Hansard Transcript 1987-Dec-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mrs. Grier: Before I begin, I would like to indicate that I plan to reserve some of the time allocated to me so that I can wind up the debate at the end.

The Deputy Speaker: You have up to 20 minutes and you may reserve some of that time for the windup.

Mrs. Grier: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on the act respecting environmental rights here this morning. It is, by coincidence, exactly one year ago today that I first introduced this piece of legislation into the House and members who were here in the last session will recall that in May 1987 we had a debate on second reading in private members’ hour on that occasion. In May 1987 my bill received support from all parties in the House. It was adopted unanimously and referred to the standing committee on resources development for discussion and detailed debate. I hope the same thing will happen today.

I was very heartened during the election campaign, which interrupted the progress of my bill in the last session and which I trust will not interrupt its progress in this one, by the support, the recognition and the indications from people, not only in my own constituency but across the province, that the kinds of principles which are enshrined in this legislation were well received, were popular and were in fact recognized as being very badly needed in Ontario. After the resumption of business by this House, I quickly reintroduced my bill, which brings us to the point we are at today.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that this is the first opportunity members have had in this session of the House to debate environmental matters. Some members referred to the issues of the environment during the throne speech debate, but this is the first time there has been an occasion when the subject at hand has been solely the protection of the environment. It is also therefore the first opportunity for members on all sides to recommit themselves to the promises and the commitments that I think we all made in the campaign, of our respect for the environment and our intention to do what we could to protect the environment.

I want to acknowledge the work that the many environmental groups have done, both in indicating support for this bill and in spreading the word about the principles enshrined in the bill. I think all members will have received a letter indicating support from a number of groups.

I would like to put on the record the list of groups that have specifically endorsed this second-reading debate today: the Canadian Environmental Law Association; the Canadian Auto Workers, locals 444 and 1973; the Citizens Network on Waste Management; Energy Probe; Friends of the Earth; Great Lakes United; Greenpeace; Pollution Probe; Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society; Ontario Federation of Labour; RADAR, which is Residents Against Dumping Around Rochester; Sierra Club of Ontario; Windsor and District Clean Water Alliance; Windsor and District Labour Council; and separately, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists.

What that represents is a very broad consensus from groups that may have very different localized interests, that the kinds of principles which are part of the environmental bill of rights are worthy of support and apply all across this province to every kind of environmental and nature group that we might have.

As I suspect all members know, the bill that I have presented is of somewhat mixed parentage. It was in 1980 that the present member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) introduced an environmental Magna Carta. That was followed by an environmental bill of rights introduced by members of the Liberal Party when they were in opposition. In fact, my bill is very directly taken from a bill that was introduced by the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston). So there has been support across party lines for a bill of rights. I think the time has come in this province when such a bill needs to be adopted.

We have, I acknowledge, made significant progress in the last two years towards protecting the environment, towards updating our laws, towards improving our regulations. But this bill is a vital addition to that progress. What this bill does is give a weapon to the citizens so that they can play their part, along with government, in protecting the environment. In a minority government those weapons were available more readily perhaps than they are in today’s majority situation, but I would suggest that perhaps the passage of this bill would give an additional weapon to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) in discussions that he may have with caucus or with the competing priorities of his fellow members of cabinet.

I would like to enunciate what the bill does, which is fairly clearly stated in section 2 of the legislation. What it does is give to the people of Ontario “a right to clean air, pure water and the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment.” It says:

“Ontario’s public lands, waters and natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come, and, as trustee of those lands, waters and resources, the government of Ontario shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of present and future generations.

“It is hereby declared that it is in the public interest to provide every person with an adequate remedy to protect and conserve the environment and the public trust therein from contamination and degradation.”

What that means is that it gives citizens the right to go to court to protect the environment. It ensures that decisions are not made, or approvals are not granted, without adequate public hearings. It guarantees access to information about the environment. It provides intervener funding so that those citizens who become involved have the resources to carry their case forward. It protects workers who report acts of pollution from reprisals because they have reported those acts.

