very clearly the ways in which we are prepared to assist the board of directors with the negotiations, but in the final analysis, the directors are the ones who do the negotiating; we are not prepared to do it for them.

I have been to Ottawa twice in the past month to meet with my staff to be sure that we fully understand the implications of what is happening in Ottawa and that the negotiations are proceeding in a fair and reasonable manner.

14:50

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, better known as the guardian --

Mr. Pope: Of the swamp.

Mr. Martel: I did not say that.

In April 1986, the employees of Epton Industries in Kitchener were notified by the company doctor they should have their blood tested for lead and cadmium. These samples were taken on June 26, 1986, by MDS Laboratories and analysed in Toronto by the ministry lab. The results were given to the company doctor and, I presume, to ministry staff in London, since they were involved in getting the company to set the proper control program. Since blood tests for low-level cadmium exposure are totally useless, why did the minister's medical consultant not order the proper testing which should have been done, a urine sample, since this metal is known to cause irreversible kidney damage?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member has raised a very specific question asking for, I believe, a detailed response of the proper medical and health procedures that should have been followed. I am not familiar with the specific instance to which he refers, but he raises an important question. I will get back to him as quickly as I can, I hope by Monday.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Martel: The minister will not send it to Mr. Laskin?

Mr. Runciman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We see this happen frequently with the third party. They ask a question, the minister says he will get back to them, they go ahead with a supplementary and then you allow them a supplementary at some future date.

Mr. Speaker: On that point of order, I remind all members that I did rule on a previous occasion that there should not be another one, but the members insisted there should be; that is the reason I have allowed it. The members have asked for it.

Mr. Martel: Since the company doctor requested that the analysis be done, he is assumed to be the attending physician. Can the minister tell me why, when one of the workers asked for the test results from the ministry's consultant, he was advised to ask the company doctor? He did not get his results from the company doctor but from the shift boss.

Is that not a violation of the Health Disciplines Act, under subsection 27(22) of regulation 448? Why were the results given to the workers two months after the tests were taken and not immediately, even though they were used for the tests?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If the gentleman is asking me whether whatever followed thereafter is a violation of the Health Disciplines Act, I do not know the answer to that, but I do acknowledge that the member has raised a very serious concern. I know the facility has a rubber workers union local. We will deal with the union on that matter. If the gentleman has any additional information that may be of use in our investigation, I would like him to send it to me. We will try to get back to him with an answer on Monday.

RENTAL HOUSING

Mr. Partington: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Two of my constituents, the former Karen Lidden and Ronald Elgie, who were married on Friday, have been trying for the past six months to obtain rental accommodation for themselves and their four children of previous marriages.

After being asked whether they had any children and for the ages of those children, they have repeatedly been refused accommodation. What does the government intend to do to ensure that these types of situations are not allowed to continue, so that people with children are not considered second-class citizens in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member brings that case to me, and I do not like hearing about these cases either. I hope we will be able to ensure every single soul in this province affordable housing. I do not like saying this because it is so bad, but we inherited a backlog of neglect of housing in the past and we have brought about a very aggressive policy in providing so far almost 1,300 nonprofit social housing units.

Mr. Stevenson: Why do you not admit you do not know what you are talking about?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Although we have announced those units and many tractors have been digging, the units cannot be built overnight.

The member said I do not know what I am talking about. When his party was in power, it neglected housing very badly. Now they expect us to turn it around in 18 months.

Mr. Partington: If the minister would dwell on the present, we might not have these problems today. Bill 7 contains a provision which would resolve this problem. What is the minister doing to ensure that this bill is brought before the Legislature for consideration as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am concerned that no discrimination is being levelled at people because they are young or because they are women and that they have access to accommodation. I am strongly supporting that direction. On top of that, we are increasing the supply of housing to provide accommodation for battered women and for ex-psychiatric patients, which the Conservatives neglected in the past.

However, I do not want to throw this back at them all the time. We are doing something very active to address those problems. We are not here to have a replay of which one was worse. They should watch us as we move forward and address all these problems.

Mr. Martel: They are working around the clock.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner).

Mr. Martel: They are working round the clock, seven days a week.

Mr. Warner: If I can get past the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

Mr. Speaker: Maybe the member for Sudbury East will allow the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere to ask a question.

[Applause]

Mr. Warner: You applaud, but he will clean up the swamp.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Can he tell me precisely when -- maybe it is today -- the Scarborough General Hospital will receive his cheque for $1 million for its renal dialysis program?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not believe it will be today. The honourable member knows that the renal dialysis program has been referred to the Toronto District Health Council, to develop a program that will address the needs of that program on a Metro-wide basis. We look forward to the recommendations coming from that council, but I cannot tell the member there will be a cheque in the mail today.

Mr. Warner: It is necessary for me and people from the community to come and ask the Minister of Health because the district council has dithered for more than two and a half years without a response to the community. Enough is enough. This hospital needs that program. There is not a single program for renal dialysis between Toronto and Kingston, and the minister knows it. Our city of 500,000 needs that program. I want to know when the minister is going to deliver the cheque.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I will advise the member when the decision has been made. I am sure he will be happy to accompany me at that time, and I invite him to be there. I know he is bringing to my attention again something that he has written to me about, something that he has expressed a very active interest in, as have my colleagues in cabinet from the Scarborough area.

The needs of that vicinity are well known to me, but they are also needs that have to be co-ordinated around the Toronto District Health Council. I acknowledge to the gentleman that he is not alone. His colleagues from the other Scarborough ridings have been actively promoting the program, and I expect to hear some recommendations from the health council fairly soon.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

15:00

Mr. Pierce: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The government has decided to award a $50,000 contract to an American-based firm for the study of phosphates in northern Ontario. Apparently, the 11 Ontario firms that submitted contract proposals did not make the grade, even though two of the tour which made it to the short list were Ontario-based and were judged capable of performing the work.

Can the minister explain why the government has flown in the face of its promises and awarded a contract to an American firm, even though many competent Ontario firms submitted bids?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: If the member would be kind enough to supply any information he has in this case, I would be pleased to have a look at it.

Mr. Pierce: I cannot understand how the government, on the one hand, can stress the importance of the economic growth and self-reliance of northern communities and, on the other hand, award a contract concerning the north to an American firm. Will the minister reaffirm his commitment to economic development and expansion in the north and assure this House that northern Ontario firms will be approached and given priority for government contracts such as this one, which has been awarded to an American company?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I mentioned, I will be pleased to review the case and get back to the member on it.

WEILER REPORT

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the much put-off reforms of the Workers' Compensation Board. My question has to do with the Weiler report, the study of the future of workers' compensation, which was commissioned from Mr. Weiler at least two years ago. Can the minister confirm he has received the report from Mr. Weiler and tell us when it will be released?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have received a draft submission from Mr. Weiler. I have had an opportunity to speak to him and to review the implications with him. There was one issue that Mr. Weiler did not address in his report, but which I felt was important that he share his views on. We have asked him to do so and to expedite it. I believe the timetable we are looking at is to have that material at the beginning of December or before. Shortly thereafter, we should be in a position to table the report in the House and share it with honourable members.

Mr. McClellan: In the last conversation I had with the previous deputy minister, he indicated the report would be released last June. Now we are told there is a draft and that the draft is not complete. Why does the minister not release what he has, share it with us and get on with the job of redrafting the Workers' Compensation Act so that we can get rid of the meat chart and establish a compensation rating system based on compensating workers both for pain and suffering and for impairment of earning capacity?

Why does the minister not stop the delay and the procrastination and get on with the job he is paid to do?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As June crept into July and onward, the thought of seeing what was written and releasing it certainly crossed my mind. The issue Mr. Weiler did not address is one that is important enough that it should be addressed. I will share with the critics and with the House the issue that has delayed matters. As well, a number of studies that are forming part of this additional report were not available until September.

The honourable gentleman, who is very knowledgeable in matters of workers' compensation, would agree with me that the matter of permanent partial disabilities is of critical importance in the whole reform of the workers' compensation process. I chose to have an additional short delay so that we could get a report which would be as comprehensive as possible and so that members could have laid before them all the various options that have been canvassed and which are available for us to make a decision upon. I do hope to have that report to table in the House next month.

COURTHOUSE

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Attorney General. I wrote the minister approximately two months ago asking him to meet with the Madoc village council over the closing of the provincial court there. Why will he not meet with these people?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have no record of the honourable member's letter. I will look into it and try to get back to him. As he knows, I am delighted to meet with any people in his constituency at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Pollock: We called the Attorney General's office and they acknowledged that he did have a letter. He has not put in writing what he expects from the Kiwanis Centre. It is an inconvenience for those people who have to drive from the centre of Hastings to Belleville for the provincial court. Does the Attorney General think that is fair?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the member knows, the problem of closing courts is always perceived unfair in those communities where they exist. When courts are held in some communities only one day a week, sometimes one day every two weeks, it is not always possible, if one is to be fiscally responsible, to maintain their operation at very considerable expense.

I am quite prepared to meet with any of the member's constituents to discuss the matter. I do not recall his having written me, but if he has done so, I will look into it right away and try to get back to him.

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Now that the 13th report, part IV, of the standing committee on the Ombudsman has been passed by this Legislature, can the minister inform the House exactly when the Rembrandt home owners will be compensated?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I cannot give the honourable member a specific answer because one of the problems that we have is that when the Ombudsman reported, he referred to 26 particular cases. When the committee examined it, in its wisdom, it expanded it to 175. We have a situation where the Ombudsman was dealing with one group, and the committee came forward with a recommendation to have 175. We have to track down those people. We have to determine what their claim is and then come to some resolution to solve it.

Mr. Philip: If the minister fails to implement the report, he will be the first minister who has ever failed to implement an Ombudsman's recommendation that was passed in this House.

Would the minister give us a timetable on exactly what he is doing and when these home owners will be repaid? Can he tell us why his officials have not even contacted the Ombudsman's office in relation to the recommendation since it was passed about a week ago?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is in error if he said I was not going to implement the report. We have every intention of implementing the report. As I am pointing out to him, we have a complication in the fact that the Ombudsman has reported on one specific number of claimants and the committee has expanded it to 175. My ministry officials have started to work immediately to quantify who and what it is that we have to respond to, and we are doing that. We will do it as quickly as we can.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Callahan: I would like to address my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I understand there is a report being prepared with reference to bringing in line municipal elections with regard to the amount of spending that is allowed. Within the terms of reference of the persons who are looking into this, I wonder whether there is any consideration of using the same analogy that is used in provincial and federal elections with regard to moneys being available to allow people running for office to recoup a portion of their costs in a fashion similar to provincial and federal elections.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The report is still being studied by most municipalities in the province. Until the report is back before me, it is difficult to prejudge the findings of these municipalities. It is an interesting suggestion. I must warn the member, though, this was not part of the terms of reference of the committee; however, I can ask the committee to look into it.

15:10

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Tuesday, November 25, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

546672 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT

Mr. Cousens moved first reading of Bill Pr55, An Act to revive 546672 Ontario Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 341, 382, 389, 390, 391, 392, 399 and 400, the interim answers to questions 380, 387, 395, 407, 411 and 412, and the response to a petition presented to the House, sessional paper 177 [see Hansard for Monday, November 17, 1986].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS ACT / LOI DE 1986 SUR LES COMPAGNIES DE PRÊT ET DE FIDUCIE

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 116, An Act to revise the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

L'hon. M. Kwinter propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 116, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur les compagnies de prêt et de fiducie.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any opening comments?

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: En français, en français.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, en anglais, this legislation follows the direction of the widely circulated white paper on loan and trust corporations legislation and administration. It reflects the recommendations contained in the ensuing report on the white paper produced by the standing committee on administration of justice. It also adopts many of the recommendations of the Ontario Task Force on Financial Institutions. In its final report, the task force indicated this legislation is desirable and is generally supported by the industry and the public.

We have also had the benefit of public input following the release of a consultation draft of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, a draft substantially similar to the current bill. Part of the consultation on this draft included many meetings with my counterparts in other jurisdictions in Canada and frequent and frank discussions among regulators across Canada.

I note that many of the principles in Bill 116 have also influenced the thinking of others interested in financial institutions policy. In the report of the Honourable Mr. Justice Willard Estey on the collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank, his recommendation for new duty of care for directors is almost identical to what is in Bill 116. As well, his recommendations to limit investment in any one party and to prevent loans to nonemployed directors follow the existing provisions of Bill 116. Similarly, Bill 116 has influenced the development of New Brunswick's green paper on loan and trust companies, released for consultation this summer.

Notwithstanding the extensive consultation that has taken place, every bill can be improved, particularly when members have a full opportunity for discussion. For this reason, I am recommending that the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, 1986, be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature for clause-by-clause review. In making this recommendation, I would like to emphasize that my ministry is open to suggestions for improvement.

I believe members will find this a most interesting, albeit complex bill. This legislation has been designed for the continued maintenance of public confidence in the loan and trust industry and for the protection of the depositors. At the same time, it recognizes the importance of updating legislation to provide for increased investment latitude for loan and trust corporations and to modernize rules of corporate governance.

We have introduced strong provisions to limit potential abuses in the areas of self-dealing and conflict-of-interest transactions. The bill emphasizes the importance of managerial responsibility and the need for strong and active boards of directors. We are looking for a good balance between depositor needs and legitimate business aspirations. The contributions of members to this formulation will be vital.

Mr. Ashe: As we are all aware, Bill 116 is a substantial piece of legislation; it is very technical in nature, and yet it goes to the heart of the financial system in Ontario, at least that portion of it that is governed by provincial legislation.

I am glad to see the minister has acknowledged, after discussions we have had with his House leader, that this bill needs some reference to a standing committee of the Legislature for further input and, we hope, refinement. Although we all agree with the thrust of this legislation in that it gives further protection to depositors as well as to shareholders for internal dealings and that kind of thing, which is in the right direction, I was also glad to hear the minister acknowledge that there are some deficiencies, which we hope can be cured over time with input from the members of this House as well as the general public.

We are in full support of sending the bill to committee. I even go so far as to say we suggested it should go to a standing committee, and I am glad to see the minister has taken our suggestions and put them into his statement on second reading today.

There are many areas of the bill. I will not go into the technical aspects section by section; the right venue for that is the standing committee and the clause-by-clause discussions. However, a couple of areas require some reference on second reading. One is the considerable difference of opinion on the optimum number of outside directors who should make up the board of directors of a financial institution governed by the provincial legislation.

Bill 116, as we know, suggests at least one third of the directors should be outside directors. At the other extreme, there are those who feel at least two thirds should be outside directors. Probably somewhere in between, in my view, is the right number. Maybe it should be a majority, for example, depending on the size of the board. On a 15-person board, at least eight would have to be outside directors, and seven could be internal directors. This would meet the concerns of those who say two thirds is the optimum number, this would still be satisfied.

Many members feel very strongly that the audit committee of the board of directors should all be outside directors. There is some substance to that recommendation. Perhaps that should be examined in a little more detail.

I notice in the minister's remarks today he said part of the consultation on this draft included many meetings with his counterparts in other jurisdictions in Canada, and I am sure that has taken place, and frequent and frank discussions among regulators across Canada. I have found in discussions with some people in the federal administration that it appears the minister has had little or no discussion with the federal regulators and/or he has not listened to those discussions. Only the minister can answer which it was.

15:20

Let me touch on a couple of areas of grave concern. I am not subscribing to the idea that the federal government should write our legislation. I want to dissociate myself from that notion completely. This is a provincial jurisdiction, and legislation ultimately should be finalized by this Legislature. That is number one.

Having said that, I think everybody will agree that if we have legislation that works together and is complementary with federal legislation, it is easier for everyone; it is easier for the federal jurisdiction and, I hope, for the provincial legislators and the administrators and overseers of any provincial legislation. It appears this has been somewhat lacking, even when we talk about the timing. It appears new federal legislation is imminent. I say it will be new, but we do not yet know whether it will be significantly newer than what we saw before. The pause created by sending this to a standing committee will be helpful in that regard.

I have had indications from the federal authorities that they are very concerned about some of the latitude that is given to the trust company industry in this legislation. I personally think the growth of the trust company industry in Canada, and not just in Ontario, has been very helpful to the consumers. It has smartened up the banks in a competitive nature over the past number of years. That has been very healthy for consumers; they have been able to shop much more for services. The banks have had to expand their accessibility in terms of hours of dealing with the public. That has come about only because the trust companies have been very aggressive in looking for business and have made the banks smarten up.

When the trust companies are quite rightly looking to broaden their horizons and the activities they can get into, such as the commercial business they can go after, it is felt by some, including some federal people, that Bill 116 possibly allows a little too much latitude.

One might say: "Let the chips fall where they may. That is the marketplace." Nobody feels more strongly than I that market forces should sa

y what happens, but I am concerned when I hear the federal government say -- we heard this directly in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs as recently as the past week or so -- it is concerned about the latitude the trust company industry might perceive in the context of the commercial business it could go after and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. might withdraw insurance because of the lack of security on the investment situations a trust company was allowed to go into.

I believe the minister will agree with me when I say there is no doubt in my mind that most depositors, including senior citizens who may have a reasonable amount of money to deposit in one or more institutions, feel when they go to a recognized trust company, as when they go to a recognized bank, that they are covered by insurance up to $60,000 under the current rules. I say "most" because I am sure a small minority is ultra-sophisticated and looks into all the aspects of insurance or lack thereof and size and regulation.

When I hear federal authorities say, "We are so concerned about the commercial loans a trust company might be allowed" -- I use the word "might" -"under Bill 116 that we may withdraw CDIC insurance coverage," the minister and I have to be concerned on behalf of our taxpayers, ratepayers and constituents. That is another reason we have to look at this in much more detail and hear much more input at the level of a standing committee.

There are obviously concerns by the banking industry. I know the minister has heard them expressed. I am sure we have all had the same briefs. Banks are always concerned from the competitive point of view, and I have no problem with that; as I indicated before, competition by trust companies has been good for the banks and for the consumers. However, when banks are concerned about their mortgage loan subsidiaries, which would have great difficulties under the wording of this act, we have to have some concerns. We all know that some of the subsidiaries of the major banks in the mortgage loan business deal on a day-to-day basis with tens of thousands of our constituents throughout Ontario. We have to listen to their concerns.

There has been general agreement to limit the debate on second reading, now that there is concurrence from the government to send the bill to standing committee and hear input not only from members of the Legislature but also from those affected. As a result, I am going to limit my remarks and leave them as they are now. I hope I have pointed out a couple of the major concerns.

Whichever standing committee this is directed to should probably hear representations from one or two of the larger trust companies and from the trust companies as a body, whatever their organization may be. The committee should hear representations from the loan company industry. Obviously, it should also hear representations from one or more of the major banks and from the Canadian Bankers' Association, which has some concerns, particularly having to do with the mortgage company subsidiaries.

Last but not least, the committee should be privy to some of the concerns I have heard from the federal government, not on the basis of the federal government dictating what our provincial laws should be but in the way of constructively saying: "Hey, this is what we are doing. This is our area of jurisdiction; this is yours. Let us complement each other and make both our jobs easier." Surely our role is to try to make it easier for the consumers, whether individual or corporate consumers, to do loan-trust-banking business in the broadest sense, in the easiest way possible.

I am looking forward to those deliberations in the standing committee. I am pleased to hear the minister, who I presume is speaking on behalf of the ministry he heads, is open to making Bill 116 even better. The bill is overdue but is a step in the right direction.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I want to make a brief comment to the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) concerning consultation with the federal government.

This bill was not even initiated during my term. It was initiated when the Conservative government was in power, and in 1984 even the discussion papers were discussed with federal counterparts. In meetings I have had on a ministerial level across the country and with our federal counterparts, I have kept them apprised of what we are doing. They have seen our draft bills. They have seen our papers and heard our discussions. I have met fairly recently with my federal counterparts and told them what we are doing. We have attempted to do that.

I welcome the member's comments and am in agreement that when we go to committee any of his concerns should be addressed. Anyone who wants to address them can do so. If it makes sense and is going to improve the bill, I have no problem with it.

Mr. Ashe: I appreciate the minister's response and his input. I acknowledge the background of this bill, which pre-dates June 1985. As a matter of fact, the minister made reference to 1984 and some of the problems we are all aware of in the loan and trust business at that time and before. The one thing I want to point out is that 1984 and 1986 are different. We have had some unfortunate situations in the Canadian banking industry during that interval that have caused some changes of directions or need in the minds of the federal authorities.

I am sure we all thought, as they all thought and as the banks always said in Canada: "Hey, we have never had a failure here. We can't have any problems." We know that is not so any more. We have to recognize that and work together to come up with complementary legislation that will make their task easier and make their task and our task easier. Let us not kid ourselves, whether we are talking about a federally controlled jurisdiction or a provincial one it is serving the same constituents throughout Canada and Ontario.

15:30

Mr. Breaugh: It should come as no surprise that a bill such as this on loan and trust corporations, which was born in the Tory regime and was brought through by the Liberal regime, is not going to meet with a lot of pleasure in these quarters, and this one will not either.

It has generally been agreed that this bill will be better handled in committee, so we are expecting a brief debate today. However, I want to note there are other perspectives that ought to be considered when we look at this kind of legislation. In a sense, there is a kind of natural flow from the Tories to the Liberals. I will bet that not a great many changes were made in the bill from one administration to the other before its presentation today. I am sure the government thinks it is a good bill and I am sure that, from its perspective, it addresses at least some of its concerns.

Let me tell members why we have some problems with it. Some years ago, meetings were held in this very building where the unthinkable was spoken: that financial institutions in Ontario were in difficulty. There were even references to the idea that there was pretty close to wrongdoing in some of our financial institutions. This is something that was unique in Ontario's history. We are unaccustomed, as a group of folks, to have ministers of the crown even infer politely that something a financial institution might do might be morally not quite as correct as it ought to be, let alone crooked and worthy of investigation by the courts. However, there were some interesting meetings in this building, at which slight allegations were made that there were improprieties.

Then, of course, a subsequent turn of events seemed to bear out that there certainly were some questionable things happening there and, particularly in the loan and trust field, it was difficult for a New Democrat to discern whether somebody had just upset the applecart. In other words, was somebody in a lending institution really upset that he might have to offer services to consumers for a change? Was that the problem? Was the difficulty the interesting concept that in Ontario's history there were new players in the financial field, and some of them were not wearing the right kind of tie? In those days the tie was not even red. Some of them wore ties that were the wrong shade of blue. Some had not even gone to the right schools. Some did not even belong to the right social organization. These upstarts were into the whole field of financial institutions, and it was thought by many that this was not correct.

From our point of view, we frankly did not care whether they even wore a tie. We were concerned that we had gone through a series of events where people on the street -- perhaps it is true -- had a different perspective on this whole field from that of members of the Liberal Party and the Tories. For many of the people I represent, if they see something that looks like a bank, they think it is a bank. In Ontario's history, much had been done to make sure this impression was left with the public.