What it does not do is it does not relieve the minister of his responsibility to protect the environment. It gives him, in addition to his own inspectors and enforcement mechanisms, an army of volunteers who have the right to supplement what government is doing. I think we have had ample indication that the public wants that right and would take advantage of that right. In the report of the Provincial Auditor there were more than 12,000 complaints filed by citizens in 1986, complaints about degradation of the environment. The Provincial Auditor went on to enumerate that the Ministry of the Environment, unfortunately, had not adequately followed up on those complaints.

When I say that citizens ought to be given the right to follow up themselves and to take action to see if their complaints are dealt with, that is the kind of right that this bill would give them. By providing intervener funding, it gives citizens the tools to do the job they have indicated they want to do.

1010

It is important to remember that in our legislation the minister has the power to protect the environment but he does not have a duty to do so. It is not mandatory that he take action under some of the legislation and regulations that exist.

When you consider how the laws and the regulations of the province are written, you realize that the way they are developed they in fact give industry the right to pollute. Regulations are developed that say you may contaminate the environment to a certain level; you have a right to allow these kinds of contaminants into the environment. What the regulation does is set the level of those contaminants.

We have control orders. When there is evidence that pollution is occurring, a control order is negotiated between the government and the industry which spells out the right the industry has to continue to pollute to a certain level.

We have deadlines and indications to industry that regulations or legislation are going to be introduced at a certain time which give industry the right to continue to pollute until that deadline is met.

All these mechanisms for improving the environment or controlling environmental degradation are generally discussed behind closed doors and the participants in those discussions are the polluters and the government. Not present is the public. The public not only does not have the right to participate in those discussions, it does not have the right to be informed that those discussions are taking place.

Some of the most frequently heard jargon or buzzwords around environmental policy these days are “risk assessment” and “stakeholders.” If we think of those two words in conjunction with what I have just said about how regulations and legislation are developed to protect the environment, we will see that the risks are being taken by the public. Therefore, they are a major stakeholder in the development of these regulations, yet they are not present and not legal participants in the development of the regulations.

Let me give a couple of examples.

We heard last week from the minister that regulation 308, the province’s air pollution regulation, was outdated, and he allowed us to have three months for the public to comment on his proposals to revise that regulation. I think that is admirable. I am very glad the minister did that. The point I want to make is that he did not have to do that. He did it because he happens to think public participation is warranted, justified and desirable. But should we have in his place a Minister of the Environment who did not feel the same way, then we would have no right to demand that we be allowed to have public comment on that regulation.

The Ministry of the Environment is in the process of setting acceptable standards for dioxins and furans in the province. A report enunciating studies and statistics with respect to dioxins and furans was released in November 1985. There have been no public hearings on that report.

We know that the minister is setting standards in consultation with industry for those very toxic contaminants, yet we do not have a right to demand that there be a public process by which we who are going to take the risk can be involved. I think that is a classic case of the risk regulator and the risk-maker deciding what is an acceptable risk without the risk-taker being at the table.

In defence of the current minister -- and I know that defence will be mounted by his colleagues as this debate proceeds -- I want to make it very clear that there has been much better access to information in the last two years than we ever saw in this province in the past. I keep saying two years; maybe it is almost three years. We have had a release of reports. We have had a release of data -- not quite as quickly in the past two months as we saw in the previous session, but it still does come -- but I want to reiterate that is dependent on the goodwill of the minister. It is not guaranteed.

When you come to public hearings, the only right that the citizens of the province have is a right to a public hearing on waste disposal projects.

I made the point that there is in fact a right to pollute and I want to expand a bit on that. The polluters who use the environment can infringe on the public’s use of the environment. If a lake is polluted because of the actions of industry, the public cannot fish or swim, but the public has no right to use the courts to correct that public wrong. We have to prove that a private wrong has been done. We have to prove that our person or our property has been damaged by that pollution before we can go to court and try to claim damages or try to claim that the pollution ought not to be allowed to continue.