In the history of this province, though there are fine distinctions to be drawn between banking institutions and loan and trust companies -- and there are some people who actually know what those distinctions are -- from the public's point of view, they had been led to believe, as the member for Durham West just said, that no financial institution in the history of this country could falter, could not fall, and if one put money into a lending institution of any kind in this country, it was assured. We were told repeatedly that this was not the United States of America, this was something different. A bank, a lending institution, a loan or trust company could not fail in Canada; governments were regulating, ever vigilant.

We know there were civil servants watching what happened here. They may have been watching over a three-martini lunch, because they missed some things here and there. We now have some of our lending institutions that have had financial difficulties. It is interesting for a New Democrat to watch the response of the federal government, for example, to banks in western Canada and to compare that to the response of the federal government to farmers in western Canada. One sees different sets of numbers come up and one sees quicker responses come up.

This legislation was born in a period when there was some turmoil. If one were to categorize it, I suppose one would say that the pin-stripes flipped a bit on some of the people who were involved in these institutions, that there was public exposure of some very private deals, that there was a clear indication that people in trusted positions in loan and trust corporations perhaps did not always break the law, but certainly used the law to their own advantage.

A great deal was said and spoken in this Legislature and before our committees about whether that was appropriate. I think the perspectives come up. There are many members here who would look at them and say, "They broke the rules of the club and therefore ought to be punished." There are those who would say, "They have not paid the proper amount of respect to the institutions and have not received sufficient training and therefore ought to be punished."

From our point of view, the sole consideration ought to be, were consumers given a situation that fulfilled all the perspectives that were built up for them? In other words, people in Ontario had faith in trust companies and loan companies, in all kinds of lending institutions. It is not unfair to say that part of that faith was because the Ontario government and the federal government had drilled into their heads that there was no risk. Of course, when the risk was exposed, people said to them, "You did not read the fine print." Consumers came back with the remarkable rebuttal: "Who ever said anything about fine print? I thought I was protected by my government at two levels to see I did not lose my lifetime investment."

I am sure many of us have cases in our files of people who did something that perhaps I do not do, that is, they put money into a trust company and invested it in that way, and did so with financial advice within the family or from the professional in the field they dealt with. They did it as their pension fund, much as many of us seek to join an outside pension fund organized by somebody else. These people were trying to operate their own pension fund and they lost it all.

It is sad to sit in your office and watch people who were never your political friends or allies and who would have argued loud and long for the great free enterprise system and the opportunity to make the best buck wherever one can come into your office, sit down and say: "I know I made all those speeches and I know I argued with you all those years, Mike, about free enterprise being a wonderful thing and how you should be able to manage your own money and make the best investment, but good God, I thought my personal family investment in this trust company was safe. I thought I would be protected by the government of Ontario."

I had to tell them: "Your friends did not protect you. Your friends did not ensure that your total family investment that would be your pension fund would be safe." They are awaiting changes such as this to see if a little more protection can be gained. I think they have learned some bitter lessons, that financial institutions are not very much about ideology and are not really about the free enterprise system, that they are about making money under any conditions any government would ever care to set for them.

Before the ink is dry on this act, people will be analysing where the loopholes might occur, where the little edge is that they can take advantage of. They will say, "How can I put together a little deal that will allow me to do something that perhaps nobody else in the marketplace can do?" We should understand that. We should also understand that from the public's point of view, the perception is there that whatever you call a lending institution, it is a bank. You cannot shake that.

You do not see trust companies putting on the new marquees they have all around Ontario now -- and they have all upgraded the outside of the buildings so they are snappy -- looking places and have cash machines, green machines and every other kind of machine they can get nowhere on the front does it say, "This is not a bank." The inference is there that whatever you call this institution, if it lends money and if people can put their money into it, it is safe. That public perception is out there.

15:40

The obligation will be on all of us to see that this bill keeps not only the perception but also that we come as close as we can to the reality that they will be safe institutions. The provisions in this act to cover things such as ownership must be reasonable, not just from the financial institutions' point of view but also from everyone's point of view. That may be why this Liberal government has no great trouble following through with legislation that was initially drafted by a previous Conservative government. There is not an eyelash of difference between them on these matters. When we get into questions of who can be a director, there is not going to be an eyelash of difference there either.

I do not think there is going to be much difference when it comes to trying to define conflict of interest. Therefore, I am going to make a plea to members to do with this bill whatever they think is necessary from their perspectives but to remain conscious in the backs of their minds that the public perception of these institutions may be a lot different from theirs.

That perception is one that has been fostered during a long period in this country by governments at many levels, so the people of this province believe that whatever is called a lending institution is as good as a bank. Therefore, the obligation is on the Legislature to accept a process whereby there may be a brief second reading debate here today, but there has to be, and there is going to be, and there always was going to be, a fairly lengthy committee process involved.

It is going to be complicated legislation. It involves a great many different perspectives. It should not be written from the perspective of the people who will run the institutions. It will not be good legislation if, as in its present form, it is predominantly written from the perspective of those who will regulate the industry. That should not be its purpose. It should not be written for their convenience, it should not be written in language which only they understand, it should not be written from their total perspective, nor should it be written from the point of view of those who will be putting and using large amounts of money under this legislation.

Those are valid concerns that ought to be considered. In addition, I make a plea that there be another perspective well attended to in the drafting of this legislation, that of the consumer. I want to be polite today, so I do not want to use any provocative language, but I want members to be reminded that the biggest victims have been consumers in this province.

There have been many victims, some of whom have lost fortunes. Maybe this is simply a difference in perspective, but I have no sympathy for the ardent multimillionaire free enterpriser who goes into a venture such as this, flips over 1,000 or so apartment buildings and loses some money. He wins some and he loses some. I have a whole lot of sympathy for someone who takes his entire family life's savings and becomes a victim in this process.

So far in the history of this province, we have tailed to provide that kind of total protection. Maybe it is not possible to do so, but one of the flaws in the legislative process has been to write the laws in ways that meet the needs of some of these people but not all of them, and it seems to me the consumer is regularly last on the list.

One can make an argument, and I suppose there is validity to it, that consumers have benefited by loan and trust corporations in Ontario. I have no quarrel with the idea that they made the banks open a little earlier and stay open a little later in the day, but I still am confounded. Every Monday morning when I come to work, I see people lining up outside a bank waiting to get in. I would not line up in the evening to see a movie, let alone in the morning to see a banker. I do not know why people deal with these institutions at all. So there is some latitude there. I suppose there is easier access.

There is now a myriad of lending devices out there, and people are beginning to become a little more conversant with what it means to get a mortgage, how many rates are available on mortgages and how many conditions there are under which one can borrow mortgages.

In general, I do not oppose the loosening up of the process, but I do have a concern that there is a lot of salesmanship involved here. There may well be people who think that because something is new and different, it is necessarily a better way to borrow money. I do not believe that to be the case, but I do know they very often take advice from people who speak a different language.

I get really worried when someone says to me: "Now, Mike, you may not understand this language, but I will explain it to you. After I explain it to you, all you have to do is sign on the dotted line, and I will do all the rest." That is a consumer in a very vulnerable position. If I am dependent on someone in a loan and trust corporation to explain something to me, I probably should not be there in the first place and I should not go there until I speak his language. When I understand what he is going to tell me, then I am on equal grounds, but if I am dependent on that person to explain all the fine points to me, I am putting myself at some risk to be there.

In general and without belabouring it, we will not support it on second reading. We do understand that this is a thick bill. This has concerns coming at it from the federal government from a number of major reports, and it will probably take some work in committee. Perhaps a miracle will occur in the committee process. The conversion from the Tory version of this bill to the Liberal version of this bill was relatively smooth and easy, and we may actually find that in committee we are able to support it when it comes back here. More likely, however, we will find that New Democrats will be there in the committee stage trying to provide a vehicle whereby ordinary people can deal with an institution in terms they understand from a perspective that is important to them.

You might find it a little uncomfortable, on occasion, because in this whole aura of financial institutions, it has tended to be the old boys' club. I know the old boys' club now has some women added to it, and some who are doing very well in that field. By and large, however, they are having trouble assimilating women into their world, as they have always had trouble assimilating anybody else into their world. Over the years, they have tended to be a very small select group of people aided, regulated and monitored by yet another small select group of people from relatively the same background.

That has always been a problem in all our financial institutions, and it has too often been the case that our consumers are the victims. All that it means for people in the lending institutions is that they will set their corporation lawyers and accountants to work on definitions that are contained in this act and the accompanying regulations to begin to find the fine points, the loopholes and the edges that they can work.

I suppose that is the way life is. I want the members to understand that we believe there is some unfairness there. We believe we should never again have to sit in our constituency offices and listen to people say that there goes a lifetime's work of investment that was to have been their pension fund. We believe people might use these lending institutions for their own personal financial gain. That has happened a lot in Ontario, and the transactions are rather large in scale and size. That should not be allowed to happen again.

The bill attempts to be the government's response to a rash of problems in this field. We think it falls short of that measure. We think there is an opportunity to take it to committee and to work with it for a while, and we would be happy to do that. We have no intention of delaying the bill on second reading. Again, we will not support the bill. We will see what can happen in committee and we look forward to that work.

15:50

Mr. McFadden: I am rising in support of the legislation before the House today. This legislation is based upon the work of a large number of people, both within government and outside of government, who have studied the current legislation, its strengths and its deficiencies.

The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) implied that somehow there was something inherently bad and intrinsically wrong with the bill because most of the provisions have survived two governments. I believe the fact that the legislation originally worked over and drafted under the previous Conservative government has been reintroduced, somewhat amended but basically very similar in its new form as Bill 116, indicates the strength of the provisions of this bill.

In my view, this bill merits support. It will help to deal with many of the factors that have given us difficulties in recent years with the operation of trust companies in this province and elsewhere. I say "many of the problems" because one thing that is clear on the basis of evidence over the years is that you can never be 100 per cent sure a financial institution will never run into difficulties.

Until the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank collapsed a year ago, we had always prided ourselves as Canadians on the fact that no bank had collapsed in Canada for 60 years. In Ontario, we had had a long tradition of very successful trust companies until we ran into some difficulties with trust companies during the past several years.

I suggest a lot of the problems the companies faced were ones even government could not have resolved and involved areas such as dishonesty and bad management, which can still come up no matter what kind of regulatory framework is put into place and no matter what kind of financial institution we are talking about, be it a trust company, a bank, a credit union or any other type of financial institution.

Perhaps the most important thing we can do in the area of regulating financial institutions is to ensure the financial integrity of all the institutions under our regulation. It is my view that every depositor should be able to deposit his or her money in a trust company under the jurisdiction of Ontario and be assured that deposit is safe and secure. Small business people should be able to deposit money in a trust company and carry on business with that financial institution without having to worry that all of a sudden the money will be impounded and cheques not honoured because the trustee in bankruptcy has stepped in to take over the management of that financial institution.

I do not think anybody in this House wants to approve of a piece of legislation that would in any way undermine the financial integrity of an institution or set in train a regulatory framework that would in any way undermine the financial integrity of any of our trust or loan corporations. In my view, the various provisions of this bill adequately meet the kinds of problems we have confronted as a province during the past 10 years with the various trust companies that ran into difficulties in this province.

The member for Oshawa talked about trust companies and the fact that people have an image of them as being more secure than perhaps they are. In some ways they have become involved in a lot of gimmicks that perhaps mislead the consumers and create an image of more stability and size than exists. I am a great supporter of the trust industry and what it has done for Ontario. In fact, the trust companies have consistently been pioneers in offering additional services and new services to the consumer. There is no doubt that the hours the trust companies are open pushed the banks into staying open longer than the traditional 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

In addition, the trust companies have provided needed competition for sources of funds over the years, and that has had a very beneficial effect on the consumers in terms of interest rates on their accounts, in terms of interest rates for mortgages and in terms of financing available for construction loans.

I suggest that both the business consumers and the personal consumers would be far worse off today in regard to services and availability of funds if all we had in Ontario were six chartered banks and that was it. The trust companies have provided us with important services that have helped our economy and enhanced services to the consumers. That does not mean the trust companies have been perfect and we do not need some major improvements to the bill. While I have some questions about some specifics in this bill and some ways it can be strengthened, I think the thrust of this legislation is correct.

One area that needs a further look is the provision for outside directors. For six weeks the standing committee on finance and economic affairs had detailed hearings with people from the trust company industry and from the banking industry. We also had submissions from Parliament. In addition, we received submissions from interested third parties not directly involved in either the banks or the trust companies; they included such very knowledgeable and distinguished people as Dr. Stefan Dupré, a professor at the University of Toronto, who carried out a major study of financial institutions in Ontario a couple of years ago.

One of the things that came out very clearly in our hearings was the need for more outside directors. It seems to me that having only one third of the board being outside directors is inadequate. I hope the committee considering this bill will look seriously at expanding the percentage of outside directors from one third to one half or more. It strengthens a financial institution to have the involvement of knowledgeable people from outside the financial institution. It also helps greatly to ensure that the trust company acts in a proper way in conformity with the public interest.

I do not know the ideal number. Some trust companies have a situation where existing management and shareholders do not even have 10 per cent of the board. Perhaps 10 per cent is too extreme, but I suggest one third is too small a percentage of outside directors.

By involving more outside directors, we would have the added benefit of being able to involve in financial institutions more people from the community. I hope financial institutions will avail themselves of more than just the people we normally see on boards, representatives of large corporate enterprises. It would strengthen loan and trust corporations if they had on their boards a broader cross-section of small-business people and perhaps people from the academic community and from community organizations. There is a lot of room for using boards to represent more broadly the community interest and the consumer interest.

16:00

I would also like to raise the protection of depositors' interests. We have the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp., which is there to insure deposits. However, one of the points that was raised during the course of the hearings of the standing committee was the potential role that directors have in representing the interests of depositors. Under existing corporate law, directors are deemed to be on the board essentially to represent the interests of the shareholders. That is clearly understood under corporate law and would not be changed effectively under this legislation.

We should consider whether to expand the responsibility of directors to include taking into account the interests of depositors. Some witnesses who appeared before the standing committee suggested a certain number of directors on the board should be appointed very specifically to represent the interests of depositors. I am not sure that is a particularly useful development, since it implies that one, two or three directors, or however many you would have, would sit there and look after only one interest. It seems to me that what we want is a knowledgeable group of directors who are all looking after depositors' interests, not just one or two people who may be specifically designated for that role.

Financial institutions are unique in the sense that they are not investing just the equity of the shareholders. It is completely understandable in a manufacturing company, for example, that the directors would represent the shareholders, the owners. It is not reasonable to expect that directors would be representing the interests of the purchasers of the goods, because companies are not using the customers' money in the development of their manufacturing enterprise. However, in a financial institution it is a very different relationship, since financial institutions are effectively taking depositors' money, adding it to their equity and using multiples, and going out and investing that money in mortgages. in business loans, in consumer loans or in whatever other areas lending can take place. In effect, the financial institutions' balance sheets show assets to include all assets, be they shareholders' equity or deposits.

In view of this, and in the light of the fact that financial institutions are effectively using depositors' money in the same way as people traditionally use equity, there should be some obligation on the part of directors in a very specific way in the legislation to be cognizant of the rights of depositors and of the need to protect the depositors' interests in the same way as they are there to protect shareholders' interests.

One of the concerns we should consider, although I do not think it is a major problem today, is competition within the financial services area. One witness after another before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs indicated we probably have more competition for financial services today than we have ever had, when you put together the services offered by banks, trust companies, credit unions, investment dealers and all the other groups that are there and available to provide financial services.

The potential problem this bill could create, which should be monitored, is whether the entrance requirements in terms of minimum capital may be too high to permit the development of regional trust companies. Obviously, we want to have adequate minimum capital requirements to ensure not only the financial strength of the institution going in but also that the people involved in these institutions are people of substance.

We have to be worried, however, that we do not set a going-in standard of capitalization so high that no group in Peterborough, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Kitchener or Tillsonburg would have a hope of putting together the necessary money to create a trust company that might respond to the local needs of an area of the province.

While I think there is a good, competitive situation out there, I hope that as we look at this bill and as the years pass, the ministry will be very careful to monitor the competitive environment to be sure the provisions in this bill do not needlessly bar entry into the trust company field to the detriment of financial services in various regions of the province.

My colleague the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) commented on the need for uniformity of legislation across Canada. Recent experience with trust companies indicates there is a vital need for harmonization not only of legislation but also of regulatory approach throughout this country. There are various examples in law where that has been achieved.

For example, corporate law has been harmonized very substantially across the country to the point where incorporation requirements are very similar. Personal property security legislation has been harmonized substantially across the country to the benefit of the business community and the consumers throughout the country. I suggest this is another area where harmonization should be achieved.

In recent years, the lack of harmonization between provinces has created problems. It has been very easy for companies to incorporate in certain provinces that have very lax regulations and then use that as their base to head into other provinces that have far stronger entry requirements and regulations. I hope that kind of anomaly can be dealt with so trust companies or loan corporations cannot come through the back door, through another province, into Ontario; or, for that matter, so a company cannot come through Ontario and move into another province in a way that is contrary to the law of that province.

One of the things that is important to the strength of our financial services sector is a sense of stability and uniformity in regulation, a sense that you can carry on business across Canada without having to worry about sudden changes from province to province and from area to area. I urge the minister to try to ensure that whatever we do in this province in terms of legislation and regulation harmonizes as far as possible with what the federal jurisdiction is doing. I hope the other provinces will see it the same way. It has been my experience that, in general, the other provinces tend to follow Ontario's lead in legislation. I hope in that way Ontario will provide a lead by ensuring that not only is our legislation first-class and a model for other provinces, but also that it is consistent with and in harmony with any federal legislation that might come down in future.

16:10

The final thing I will comment on relates to the fact that we seem to be heading into a bit of duplication in this House. The standing committee on finance and economic affairs is now involved in a study of concentration of corporate ownership in financial institutions. From about mid-September until the end of October, we had a number of days of hearings, as I mentioned earlier on, during which we had lengthy discussions with representatives from the trust industry as well as from various other financial services industries.

The report of the standing committee is not out yet. Because of the limited amount of time that was available, it is not now expected that the report will be out until some time in mid- to late winter. The subject matter that the standing committee is investigating and that its report will deal with covers a number of matters covered by this legislation. It seems that we have a bit of a situation where the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, or vice versa. I am a little concerned that we in this House may find that the standing committee, based on weeks and months of research, could come up with a report recommending action to be taken by the government that would be different, at least in some respects, from what is envisaged by this act.

I am not proposing that we delay this legislation because the enactment of this bill is long overdue. We should get on with consideration of the bill and bring in the new Loan and Trust Corporations Act as soon as practicable, but I bring to the minister's attention that we seem to be in a situation in the House where the committee and the government are potentially running along parallel tracks. I hope we will not collide at some point some time in the winter. I do not have an easy solution for this. I just draw it to the attention of the minister to remind him that we run the risk of having some duplication and potentially some conflict develop in the next couple of months.

In conclusion, I hope we get on with it. The trust industry badly needs new legislation and the consumer badly needs new legislation to protect his interests. I am pleased to support this bill.

Mr. McClellan: I want the opportunity to make a few brief comments about this bill. I was not intending to speak, but after the hymn of praise to the trust industry from the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), I am inspired to make a few comments. I am pleased to say the New Democratic Party will be opposing the legislation. My colleague the member for Oshawa set out a number of concerns. I want to focus on one or two points.

It is important to remember why we are here dealing with a new Loan and Trust Corporations Act. This is the response of the Liberal government to two major earthquakes that have hit the loan and trust industry in recent years. The first was the failure of Re-Mor and Astra during the 1981 election campaign or during the months immediately preceding the election campaign. We all remember that very sorry spectacle of a number of depositors, who had lost their life savings, trying in vain to bring their concerns to the attention of the then Premier, William Davis, in the middle of that campaign.

That crisis, the collapse of those companies, spoke to a massive failure of the regulatory function of the government of Ontario over the loan and trust industry. Nothing was done, even in the wake of Re-Mor and Astra, until the great Cadillac Fairview apartment-flip scandal, when once again the failure of the government of Ontario adequately to regulate the loan and trust industry was revealed with even more startling and unanticipated consequences.

We recall the modus vivendi of the people who acquired the 10,000 Cadillac Fairview apartment units. The largest single block of rental accommodation in Metropolitan Toronto was acquired by a couple of operators who managed to get control of a couple of trust companies and who used the assets of Seaway and Greymac trust companies to put together block by block, and lever control of, an increasingly large real estate empire. We learned subsequently that they put those institutions at risk, put the depositors of those institutions at risk of losing their life savings, betrayed the fiduciary obligations that most of us take for granted in the loan and trust industry and used the trust companies to lever control of larger and larger blocks of real estate, until the coup de grâce, the purchase of 10,000 units of rental accommodation and the subsequent flip.

Now we have gone from betrayal of fiduciary responsibility to using tenants and the homes of tenants as pawns in a financial scheme that will still result, even as we stand here debating this legislation, in the costs of this boondoggle, this flip and reflip, and now the government itself has flipped Cadillac Fairview back on to the private market. The 10,000 tenants in the units are going to be paying the cost as the units go back on the market to be flipped again. It is only a matter of time until they are flipped again. Mr. Rosenberg, the author of this scheme, now says the buildings are worth $800 million on the market.

The government has put the buildings back on the market through the actions of its trustee, and after all of this, after Re-Mor, Astra, Seaway, Greymac, Cadillac Fairview and the nationalization pro tem of Cadillac Fairview, there is not the slightest bit of assurance in this draft legislation that the same thing will not happen next year or next month. I do not have any confidence, reading the legislation introduced here, that the same thing will not happen again.

Mr. Ashe: Cynic.

Mr. McClellan: I am not a cynic. I am speaking on the basis of the experience of the past six years. The failure of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to regulate the industry was so complete that the minister of the day, the Honourable Mr. Elgie, in his desperation -- and I am not exaggerating -- was forced to turn the entire ministry over to people from the financial community on Bay Street, who came into the ministry on a temporary basis, took over the ministry, ran it, cleaned it up and then went back to their corporate towers on Bay Street.

16:20

That was the most eloquent witness to the incompetence of the government of Ontario in fulfilling its regulatory obligations with respect to the loan and trust industry. To be sure, it was the predecessor government, but it must be acknowledged that the present Premier (Mr. Peterson) made much of his reputation through his very skilful attacks on that government for its failure to regulate the loan and trust industry.

The day of reckoning is now here, and we have the legislation. We look at it and discover to our amazement and absolute bewilderment that this new government, which in opposition was most effective and vigorous on the issue of regulating the loan and trust industry, proposes to do absolutely nothing on the crucial question of ownership. It will still be possible for the kind of ownership concentration that led to Re-Mor, Astra, Seaway, Greymac and Cadillac Fairview to continue in the future.