That whole issue of standing, and the standing of the public before the courts of this province, is one of the most crucial elements of the bill. I was in Toledo recently for meetings of the International Joint Commission and heard a representative of the United States, when a citizen asked him about how compliance could be enforced with the regulations, say, “Sue me.” As a citizen of Ontario, I do not have the right to do that. Even if my industry is damaged, even if I am a resort owner and a lake has been contaminated, even if my backyard has been damaged by lead from a lead plant in the neighbourhood, I have to prove a very direct effect upon myself or my property before I have the right to go to court. As we are becoming more conscious of the effects of environmental degradation on human health, the cause and effect is ever more difficult to assess, but the importance of citizens having the right to go to court to protect themselves is ever more important.

Those who say that this right, which now exists in Quebec, in the state of Michigan, in Minnesota, is going to lead to a plethora of lawsuits are quite wrong. In fact, the history in those states is that the courts have not been clogged by frivolous or unnecessary suits. In fact, the safety valves of the reluctance of people to go to court, of the cost of going to court, of the effort of going to court, prevent anybody from doing so frivolously.

The tool that I mentioned at the beginning that allows people to make active use of the rights this bill would give them is, of course, the tool of intervener funding. That, too, has been a commitment by this government, a commitment that it has been called to account for in this House during question period, a commitment that has been partially fulfilled in an ad hoc way.

What my bill does is establish a process by which a group, before it embarks on an environmental assessment hearing, before it decides what studies it wants to do or needs to do, knows for sure that there is going to be intervener funding, how much that intervener funding will be, and by what criteria that intervener funding will be disbursed. That is a very essential element in giving citizens the right to protect their own environment.

I hope that if this bill passes today, there will be time in the committee hearings to hear from the public, to hear from the people who have suffered because of the lack of statutory environmental rights in this province. I think the issue is too serious to be compromised or for the elements of this bill to be attempted to be met by half measures or by qualifications.

The whole question of what is happening to our environment is too serious for the tools to protect the environment to remain fragmented among a number of pieces of legislation. What the bill of rights does is bring all of the elements of the environmental activity together under one piece of legislation and spell out very clearly the processes and the rights to be followed.

I hope that we soon have in this province a bill of rights that is enforceable, not the kind of preface to environmental protection amendments that the federal government is calling a bill of rights, and I want to make a clear distinction between the two.

I want to say in closing that I and the environmental groups were very heartened to find, in the questionnaire that was circulated before the election, that 89 per cent of the people who were elected to this House on September 10 supported the bill of rights in principle.

Today is our opportunity to vote for what we said we supported and I look forward to support from all sides of the House.

Mrs. Marland: In rising today to support this bill, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario, I would first like to congratulate the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) in her presence in bringing forth this very much needed bill. Certainly, this particular bill has quite a history. We certainly are aware of the fact that a similar bill was first introduced by the Leader of the Opposition in 1979, Dr. Smith, as Bill 185. Now that we are on to the third reincarnation, let us hope that this time we will really have a birth.

1020

I would also like to mention that there is a tremendously strong concern within the Progressive Conservative caucus about where we are going with questions relating to the environment, and as the government that established the Ministry of the Environment in the early 1970s, there obviously has always been a recognition of the concern and planning for the preservation of what we have.

I would urge that the government and the government caucus members who are present here support this bill, as they did earlier in the year. I hope that in supporting it they will encourage the Minister of the Environment to continue with the select committee on the environment in order that this bill could be referred to that committee.

The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and I sat as members of that select committee on the environment this year, and we both recognize very clearly that we were only just beginning the process of the work of the select committee on the environment. We in fact discussed at our organizational meeting about five areas that we wanted to discuss within the purview of that committee. We got only as far as the Countdown Acid Rain program, and that in itself turned out to be somewhat depressing in the beginning but encouraging at the end, because it was through the review of the Countdown Acid Rain program on the select committee on the environment that we did indeed discover the tremendous loophole of the banking provision for emissions by Ontario Hydro.

So obviously the work of the select committee on the environment is very important and has only just begun. We have not yet heard an announcement that that committee is going to be re-established to continue with the next project, which we had already identified, which was the pollution of the Great Lakes, in particular Lake Ontario and its input from the Niagara River.

I think in establishing the government as a trustee of public lands, which is one objective of the bill, we have to be sure that the government can act in the best public interest in preserving the ecological and environmentally special areas. We are certainly going to see whether that is possible by the current government when we see what its decision will be on whether or not it will allow the use of the Rouge Valley lands for housing. In referring to the Rouge Valley lands I want to emphasize that our Progressive Conservative caucus does support the use of government lands for housing, but we certainly do not support the use of environmentally sensitive areas. While we have 3,000-plus acres other than the Rouge Valley lands in the immediate area of Metro Toronto, we do not see that the use of the Rouge Valley lands is in fact necessary, and we certainly do not want to end up with a legacy for our grandchildren and great grandchildren where we have nothing but asphalt from Kingston to Hamilton because we have not planned to preserve the environmentally sensitive areas.

In supporting the initiative of intervener funding I think it is important to say that this is one component of this proposed environmental bill of rights which is very important. It is important, of course, to recognize the power and the money behind the industrial initiatives and the need for funding for individuals to compete in this process. As an example, I would like to tell members that we have this ongoing hearing at the moment for a project in southeast Brampton. The hearing started there. It has now been moved into the Mississauga civic centre.

That hearing is about the proposed energy-from-waste plans by Petro-Sun. The group of citizens who are in opposition to that proposal has been granted $30,000. Now, I am not suggesting that we were not grateful for the $30,000, but I would respectfully suggest that $30,000 does not come anywhere close to the money that is being invested both by the region of Peel and by the industrial proponents of the Petro-Sun proposal. So I think that when we are talking about intervener funding, we have to make sure that what is allowed and allocated to those groups is realistic. I would suggest that if it is going to be realistic, it has to be somewhat fair in comparison to the amount that the industry has behind it.

The Environmental Assessment Act is obviously now at the point where we need a new act. We have situations where municipalities are applying to be exempt from the public process, to have landfill sites licensed without going through the whole process. We have had something in excess of 65 exemptions granted by the cabinet since 1985, and we now have class assessments that help get through the process faster. The point I am making is that in drafting legislation we must be sure it is workable. Otherwise, our environment and the right of the individual to a clean environment will be much looser, it will not be as secure, and certainly we would wonder if there will be any beneficiaries. The fact that the Environmental Assessment Act does not apply to private sector initiatives is something that is important.

With the environmental assessment hearing that is going on for the Petro-Sun energy-from-waste plant in Brampton, ensuring that the public can participate does not in itself necessarily ensure that the public is protected. The concern we have is that this particular hearing is going on and the ministry will be reviewing this submission in the absence of the updated air pollution standards, standards that do not even include dioxin. I have mentioned this a few times in this Legislature in my questions to the Minister of the Environment.

It is beyond me how the decision on this Petro-Sun plan could be made before any new air pollution guidelines are in place. Before the public can completely comment on whether the decision is a good one or not, environmentally speaking, the point is that a bill of rights such as the one that is before us this morning must go hand in hand with other legislation to be effective.

On the matter of the air pollution guidelines, I cannot miss the opportunity to say that the members of this House were expecting the standards to be put in place by the current minister when his announcement was made. We certainly were not expecting another study and another green paper or the phase-in period. There again, we were expecting that if that is what his announcement was going to be, well, then we would at least have those new air emission standards in place to deal as a benchmark and a measurement against which to evaluate the Petro-Sun proposal, which in itself is very significant not only to Mississauga but to this part of southern Ontario.

I think a good example of how other legislation must keep pace with the environmental rights bill is the fact that the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program is inadequate. There are some 11,000 polluters that are still emptying contaminated effluent into sewage systems that are not covered by MISA.