All one has to do is get the consent of the superintendent for ownership in excess of 10 per cent. Very little appears to have been done to prevent the interlocking crossover directorships that make a mockery of my colleague's claim that his party has introduced competition into the marketplace. The competition of an interlocking directorate is the competition of a monopoly.

Even my friend the member for Eglinton understands that. If the same people own all the institutions, then all the flim-flam public relations praise in the world, such as we heard from him, is utterly meaningless nonsense, and he knows it. As a friend of the finance community and part of that world, he knows that world well and knows it is a hollow mockery when people stand up and talk about the free rein of competition in this sector.

Mr. Martel: It is like the insurance industry.

Mr. McClellan: That is right, when they all own each other's companies.

Mr. Breaugh: That is meaningless twaddle.

Mr. McClellan: Somebody said it was meaningless twaddle.

Mr. Ashe: It was not somebody; it was the member for Oshawa.

Mr. McClellan: We are going to oppose the legislation. This minister in particular, as a representative of this government in particular, has an obligation to explain, not to us in the New Democratic Party, who as socialists are obviously inherently hostile to --

Mr. Ashe: The free enterprise system.

Mr. McClellan: -- the kind of twaddle my friend from Eglinton was ranting and raving about.

We are at least genetically suspicious. Leaving us aside, the government has an obligation to explain to the people of Ontario how its legislation will restore their shattered confidence in the loan and trust industry. There is no point in pretending that confidence was not shattered, because it was shattered. The Premier played a major role in bringing that problem to public light.

The problem is not being solved. It does not appear to be solved with this legislation, and we will watch with interest as the minister attempts to persuade us and rationalize in the committee hearings that he is doing anything other than making some nice, quiet, cosmetic changes that leave basically nothing changed.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions? Does any other member wish to participate in the debate? Seeing none, I ask for windup comments by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to comment, because we will have an opportunity to comment in committee, but to repeat my recommendation that this be referred to a standing committee of the House. Which committee that will be is really in the hands of the members.

Mr. McClellan: I thought the agreement was to send it to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. If that does not work, it can be redirected.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is fine. Then I suggest we send it to the finance committee.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr Kwinter has moved second reading of Bill 116.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

House in committee of the whole.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 22, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any sections of the bill? If so, to which sections?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have an amendment to section 11.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any amendments before section 11?

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Dean: I would like to speak briefly to section 4 which, as members will note, applies specifically to the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. Many of the provisions are more or less housekeeping items, but there is something a little different in subsection 4(6) on page 6 of the bill. Authority is given to the regional council to pass bylaws for licensing contractors and master tradespersons. Members will see a considerable list of contractors and tradespeople for whom licensing will be given to the regional council.

While this is not controversial, it may be helpful in some other areas. This authority is being given because the municipalities in the region have discovered a great need for uniform requirements for tradespeople, so that these people do not have to go through multiple examinations and testing and the expense of obtaining licences to operate in the different municipalities that comprise the region.

There has been a great deal of discussion between the region, on the one hand, and the municipalities, on the other, to come up with the kinds of provisions that are here, so that the regional council will be able to pass a covering bylaw to examine, license, regulate and govern these contractors doing building repairs, drain repairs, electrical work, explosives, heating, air-conditioning, plumbing and master building and master drain installers, master electricians, masters of explosives, master plumbers and master heating installers, and there are some requirements for that.

16:30

As a result, this will be beneficial to the contractor who pays people in that he will have the privilege of operating in the entire regional area on one set of licences and regulations. It will be beneficial for the municipalities in that there will be a greater opportunity for competition among the people who perform these services. It should result in more efficient administration and costs and be better for everyone concerned, not only the municipalities but also the people who live in them.

The second item that is of interest is a local one. That is subsection 4(7), beginning at the bottom of page 7 and going through several pages, most of which is a legal description of an area of the city of Hamilton. The essence of this is to allow the city to act in the place of the region in the development and sale of industrial sites in a selected part of Hamilton.

As many members will know, some of the regions were given the authority to manage, promote and sell industrial land, and Hamilton-Wentworth has been doing that quite satisfactorily. There is, however, an older section of the city of Hamilton near existing industry that is termed a residential enclave. There are four of them mentioned here, where older houses are cheek by jowl with large and sometimes very heavy industry. It has been a planning polity of the city of Hamilton for some years to try to redevelop these as industrial sites. It is necessary to have the regional act changed so it has the legal right to do this. That is what this section of the bill will do.

I appreciate the attention that is being given to this by the members, and I know it will be very beneficial to the council and to the citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth to have at long last the speedy passage of these sections that apply specifically to Hamilton-Wentworth.

Mr. Partington: Is it appropriate at this time for me to speak on the entire bill, or should I wait until after the amendments have been introduced?

The Deputy Chairman: We are doing clause-by-clause.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not mean to be objectionable in committee, but we had a full second reading debate on this bill some time ago, and I am a little reluctant to go back into that. If there are members who wish to speak to the amendment, it seems to me that would be appropriate, but I do not even know why we just went through a section of the bill where there was no amendment proposed, where everybody agrees we are for it, and we listened to it. It is going to take us quite a while to go through this bill if we do it this way.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any particular clause the member would like to discuss?

Mr. Partington: Not a particular clause, but I would like to make some comments about the bill in general.

Mr. Shymko: The member can mention one.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I hear the comments from the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) pointing out that the member should mention a section. It is a cute stunt, but a little late.

If we had not had a complete second reading debate on this bill, I would be a little looser about this, but to be fair, there are municipalities that have had this on their plates for some time. We had a full second reading debate. If the member wants to seek unanimous consent to revert to second reading, he had better be careful, because the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), who participated fully in that second reading, has left the chamber. He may want to come back in and shoot some more blanks too.

The Deputy Chairman: We are now on section 4. This is the one members are authorized to debate. If they wish to discuss any others, sections 5 to 12, they can do so.

Mr. Partington: That is probably what I will do.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it on section 4?

Mr. Partington: I do not believe I will be speaking on section 4.

The Deputy Chairman: That is what the member has to discuss.

Mr. Partington: I will speak on section 6.

The Deputy Chairman: You have to discuss section 4.

Mr. Partington: I did want to make some reasonable comments, but the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) would like to cut off the opportunity of doing so.

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Breaugh: The member has had almost a year to get up his gumption to speak on the bill. If he could not do it up until now, too bad.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments on section 4?

Section 4 agreed to.

Sections 5 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 11:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moves that subsections 11(3) and 11(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

(3) Subsections 1(1), (2), (3) and (5) and subsections 10(1), (2), (3) and (5) come into force on December 1, 1988.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), the regular elections to be held in 1988 under the Municipal Elections Act in the municipalities to which the subsections named in subsection (3) relate shall be conducted as if those subsections were in force.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The purpose of this amendment is to delay the addition of extra regional councillors in Durham and York until the next regular municipal election of 1988. This will allow the necessity of having to provide for the selection of these additional councillors on an interim basis. No amendment will be necessary to the Waterloo provision, because one additional member of the Waterloo city council will simply be appointed to sit on regional council.

Mr. Breaugh: It is my understanding that this proposal has the concurrence of the regions affected. They have discussed this and decided that it is the most practical way to proceed. We concur.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Yes. I have a resolution and a letter from the regional chairman and council, who do agree.

Mr. Partington: We concur as well with the resolution presented by the minister, as we do with all sections of the bill.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Grandmaître, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment.

16:40

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 123, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to move second reading of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act regarding surplus water revenue.

As members will recall, I had the pleasure of introducing this bill on July 9. At that time, I made a statement outlining in some detail the purpose of the legislation, which is to permit the metropolitan corporation to use surplus revenue from the sale of water to accelerate the implementation of essential pollution control measures. In keeping with this government's policy of encouraging autonomy at the municipal level, the use of future surpluses, whether for purposes of the water system or to finance pollution control projects, will be left to the discretion of the metropolitan council.

The bill to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act will permit the metropolitan council to use surplus revenues from the sale of water to be used for sewage projects, as well as for its waterworks system. The bill to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act will permit the district council to extend money in its pollution control fund for the installation of water systems, as well as for sewage projects. These two provisions do not contradict one another.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to join in support of this bill, which is designed to put into legal effect the announcement made by the minister in the early summer regarding plans to allow Metropolitan Toronto to use surplus revenues derived from the sale of municipal water to finance water pollution control projects.

Under the current legislation, municipalities throughout the province are permitted to use revenues derived from the sale of water only to cover expenses related to the building or upgrading of waterworks. This legislation, which applies only to Metro Toronto, will permit these funds now to be used to bolster efforts to clean up Toronto's beaches, for example.

While Metro Toronto is to be commended for putting money into pollution control, it must be remembered that in the Toronto area alone it is estimated that more than $250 million, not just the $30 million which is available from the water revenue surplus at this time, is required to resolve the pollution problem.

Furthermore, many areas of the province, not just Toronto, are faced with water pollution problems. As many members will be well aware, the municipalities in the riding of Brock face serious water pollution problems. Throughout the summer most, if not all, the beaches in the St. Catharines area were closed to swimming. Yet this legislation does nothing to help the Niagara region, which has been --

Mr. Breaugh: That is why it is called an Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Partington: Again, we have that very bright man, the member for Oshawa, with his comments. We really appreciate that while I am speaking. I am sure the member will have his full opportunity to talk about the bill in due course.

Mr. McClellan: If you ever started talking about the bill, we would be fascinated.

Mr. Partington: Just stick around.

I will get back to my comments. By introducing this legislation, the provincial government has admitted that money is required to fight this pollution problem. This being the case, the government must be prepared to ensure that the required funds are available, not just the $30 million that is in this transfer but tremendous additional funds that this government must commit to fight the pollution problem, not just in the Metro Toronto area but also in every other area of the province.

In view of the fact that the legislation is a step in the right direction, albeit a small one, I lend my support to it. Obviously, any effort to reduce water pollution can play an important role in introducing costs associated with water treatment. As such, this surplus money will, in an indirect way, be used for waterworks purposes. Keeping this in mind, I believe the legislation is a positive step in the right direction.

Mr. Breaugh: We will support Bill 123. I want to get a couple of quick comments on the record. This bill has been explained to me as a kind of one-time deal whereby the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto wants to take advantage of some provincial and federal funding that will in some small way assist in the cleanup of beaches and some other water treatment plants.

I have no great problem and no great ideological dispute with that. I want to put on the record today, though, that I will have a great ideological problem and there will be a great dispute if this is extrapolated into a system whereby the rate system is used as the funding mechanism to clean up the beaches. Our support for this bill today should not be interpreted by the ministry as anything more than support for this specific proposal. If we see it extrapolated into a proposal to clean up our beaches by using our rate system, our support will be terminated rather quickly.

Second, in my view and in the view of many in our caucus, this is a reasonable way to proceed, but this in itself is not going to clean up the Toronto beaches. This in itself is not going to do the sewer separation that is required in many parts of Metropolitan Toronto. We accept that there is an opportunity here to get some additional funding and to use some funding that the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto already has and considers to be surplus in its own fund. That is an agreeable approach. We have no quarrel with that.

We think it will have some reasonably positive effects, but they should not be overestimated, and this concept should not be extrapolated into a long-term program whereby municipalities finance sewer separation from a rate system. As long as we understand that, I have no difficulty in offering our support to it.