In closing, I would just say that presently only those who can show direct personal harm or injury can sue on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment. This bill will allow actions that have the interests of future generations at heart. Much of what we are doing today we cannot even measure the effect of, but our grandchildren most assuredly will. They will see the effects and will have to live with our mistakes. I hope our grandchildren and great grandchildren will live with our protection for their future environmentally.

Ms. Hart: At the outset I would like to indicate my support for Bill 13 in principle and my agreement with its underlying goals. Control of pollution and a greater role for the public in protecting the environment are top priorities for me and for this government

1030

As has been mentioned. Liberals have sup ported environmental rights legislation ever since Stuart Smith introduced the original version of this bill in 1979, and we still support it. However, we wish to ensure that Ontario ends up with the best environmental protection legislation possible.

Bill 13 is a great stride forward, but even it could be improved. First of all, section 2 gives the people of Ontario the right to clean air, pure water and the preservation of the environment. I agree in principle that every citizen of this province and every future citizen of this province has the right to a clean environment.

But in order for an environmental bill of rights to work, it must be a piece of clear, enforceable legislation. Section 2 raises a number of important questions that need to be examined. For example, the definition of “environment” used in Bill 13 is broader than that of the Environmental Protection Act, which refers only to the natural environment. Bill 13 includes the social, economic and cultural environment. Its jurisdiction is likely, therefore, to overlap with that of other ministries.

How would proponents of this bill deal with its impact on other jurisdictions? How would they legally define the concepts of “clean” and “pure”? What would be the relationship of the right to a clean environment and the existing common-law rights of all citizens? How can the right to a clean environment be applied to specific standards and duties outlined in current and future environmental legislation? Are there limitations to the right to a clean environment? If so, under what conditions? Substantial litigation may be needed to clarify the extent of this right unless these questions are clearly addressed.

A related issue is that of standing. Standing refers to the right of a party to pursue remedies in the courts and to appear before administrative tribunals. At present, members of the public can have standing to prosecute under Ministry of the Environment statutes. The ministry has always supported private prosecution. There is a statement to this effect in our abatement policy. A private prosecutor who obtains a conviction can, under Bill 112, obtain an order from the court to prevent recurrence of an offence or to rectify harm. This provision was used recently to prevent a St. Catharines company from continuing its outdoor sand-blasting operations.

Under current law, however, parties who wish standing in Ontario’s courts must be able to show direct injury to themselves or to their property. Bill 13 would extend this to give all citizens the right to bring legal action against an activity which harms the environment, regardless of whether or not they themselves are directly affected.

In such an action the court has broad power to grant injunctions on environmental matters, impose conditions or effect standards where there are none. The provisions for standing, therefore, are likely to be controversial, and extensive litigation may be needed to determine the relationship to other statutes.

The practical issues of introducing both the right to a clean environment and the right to standing need to be addressed before Ontario can have a strong and workable environmental bill of rights. I therefore encourage members to refer these questions to a committee of the legislature for more detailed work before this bill proceeds further.

Bill 13, then, lacks detail on two important issues. It also provides provisions which could be more effectively addressed in statutes of general provincial application. Questions raised in the issue of standing, for example, are also important in the context of civil liberties, consumer protection and human rights. Committee examination of these issues can only serve to strengthen this bill.

In addition, section 16 contains measures authorizing public interest funding. Such funding, according to the bill, would be provided from an environmental hearing assistance fund to participants appearing before any board, tribunal, commission or court or any appeal or review thereof.

The throne speech of April 22, 1986, committed this government to ensuring that groups and individuals seeking to intervene in the public interest before administrative tribunals will be assisted. The Ministry of the Attorney General is developing a progressive policy on intervener funding. The Ministry of the Environment fully supports this undertaking. Furthermore, the ministry has shown this support by making funds available in the interim to public groups participating in environmental hearings.

Major funding will also be provided to citizens’ groups planning to appear at the Ontario Waste Management Corp.’s hearing before the Environmental Assessment Act. Intervener funding has already been given out for the hearings on the 3M Canada energy-from-waste facility in London, the Consumers’ Gas liquid-natural-gas storage proposal in Cobourg, Highway 416 in Ottawa and the Halton regional landfill. The government has made available up to $300,000 to support public participation in the Ministry of Natural Resources class timber management environmental assessment.

This policy of funding citizens’ participation in environmental hearings results in better, more democratic decision-making and will be actively continued on an ad hoc basis until the legislative proposal developed by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is approved by this Legislature.

Sections 12 to 14 of the bill attempt to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the issuing of licences, approvals and orders and an opportunity to review and comment on existing environmental legislation. The government supports the concept of greater public participation in environmental decision-making. The Ministry of the Environment is currently working out the implementation details of a comprehensive policy for public consultation. This policy will be made public in the spring.

In the interim, though, the ministry has implemented the principle of public participation in a number of ways: the Recycling Advisory Committee and the municipal industrial strategy for abatement advisory committee. The ministry encourages the creation of public advisory committees to ensure public awareness and involvement in several programs, including municipal waste-management master plans. Last year the public was invited to respond to the MISA white paper. More than 100 public interest groups, municipalities, industry associations and individuals participated in this review period.

The ministry is currently inviting comments on the new proposed changes to the air pollution regulation 308. In addition, the ministry has ensured that several important undertakings are now subject to public hearings. Any proposed energy-from-waste incinerator with a capacity of over 100 tons a day is now subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. In September 1985 it announced that mobile polychlorinated biphenyl destruction facilities would be subject to full hearings. In light of this track record and in light of the comprehensive intervener funding proposal now under development, section 16 of this bill, which provides for intervener funding, will become redundant.

In conclusion, I reiterate that I support this bill in principle. I believe it should be strengthened and improved and would benefit from referral to a committee for public review, as the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has indicated.

Several of the means for public involvement proposed in Bill 13 are already offered or are being developed by the Ministry of the Environment or other ministries. The sections on the right to a clean environment and on standing need further work, with more consideration given to the details of implementing these provisions.

I am confident that I reflect the view of many of the other members in commending the dedication and ability of the opposition critic on the environment the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, not only in this matter but in all matters environmental. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the other members who have been involved in this initiative right from the beginning. An environmental bill of rights is a very important initiative of this body, and I urge all the members of this Legislature to support it.

Mr. Charlton: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of Bill 13. My colleague from Etobicoke-Lakeshore has worked very closely with me on this project over the last couple of years, and I did some work on it myself during my time as Environment critic.

I would like to start my comments by thanking the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) for her support and the member for York East (Ms. Hart) for her support as well. The member for Mississauga South mentioned, as have all of the speakers so far, all of the reincarnations that this bill has been through, and the member for Mississauga South made the comment that perhaps this time we would have a birth. Let us honestly hope that it is a live birth. I think that reflects my feeling not only about the importance of this bill but also about the importance of the environment as paramount above all other things.

1040

The member for York East, for example, expressed some concern about the broad definition of the environment that is used in this bill. I would like to assure her that that was not a mistake and not an oversight, but a very intentional move on our part and on the part of the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston) when he introduced this bill some years ago.

She expressed a concern about the broad definition overlapping with other jurisdictions, and again I want to assure her that that is exactly the intention of the broader definition. What we have in the present structure, with a much narrower definition of the environment, is that other ministries in competition with the Ministry of the Environment are able in a number of ways to get around maximizing environmental protection in Ontario. What this piece of legislation and the broad definition are in fact saying is that that is no longer acceptable; the protection of the environment has to be paramount above all else, both for present generations and for future generations. We all like to talk about present generations and future generations, but we have to start to understand the implications of what is going on in the area of environmental degradation and the struggle for environmental protection.

The member for York East also raised concerns about the question of standing and how that question of standing would impact, for example, on environmental legislation which set new environmental standards for a particular substance, range of substances or whatever the case happened to be. I think she hit the point right on the head at the same time as she missed it. The point is that, again, the question of standing has to be broad so that, in effect, the citizens of this province have the right to challenge even standards that are legislated by this Legislature or imposed by the Ministry of the Environment if the public does not feel those standards are acceptable.