Mr. McClellan: I want to speak briefly on this bill. We have close to three million people in Metropolitan Toronto, and it may come as an amazing fact to some of my Liberal friends that only 10 per cent of the people in Metro Toronto have summer cottages, 10 per cent of three million people. The other 90 per cent spend the summer here in Metropolitan Toronto. They do not go up to Muskoka or Georgian Bay, they do not have yachts and they do not have the privilege of going to private cottages. They happen to live in a city that is on one of the most beautiful lakes in the world, but for the last three years our beaches have been so polluted that our children could not swim there.

The previous government explained to us that the pollution of the Toronto beaches was caused by seagulls. The previous Minister of the Environment, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), put forward as his authoritative theory that the cause of the pollution of the Toronto beaches was sea gulls. One of the reasons that government was swept out of office was that kind of nonsense and flim-flam. However, I have to say to my colleagues in the Liberal Party that this kind of flim-flam is not a whole lot better.

16:50

We have sewers in Metropolitan Toronto that are not separated, and every time it rains, raw sewage pours into the Toronto waterfront. There is no big mystery as to why our beaches are polluted. They are not polluted by ducks, geese, sea gulls, beavers, dogs or cats; they are polluted because our sewers flush into the lake. If we want to clean up our beaches and our waterfront and let our children swim in the summer, we will have to finance sewer separation. This bill does not do it.

The thing that is upsetting is that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who is not even here this afternoon, has been running around getting a great deal of public relations advantage out of this proposal to use surplus funds for pollution abatement, as though somehow this proposal will have the slightest impact on our polluted waterfront.

My friend the member for Brock (Mr. Partington) raises concerns about the water in the Niagara Peninsula and other communities across the province. The solution will not be found in makeshift, ad hoc projects and programs such as this. The solution will be found in a major commitment of the government of Ontario to finance sewer separation and pollution treatment through loans and grants. It is as simple as that. There is no mystery or magic about it. It is a social cost that has to be accepted by government. Until government accepts this cost, we will have filthy water, polluted beaches and hundreds of thousands of children who are unable to use our beaches in summertime.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) are quite right. This is not the end of pollution, not only in Metro but also in this province. However, it is a start. I point out that the initiatives by Metro and also by Waterloo are to be commended. They realize we have a great and continuous job to resolve the pollution abatement problem in Ontario.

I am sure the members will recall that only three years ago the Federation of Canadian Municipalities provided a well-documented report to the federal and provincial governments saying that $12 billion was needed in 1983 to resolve our pollution problems. This report has not fallen on deaf ears. This government and my ministry are following up on this. We are tentatively working on a meeting with Mr. Wilson, the treasurer or minister of dollars in Ottawa, to remind him of the need in Ontario and right across this great country of ours.

It is only a start, but it is a start. I realize $30 million perhaps is not a great deal of money to spend on sewage or pollution abatement in Metro Toronto, but the members should not forget that the provincial government will provide some grants, so we will be sharing in the cost of these sewage projects. They might qualify for a 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 75 per cent grant. It is much more than the $30 million mentioned by my critic from the Conservative party, the member for Brock.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

LINE FENCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 23, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to Line Fences.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This legislation was originally introduced for first reading on June 19, 1984. It contains a substantial number of amendments to the Line Fences Act and has two major purposes.

The first purpose is to establish a new method of hearing appeals from the awards of municipal fence-viewers. The bill provides that, upon proclamation, appeals will be heard by individual referees appointed for different areas of the province. These referees will be chosen on the basis of their specialized knowledge of fencing issues and of the traditions relating to line fences in Ontario, especially in agricultural areas. The hearing of appeals has been a source of some controversy in rural areas. I believe this proposed new procedure will be helpful in resolving this issue in a practical and equitable manner.

The second purpose of the bill is to make a number of other, more technical amendments to the act. The bill has been widely circulated to all groups with an interest in the Line Fences Act and the response has been very positive.

Mr. Partington: I would like to comment on various sections of the bill. I would like to do so in one statement, if I might. If I do it on a section-by-section basis, as was suggested, we might be here far longer than we want to be.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading is the appropriate time.

Mr. Partington: Bill 23 is a piece of legislation that many residents of Ontario, particularly those residing in the rural areas of the province, have been keenly awaiting. There is no denying that over the years, a number of deficiencies in the current act have become apparent. Bill 23 seeks to respond to these problems by establishing a new appeal procedure and by dealing with matters peripheral to the appeal process such as costs, filing of necessary documents and notice provisions.

Other important items dealt with in Bill 23 deal with the recovery of administrative costs by municipalities, matters to be considered by the fence-viewer and payments to the fence-viewer. None of these changes is objectionable, as I see them. As with other bills to be dealt with today, my concerns about the bill are very limited. In fact, my only serious reservation relates to the fact that Bill 23 calls for the appointment of referees to replace small claims court judges as appeal adjudicators.

Mr. McClellan: Liberal hacks. A patronage bath by the Liberal Party.

Mr. Partington: I am being anticipated, however incorrectly, by the member. Needless to say, I will continue over his innuendoes. As I indicated, my concern is with respect to the replacement of small claims court judges by referees as appeal adjudicators. This raises the spectre of increased political patronage.

Mr. McClellan: No!

Mr. Partington: Yes. This is how referees are selected, not for their expertise in resolving these disputes but perhaps because of their support for the government of the day.

17:00

Furthermore, this step will entail additional cost and result in another increase in our bureaucracy in the absence of a clear indication that the small claims court judges are not doing the job or are inappropriate adjudicators. I confess I have some concerns about this section of Bill 23.

On the other hand, if I can be assured by the minister that the referees will do a better job and will be selected for their knowledge and ability to resolve these disputes rather than using this as another avenue for political patronage, my concerns will be eradicated and I will be able to indicate my complete support for this bill.

In the absence of this assurance, I feel I can support this bill only with the reservations I have just outlined.

Mr. Breaugh: I will be interested in the criticism from the Conservative members on a bill they introduced about two years ago. I will wait with bated breath as they savage the government for doing what they started to do. This is one of the bills that caused the government to fall. When the Tories were in power, they introduced this legislation and refused to bring it forward. I for one could see that there was no way that kind of corruption could go on in rural Ontario. It had to be fixed. If the Tories did not have enough guts to proceed with this legislation, we would throw the beggars out and bring in a new group of beggars. To my dismay, that seems to be what has happened.

Most urban members will not have much of an appreciation for line fences. Let me share a personal revelation I had when I went to a regional council system that had a large rural area. This may not look very controversial here, but some of the best arguments in Ontario happen over this type of dispute. I listened to the member for Brock suggest that the new Liberal government would put all the Liberals in charge of arbitrating these disputes. If we want to get rid of a bunch of Tories, I suggest we put the Tories in charge of arbitrating these disputes. They will be victims. This is hardly a patronage event.

I know it is seen by some as being a favourable government appointment, but anyone who has ever been in the slightest way involved in the arbitration of these disputes knows that this is not a pleasant job. Few nuclear weapons are used, but they are vehement in their arguments. This is not exactly one of the best appointments one could get.

I think that the bill, as it has been finally brought forward -- and I am relieved to see it has been -- does resolve some very tricky, difficult, day-by-day problems in many parts of rural Ontario. I am aware that it has been the subject of a great deal of discussion over the years and it is a serious problem. When the previous minister, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), first introduced this bill, he recognized that something had to be done. There had been a process in place for some years that was not working very well, although it was not totally wrong.

It is the type of thing where no one ever wins. I do not think the previous government had any illusions that it was going to resolve all these disputes in a nice neat way by introducing the legislation, nor does this government have any illusions that the revision to the Line Fences Act will solve all the problems. It is the type of thing where there will be very heartfelt disputes between two adjacent property owners, and no one can win in that situation.

The best one can do is to put in place a reasonable process and see that those who are participants have reasonable guidelines and get reasonable compensation. In the end, one party will be happy and one party will be angry. That is the way it is going to be, folks. Nothing anyone can ever do will change that situation. The best we can do is probably what is proposed in this bill, that is, revise the process, not with major changes but with minor ones, to make it somewhat more understandable, a little more comprehensible and a little more reasonable.

There have been some discussions that this may not be any better than what was used previously. I think that is inevitable. Those of us who have had the opportunity to be observers of this kind of discussion and dispute know there is no good way to resolve this.

We could let the people in disputes such as this go directly to court, engage lawyers, begin the court process and let it go on at length, but most of us would agree there is a need for some reasonable arbitration process at a local level, which is what this is. I believe, and according to the people to whom I talk, the proposals in this bill are worthy of a good trial. I have no illusions that arguments in rural Ontario over this kind of dispute are going to stop; they will not. They never have under any government and they never will. The arguments are really heartfelt arguments and they have to do with family farms; so there is a lot of emotion that rolls into this. It has to do with how a farmer carries on the business of agriculture; so I am sure there will be continuing disputes around it.

I feel reasonably comfortable that this bill will put in place a process that most people, though not everybody, will see as reasonable. It will provide to some people in our rural municipalities some relief from the current process. It is touted to expedite the process somewhat. I do not have a lot of faith that it is going to do that, but it may. It may make the process a little more straightforward. It may make the process a little bit fairer, but we are talking about degrees, not light-year leaps.

We in the New Democratic Party are happy to support these proposals. It is unfortunate that it took the fall of a government to get them before the Legislature. Worthy of note is that in ordering the business of the day, the government put the Line Fences Amendment Act in front of several Metropolitan Toronto bills. I want to congratulate the government for at least giving rural Ontario the shot that the Tories never would give it.

Mr. McGuigan: I am very happy to rise in support of Bill 23. I recall when the other bill was passed three years ago, it was believed by all three parties to be a good bill, but the point in it that has been hard to cover has been its philosophy about the ownership of land.

Mr. Breaugh: A second government may go down over this bill.

Mr. McGuigan: It could do. It is no laughing matter to those people who have livestock in the country.

According to ancient history and present usage, you own only the land you can defend. We should think for a minute about the billions of dollars we spend sending cutters through the ice in the polar regions and aircraft to fly over that land simply to establish we are defending it. By having a presence there, we can claim ownership of those lands. In some cases, they are only floating islands. Nevertheless, we spend billions of dollars to indicate to the rest of the world we are defending that land and we own it.

The individual property owner is not expected to stand out there with a gun and defend his land. Because animals do not recognize boundaries, we are expected to defend boundaries with fences. The trouble comes when there is a farmer with animals or, in many cases today, when city people move out to the country and establish horse farms and have horses out there. Anybody who has been around a horse knows that when it is turned out into a field, the first thing it does is run around the defined boundaries and then determine the quickest way to tear them down. A horse will lean on a fence and in short order have that fence down.

The argument involves the fellow who is, say, a cash cropper and does not have animals. He says it is not his duty to fence his property to keep the other animals out; it is up to the other fellow to fence his property to keep his animals in. There you have the real basis of the argument and the misunderstanding. Even the magistrates who are in charge of the small claims courts have, in many cases, been unable to accept that. They very often come from a city background and simply take the view: "They are your animals. You fence them in." However, the principle of law is that a person must also fence them out.

The way the system works, as all members know, is that the fence viewer comes out and he usually assigns 50-50 to each owner. This is very difficult when you have a farm field that may be up against a strip development where you have lot after lot of houses and some of those home owners who have dogs then come into the picture. It becomes pretty involved and, as members have mentioned, a lot of high feelings develop.

17:10

To date, the small claims courts have not been able to deal with this, so the government, in its wisdom and in the light of the experience over the past three years, has appointed referees who will deal with this matter constantly. They will be trained in the fine points of the law and they will gain experience, and we hope they will bring a better resolution to this big problem.