In order to understand the need for that right, we in this House have to start understanding the environment and the environmental approvals process that goes on. We have scientists and bureaucrats making decisions about what is acceptable and what is safe. I want to emphasize the word “safe” as I talk to this matter. Scientists study substances and they come to the conclusion from the scientific evidence they are able to glean from studying a substance that this substance is not particularly toxic and will kill only one in a million people. They present that scientific evidence to the bureaucrats and the bureaucrats make a decision, “One in a million is not bad: that is acceptably safe,” and the substance is allowed to be used in our society.

When the public raises concerns about that substance being used in its community, in the industry in which they work, or when it perhaps turns up in their water, it is not told that that substance is going to kill one or two people in Metro Toronto or that it is going to kill 26 people of the present generation across Canada. They are told it is safe because the bureaucrats decided it was acceptably safe. The response we get in the Legislature here, the response that is put out publicly is: the amount of the substance present in the environment meets the guidelines, meets the standard, whatever the case happens to be, and it is therefore safe. They are not told that it is safe for most of the people but not for all of them. The public has to have the right to challenge those decisions about what is acceptably safe. The public has to have the same right to say that killing 26 Canadians with this particular substance is no different from the abhorrence we feel when there is a train wreck that kills 26 people and negligence is found to be the cause. Somebody’s head rolls in that case, but when we kill one in a million or 26 people across the country by things we do in the environment, we do not even know whom to blame in most cases. We have to start changing that attitude towards the way we approach what is acceptable to use in the environment in this country.

The question of intervener funding is a useful question that we have to discuss. It is heartening to hear, finally, all three parties supporting the concept of intervener funding. It was a long time coming. The ad hoc approach the government has taken to providing intervener funding over the course of the last several years is useful, but I want to say to the member for York East that we were told almost two years ago, when we were in the select committee on energy, that the government was very close to coming forward with legislation on intervener funding, criteria for intervener funding. Almost two years later we are still waiting. We have to proceed to deal with those questions until we see that legislation; and we will deal with them in this bill, we will deal with that question of intervener funding in other private bills that come into this House until such time as we have that legislation in place.

The ad hoc approach is useful, but it is simply not what we need, because it is not there with a set of criteria so that groups can know in advance what to expect. We had a consolidated hearing board hearing in Hamilton over the Redhill Creek expressway. It was a lengthy hearing, a very costly hearing, and the citizens’ group ultimately did get intervener funding. However, their research and their case presentation were limited by not knowing they were going to get that funding and not knowing how much it would be. Again, their case against very powerful opponents was a lesser case than it should have been or could have been if they had known up front what it was they had to deal with in intervener funding, what criteria they had to meet to gain that intervener funding and how much that intervener funding would be.

There is also the question of access to information. The government has repeatedly said, “We are proceeding and are putting in place freedom-of-information legislation”; but if you look at that legislation, although it is useful in a global, general sense, it is not very specific and tight. Again, in the case of the environment, as I suggested earlier, the environment has to be paramount, above all else. People have to have access, in the case of the environment, to every stitch of information available; they have the right to know fully what is going on around them. As my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore said, they are the risk takers. They have to have an absolute right to all information where the environment is concerned with no exception and no exemption, as is provided in our freedom-of-information legislation.

I encourage all members to support this piece of legislation. We will be happy to have full hearings.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I, too, intend to support this legislation, but I do have some very serious concerns about it. Most of them pertain to the agricultural sector, which I happen to represent. Environment is only earth, air and water, and those are three very important components for life. However, I wonder if we have a conflict sometimes between environment and agriculture. We have the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) talking about bringing in right-to-farm legislation, and then we have this Bill 13 which in many ways will supersede or certainly conflict with the bill of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

1050

I refer the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore to subsection 2(1): “The people of Ontario have a right to clean air.” Certainly no one would disagree with that, but how does that affect the farming community? People move into the farming community and they have a home adjacent to a field. The farmer spreads manure. They then have a problem with the smell there. Is that a conflict between the ministries of Agriculture and Environment?