I know it is not a big problem in the city, although I do not have city experience. Perhaps city lot owners have difficulties between themselves. I do not know anything about that, but out in the country, especially in areas where there are livestock, this is an important matter.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: First, I congratulate the minister for bringing forward this bill. I had intended to make a few comments to the member for Oshawa, but he has disappeared. He mentioned political patronage and that Tories should be appointed to be referees. I think we solved that problem this morning by passing resolution 64, the resolution of the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), which was widely supported by members of the party on the left. They were likely hoping to obtain the appointments as referees. However, I can assure members that most sensible Tories would not be very excited about this job.

Most of my rural constituents will be pleased with the change, taking this decision from the small claims courts and the judges and giving it to a referee. The whole process will depend on the fairness of that referee. If reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent people are appointed, especially people who are knowledgeable about the rural aspects of the country, we will not have a major problem with it. There will be a few problems. I think that many judges, however well intentioned, were not as familiar with the rural problems as we hope these referees will be.

I have a few concerns. One is an example of a constituent who had a problem that was taken to small claims court. He was awarded 50 per cent of the cost of building a fence. His neighbour refused to participate; so he built the fence himself. Then he had the difficult problem of trying to obtain the 50 per cent that was assessed against his neighbour. Ultimately, it was resolved only because the township council was supportive of his initiative and helped him.

I cannot find the section in this legislation. How does the minister propose that an individual can recoup the cost of the fence that is assessed against his neighbour if his neighbour refuses to build the fence? I am not sure of any other questions, but I would like him to answer that one. I support the concept of the legislation and I hope we can make sure that we get fair and knowledgeable referees. I would like the minister to give me an answer on how an individual has the opportunity to recoup the 50 per cent.

Mr. McKessock: I am pleased to stand and support this bill on behalf of the farmers of Ontario. It seems as if many fencing seasons have passed, and the farmers have been looking for this bill to be changed.

A problem arose in our area and in other parts of Ontario when the Line Fences Act was taken to court and the judge, in his wisdom or lack of it, gave the responsibility of maintaining the fence to the land owner who did not own the livestock. He failed to recognize that each property owner was having his land not only marked but also protected by having a fence, and he was breaking a 100-year tradition of equal sharing of the fence responsibility between the land owners on either side.

It is good to see that this bill is going to take the Line Fences Act out of the courts and make it the responsibility of farmers, who will be appointed as referees in the rural municipalities. If disputes arise, they will come before these new committees.

As I mentioned earlier, the judge failed to see that the fence not only was marking the line between the two properties but was also protecting the two properties. It is for this reason I want to make an amendment to subsection 5(2) of the bill, an amendment that has previously been agreed to by the minister, and add, after the words "between their lands marked" the two words "and protected" before "by a fence." This points out that a line fence not only marks the property but also protects it. It is very important that those two words be added to that section of the bill.

May I present that amendment?

Mr. Speaker: No, you may not. I would inform the member that we are now discussing the bill in second reading. He has informed the members of the House that he hopes it may go to committee of the whole House, where he can make the amendment.

Mr. McKessock: Thank you. I will not hold the bill up any longer. I would like to see it go to committee of the whole so that I can make this amendment to clarify it, make that section of the bill more realistic and show that a fence does protect as well as mark.

Mr. McLean: I would like to comment briefly on this bill. I observed this morning that it is the same bill that was introduced on June 18, 1985, by the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), if memory serves me correctly. I looked at it this morning and I think it is the same word for word. I believe this bill is long overdue and I am pleased to see this government acting on it.

I have been involved in farming for quite a bit of my life and have had to do with municipal politics and with the appointment of fence viewers and with trying to make sure the people who complained and had objections to their fences, were treated in a correct manner. When I look over the past several years at the court cases that have been held and at some of the decisions that were made by the judges, I can cite one that was held in the county of Simcoe that was a very controversial one and was not very satisfactory to the owner of the property, who had farmed for many years and had to put up fences to keep other people's cattle out.

17:20

The key to this bill is the appointment of the referees. This is great. It is good that we will know a little about what they are talking about when they are dealing with property. I also suspect this bill will have a bearing on what takes place in subdivisions and in areas of the province other than strictly farms. It is important that this is in the bill because many people now have disputes over boundaries where a fence is down and they want to put up a fence or put up something that may not be suitable to somebody else. This bill will cover the referee determining that decision.

I also see in the bill that the municipality still has a fair bit of power. That is great because the local municipality is the overseer of what takes place. It happens to be a good bill. I agree with the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) about adding those two words "and protected." It is important they be added, and I support that amendment. It defines a little more firmly what this bill is trying to say.

I wanted to comment briefly because just this week a constituent of mine wanted to be involved in repairing his line fence. His neighbour is a nonresident, a weekend property owner, and he did not want to get into the kind of legal situation that has occurred in the past. With the referees being appointed, this will help the farmers and the people who need it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought I might spend a moment or two on this since the Line Fences Act has been treated with some degree of levity by some members on the opposite side. I regret to say that but it is the truth. I heard the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who was on an extensive phone-in show last Saturday, complaining that the work of the Legislature was winding down to the point where he suspected we would be dealing next with the Line Fences Act.

Actually, a lot of farmers who have expressed deep concern about the inadequacies of the former legislation, waited for months and years for the previous government to come to grips with the problems that it had itself created with its previous amendments to the Line Fences Act. I want to join the other members who have expressed their congratulations to the minister for moving to solve these problems.

In many areas of the province, our line fences are not quite as important as they used to be as the numbers of cattle are reduced and as they become more concentrated on larger farms. We always had cattle on our farm in South Dumfries township until a few years ago when we decided to sell them all off, and the fences have deteriorated and depreciated substantially. My wife is out there often in the nice spring weather removing the old fences to improve the landscape. I appreciate that she does that around the farm along with many other things.

However, we have neighbours who have cattle and the responsibility to keep up one's share of the fence is obvious. The rule used to be simple. As you stood on your own property, the left-hand half was your responsibility.

Mr. Wildman: Facing in which direction?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Out. It is very simple except for people who treat this important legislation with levity. I am telling the members that it is meat and drink in our part of the world and the farmers are pleased indeed that we have finally come up with a practical solution.

Mr. McClellan: After 18 months.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have had a lot of other important things to do. This was not part of the accord because among those who treat it with levity are even members who are democratic socialists or whatever the adjectives they use this week happen to be.

Anyway, I am delighted that this act is going forward. I congratulate the minister. I know many of the farmers will appreciate this. It will take the threat of court action away from them, particularly with the practical solutions that have come forward, which I think we will find beneficial in the farming community and elsewhere.

Mr. Wildman: Just to comment briefly on the remarks of the Treasurer, just as good fences make good neighbours, so too do good politicians make good debates and good accords make good government.

Mr. Partington: I would just like to add a few words to the --

Mr. Speaker: No. You may not. I am sorry, I thought you were asking for further debate. Are you seeking to make comments or ask questions?

Mr. Partington: I have just a comment. Following the words of the Treasurer, I would add that this party considers the Line Fences Amendment Act a very serious piece of legislation. Those of us who are aware of disputes that arise over boundaries know there are probably fewer issues in life that create greater passion and problems in the resolution of something which might normally appear to be a very simple matter. The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) and the member for Simcoe East have conveyed that feeling. We are pleased to support the passage of this act.

Mr. Breaugh: I thought it would be worth while to point out that there are many of us in what are considered to be urban municipalities who will be affected by this legislation.

In the middle of my municipality, the city of Oshawa, is E. P. Taylor's Windfields Farm. Romping around the acres of Windfields Farm are very expensive thoroughbred horses. I am sure Mr. Taylor is very interested in this legislation to resolve this type of dispute, as are all the farmers all around him.

It is perhaps an issue which may be a little higher up the list in rural Ontario, but it is also a matter which comes into effect in many of our municipalities. At first flight, one might think of Oshawa as being an urban industrial centre, but the city of Oshawa has a great many farmers in it, many of whom are very concerned about this type of legislation.

For those who do not understand it and treat it in a flippant way, lightly and with no reverence, that is quite wrong. However, as the Treasurer has just proven, he too can be funny.

Mr. McLean: Just briefly I want to say once again that on June 18, 1985, the member for Don Mills brought in an identical bill, word for word. I believe it was he and his staff who drafted this bill. I complimented the minister for bringing it forward, but I have to say we know who drafted it.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any final comments from the Treasurer? Any further debate? The minister may have some wind-down comments.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) mentioned, this is not the end of the road, it is only a start. It is a better mechanism to work with.

The member for Brock (Mr. Partington) asked why we removed this from the hands of the courts. It is very simple. There were delays in cases being heard. It was only fair to put it into more competent hands, to put it into the hands of referees to find a solution to these problems.

I agree with the member for Oshawa; it not only affects rural Ontario, it is right across this province. This is very important. It affects every municipality in this province.

The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel asked me what would happen if a neighbour refused to pay his fair share of the fence. That neighbour would still be able to take action in the small claims court, and his second option would be to have the municipality add this amount due on his municipal tax bill. Those are the two recourses, and that is part of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

17:30

House in committee of the whole.

LINE FENCES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 23, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to Line Fences.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 5:

Deputy Chairman: Mr. McKessock moves that subsection 7(2) of the act as set out in section 5 of the bill be amended by inserting after "having" in the fifth line "their lands protected by a fence and."

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I am concerned about the explanatory notes on section 14, which explain how a municipality is allowed to designate areas in a municipality by passing a bylaw. When can we discuss that section? It is section 14 on the second page.

The Deputy Chairman: We are on section 5.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: When will we come to the explanatory notes? I want to ask the minister about that.

The Deputy Chairman: When we deal with section 14, I will call you on that.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Section 14? Thank you.

Mr. Breaugh: Who is going to explain to us why we are bothering with these words now and what they mean? It would have been nice if someone had shown us the courtesy of circulating an amendment to this bill, which has been in Orders and Notices for only two years. The member has had two years' notice. If he had wanted to amend it, perhaps he could have found some time in those two years to get out his crayon and show it to the rest of us, especially if he wanted us to support it.

Mr. McClellan: We do not have copies of it.

Mr. Breaugh: Does anybody have copies of it? Does the minister have a copy of this amendment?

The Deputy Chairman: We can get a photocopy made.

Mr. Breaugh: That would be really nice, yes, since the standing orders require us to have a copy. It would be really nice too if the minister who is carrying the bill had a copy of the amendment. That would really help.

Mr. McKessock: While we are getting copies for the members, I am sorry they have not received copies. It only adds the words "their lands protected by a fence and" after the word "having" in the fifth line.

The reason for it is that, as the bill now reads, it says, "the benefit to both owners of having the boundary between their lands marked by a fence." That, to me, does not outline the benefits of this act. Having boundaries marked by a fence is only one part of it. The other part is having your lands protected, and I feel that the main part of this bill is having your lands protected, having them marked is a secondary part of it. I feel it is inadequate not to have those words "their lands protected by a fence and" added to this section of the bill.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to speak to the amendment. The only difficulty I have, frankly, is that the member has, I think -- and I could be wrong -- stood in his place this afternoon and put his chosen words together to insert here. The bill has been around for two years, subject to scrutiny by members of the assembly and people all over Ontario, and it does change the nature of the bill somewhat. Let me try to point out some concerns I have on it.

"Their lands protected by a fence" carries a connotation -- to me, anyway -- that goes a little bit further than the wording used in the original proposal. The original proposal talked about "the nature of the fences in use in the locality." People are going to have a difficult time with this, I know, but if you put up a fence between somebody who is running cattle and somebody who has a chicken farm, the same fence will not serve the purpose for both folks. If the member is arguing that you would now have a legal right to have your land protected by a fence so as to be protected from wayward chickens, in this instance, what do you do? Is the member saying that this adds an additional right to someone to have his land protected by it?