Would this legislation mean that someone would have the right to take that farmer to court? Whether the judge threw it out or not, the farmer would still be subject to defending his actions, hiring a lawyer, taking time off and going to court. I just wonder if we are drafting legislation that could impact on our farming community and not really realizing what we are doing. I give members a word of caution: it is a very serious concern to the people out in the farming community.

Since I have only a few minutes left, I would like to take some time to concentrate on two very serious problems in our environment. Those are the proposed industrial liquid waste plant, and simple municipal garbage and how to dispose of it. Both of them are extremely urgent environmental problems, and yet they seem to be on the back burner.

Dr. Chant just released his latest report on the Ontario Waste Management Corp., which was established in 1981. He has been working for several years, and I am not too sure how far advanced he is at this point in time. I am not arguing, nor do I have the time even to get into it in any depth, but I do feel that this Legislature, this government and the Ministry of the Environment have the responsibility to make certain that we establish an industrial waste disposal system in the immediate term, not in another four, five or 10 years from now.

Every year millions of gallons of industrial liquid waste are going someplace. Some of it is being stored; some is being sent to a couple of areas -- l think we have one in Sarnia that looks after it -- and some is even being exported out of the country, but thousands of gallons disappear. I would think many of these gallons end up going into our rivers and lakes and into the soil that we are so interested in protecting. So I say to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and the Minister of the Environment that we all have a responsibility to assist Dr. Chant in establishing a facility. I am not saying it has to be in the location he has chosen, but we do have a responsibility to make certain that we can adequately and safely control our disposal of industrial liquid waste.

The last point I would like to mention also deals with waste, and that is municipal waste, garbage. Quite simply, we are not doing enough to solve this problem. The minister announced in the House last week that he was putting more money into the recycling program. Recycling certainly is a beneficial means to help solve the problem, but at the very best it will achieve 15 per cent to 25 per cent, and we still have to deal with the other 75 per cent to 85 per cent. We have two choices: we can either burn it or bury it, and neither one is totally satisfactory.

In my opinion, the day has come when the farming community no longer wants to see dumps, so-called landfill sites, in the area. We have had enough of it. We will not allow it to go into aggregate deposits. We cannot put it into rock soil. It has to be fairly decent land. Therefore, we take agricultural land out of production.

It makes sense that we should be looking at energy-from-waste facilities that are environmentally safe. Surely to heavens, if we can send a man to the moon, we can develop an environmentally safe energy-from-waste facility. I have encouraged the minister to take this approach for many years. It is something we have to look at.

Apparently, the minister has concurred that the two facilities in London, one adjacent to Victoria Hospital and one in the 3M plants, are quite safe. Both were passed by the minister as being environmentally safe, and he maintains they do have a safe reputation and are adequate for the purpose.

I am simply saying that if we could concentrate our resources on designing and developing an energy-from-waste facility that is safe, then that is the direction we should be going, because the farming community is getting tired of paying the price for this inaction of the government and being forced to accept another landfill site to satisfy the garbage disposal problems of our cities, and this includes the lakeshore area of this city. It is time the people in the cities realize that rural Ontario is not a garbage disposal area for the rest of the province.

I would encourage this House to encourage the minister to take a lead in developing energy-from-waste facilities that are safe and satisfactory.

Mrs. Grier: I would like to thank the members for their thoughtful contributions to this debate and for the support they have indicated for the bill. I think we have laid a good foundation for a much more detailed discussion in committee of some of the concerns that have been raised.

I want to say to the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) that farmers are people and environmentalists too. They share the same concern of many people in the cities about what we are doing to our environment. I think his emphasis on the problems of the disposal of municipal waste is a classic case of where the kinds of rights and principles enshrined in my bill would be of great advantage to the agricultural community when