Maybe the example I used was somewhat unfortunate, but as I noted previously, some of my farmers, to use the term in the broadest possible sense, have very valuable animals on their land and they go to some rather extreme lengths to protect that livestock. They have horses and cattle on their property that are worth literally hundreds of thousands of dollars. If this goes past the original concept to mark it and to use a fence technique that is appropriate in that locality -- if, in other words, this says you now have the right to have your land protected by a fence, and the government sets up the criteria that will indicate what kind of fence will get built -- we are changing the nature of it quite a bit.

I put to members that this is a rather significant amendment. I think the member means the fence has to serve the purpose, but someone else may get the opportunity to go before the referee in this instance and argue, "On my property I have very valuable livestock and I want to protect them to this degree; so I built a nine-foot fence with a security system and guards who intervene." I know some members in here who have valuable livestock on their property, and they have security systems. It is not just a wooden rail fence that is used.

Some explanation needs to be put to the House, and perhaps to the minister too, before we accept the amendment. That, of course, is precisely why we like to see these words ahead of time.

Mr. McKessock: I might point out that at the start of that section the statement is made, "In making the award, the fence-viewers shall have regard to the suitableness of the fence." Therefore, this section tells us that the fence-viewers will decide the suitableness of the fence, whether it is going to be to protect prize animals, chickens or whatever it is. The fence will definitely be different for different areas. That is going to be arrived at by the fence-viewers and that is quite clear in the bill.

My only reason for adding the word "protected" was to make it correspond to the bill. To me, a fence is not going to be put there to mark the boundary; the fence is going to be put there to protect the property. Therefore, not adding those words is not doing the bill justice. To do it justice, we have to add those words so that we clearly know what it is all about.

Mr. Partington: I would like to comment on two things: first on the substantive aspect of this amendment and then on the manner in which it is delivered.

17:40

As the member for Oshawa indicated, the bill has been in existence for a long time. If this were not an afterthought and if it had received some input from the member presenting it, it probably would not have been presented. I say that because if one reads subsection 7(2) of the act as set out in section 5 of the bill, it states, "In making the award, the fence-viewers shall have regard to the suitableness of the fence to the needs of each of the adjoining owners." At that time, I suppose the fence-viewer would take into account the activities on the lands and decide what type of fence is there for decoration or protection.

It goes on to state "the nature of the terrain on which the fence is, or is to be located" -- which would indicate consideration of the type of fence -- "the benefit to both owners of having the boundary between their lands marked by a fence." We have already talked about protection in the first part, "shall have regard to the suitableness of the fence to the needs." This section talks about the benefit of having the boundary marked. That is exactly what it talks about. Should we define on the land exactly where the boundary is between the two properties? The section then goes on to state at the end "and may have regard to any other factors that they consider relevant."

The first part of the subsection indicates the fence-viewer has "regard to the suitableness of the fence to the needs of each of the adjoining owners or the occupants," and, at the end, "and may have regard to any other factors that they consider relevant."

Those two parts of the subsection answer the need of the member for protection. The section to which the member is trying to add descriptive words states "the benefit to both owners of having the boundary between their lands marked by a fence." It talks about marking. It is not concerned about protection. Protection is already taken care of in that subsection. A clear reading of the subsection will show that. I submit the amendment is not required and should be defeated.

Mr. McKessock: I am sorry the member feels that way because I am not sure why he would deprive the farmers of Ontario of the added protection of a few words that clarify the point.

Mr. Wildman: Why did you not follow the rules and give proper notice?

Mr. McKessock: I am sorry if that little technicality is going to interfere with the passing of the amendment. It does not make any drastic change to the bill. It makes clear that the fence is not marking a boundary but is protecting the properties.

Mr. Breaugh: I have had a chance to look at it and I am going to reject the amendment from my point of view. I have to give some reasons. This is truly a sad way to run a bill through the Legislature.

The Deputy Chairman: I did not quite hear you. Did you say you object?

Mr. Breaugh: I object to it and I will vote against the amendment. This is a handwritten amendment that has words scratched out, is grammatically incorrect and is not clear as to its intent.

If the member seriously thought it was worth while, he has at his disposal people who can type these things. He has the ability to mail to and give proper notice to the members here and to all the municipalities in Ontario. They have had this, and we have made the government print this bill and circulate it and give notice, for two years now.

If he cares about the people he represents, he ought to care enough to give some notice of this kind of amendment. If he cares about them, he ought to care enough about them at least to get out a typewritten notice within two hours, as suggested by the standing orders. If he cared enough and if he thought this amendment was important enough, he would have taken the time to inform the minister that he was moving an amendment.

On these grounds, we should reject it. I suppose there will be another opportunity for him to do it at some future date when two more governments fall and the Line Fences Act comes up for review. I take great objection to the fact that he stood up this afternoon with his little handwritten note and laid a guilt trip on everyone else around here for not caring about Ontario's farmers. This is patent nonsense and he knows that.

I am surprised that this particular member would use that kind of cheap stunt this afternoon. If he cared enough about the farmers of Ontario, or the municipalities in Ontario or rural Ontario, surely he would have used one of the resources available to him as a member of this House at least to give us reasonable notice, at least to type it up so that we could read it instead of having the rather unfortunate handwriting that is here, and at least to consult with his own minister. He has had two full years to deal with this. If he cared enough, some time in those two years he would have done these simple things.

I am concerned somewhat about changing this legislation at this time. It may not be a great alteration, but it is an alteration and somebody, somewhere, is going to use it as an arguing point in cases in the future. That is what legislation is all about. Although the change of one or two words in a bill may have seemed a moment of genius to the member when he drafted it on the back of his little piece of paper this afternoon, somebody else has to live with those changes for ever and a day, or until we change the act again. This is why the standing orders say one must give reasonable notice to the members, wherever it is possible. This is why we suggest that if one wants to make amendments to bills, one takes them to the respective caucuses and circulates them to the minister.

I have found on many occasions that when one wants an amendment and it is a reasonable thing to do, the ministry is more than happy to look at all the ramifications the amendment might have, take them into consideration and accept it or reject it.

It is unfortunate the member felt this was so important an amendment to put to us that he did not think enough of the rest of us to let us even know what the amendment was. On that ground, I am sorry, I have to reject it.

Mr. McKessock: I certainly did consult with the minister; the member has indicated I had not done so. I certainly do feel it is important and that is why I brought it forward.

I feel that somebody might take the bill out of context or take it to court the way it was, and that is why I added it. I think it is more likely to cause problems the way it is than by adding those few words. Of course, that is why I added the words.

Again, I am sorry I did not do it in a more proper manner and have it typed out to give the members a copy previously, but I did not think this bill was coming forward today. There were quite a few things on the agenda, and I thought it would be the first of the week before it came forward. I apologize for that and I would ask for the members' support to have the amendment passed.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. McKessock has moved that subsection 7(2) of the act as set out in section 5 of the bill be amended by inserting after "having" in the fifth line the words "their lands protected by a fence and."

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 5 agreed to.

Sections 6 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 14:

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The minister very kindly dealt with the problem I had.

Section 14 agreed to.

Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

17:50

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This bill will provide for the earlier selection of the district chairman and allow the district council to hold its first meeting at an earlier date.

In addition, the bill will allow the district to expend money in its pollution control fund for the installation of water systems. These amendments are being made at the request of the district council.

Mr. Partington: Bill 25 deals with a number of what can be considered housekeeping matters. Specifically, it amends the provisions governing such matters as the selection of the district chairman, as the minister has indicated, the conduct of the inaugural meeting and the annual redemption of debentures.

Bill 25 will also implement a number of changes made necessary by the repeal or changes to other provincial legislation such as the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act.

As the Municipal Affairs critic for my party, I have no real objection to the bulk of this legislation. My only major concern relates to section 7, which would appear to allow the district council to expend money in its pollution control fund for the installation of water systems. In view of the serious pollution problems facing this area of the province, I must question any plan that would permit a reduction in our pollution efforts.

Pollution must be fought at its source. It is inappropriate to rely on water treatment. This does nothing to curb the pollution of our lakes and rivers beyond attempting to ensure safe drinking water and, like Bill 123, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, discussed earlier today, this measure of taking funds from one designated area and placing them into another can be considered only a stopgap measure.

What we need -- and I see the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) here -- is a greater commitment, not a commitment in words, but a commitment in deed, that is, more money to put to the problem of solving our water pollution problems, not only in Muskoka but also in other areas of the province, including, I might add, the area in the Niagara Peninsula we talked about earlier.

But for this objection, I will support the thrust of the bill.

Mr. Breaugh: The people in Muskoka have been waiting a long time for this bill. This is another one that was introduced by a previous government. That government fell because it refused to take action, and we are happy to support the bill this afternoon.

If one reads it carefully, one will find that the pollution control device that is being suggested in this bill is the installation of a water system. We are always happy to do that and will support the bill.

Mr. McLean: I would like a clarification from the minister on the reasoning in subsection 6(2): "The revenues and expenditures of a home maintained by this district corporation under the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act may be included in the general revenues and expenditures of the district corporation and the district corporation shall not be required to maintain a separate bank account in relation thereto."

Having been involved in homes for the aged in the county, I am just wondering why this is going into the general revenue account of the corporation, why it would not have a special account kept under the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act and why this change is being made in general revenue.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: For every municipality, having created a revenue fund for a water or sewer charge at the end of the fiscal year, the revenues go back to a general fund. That is my explanation, but I am waiting for a better one from my counsel.

Mr. Breaugh: Why do you not ask the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) to write one out for you?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I thank the member for Oshawa for the suggestion.

Mr. McClellan: This is second reading, is it?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes.

Mr. McClellan: I see. It is a good thing we are flexible.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Under the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act, the district must maintain a separate account. I was right. The home is run directly by the district and there is a need for a separate account. I was right again. I was right on. The municipality and the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act require separate accounts.

Mr. McLean: I should take a minute to respond to the information that was received, because the Charities Accounting Act applies. In regard to the separate bank account, what are we going to do now about the change that should be made?

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week. On Monday afternoon, November 17, 1986, Treasury estimates are to be concluded.

On Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday afternoon and Thursday afternoon, the legislation is as follows: Bill 48, Metro Toronto Act, dealing with municipal pensions; Bill 66, business corporations; Bill 119, Liquor Control Board of Ontario; Bill 120, Liquor Licence Board of Ontario; Bill 121, land titles; Bill 122, registry office; Bill 14, oleomargarine; Bill 58, Time Amendment Act, and other legislation by agreement, if time permits.

On Thursday morning, private members' public business standing in the names of the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) and the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) will be dealt with.

Mr. McClellan: Five bills in one day.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Too many.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

November 13, 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REMUNERATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

REMUNERATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

NUCLEAR ARMS

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION

SCHOOL FUNDING

CREAM PRODUCERS

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

HERITAGE ISLAM SOCIETY

ONTARIO WINES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COURTHOUSES

FUNERAL SERVICES LEGISLATION

INSURANCE RATES

REPORT, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

VISITORS

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

HIGH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NURSING HOMES

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

WOMEN EMPLOYEES

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

WASTE DISPOSAL

ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED LABOUR DISPUTE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RENTAL HOUSING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

WEILER REPORT

COURTHOUSE

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETING

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

546672 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS ACT / LOI DE 1986 SUR LES COMPAGNIES DE PRÊT ET DE FIDUCIE

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

LINE FENCES AMENDMENT ACT

LINE FENCES AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE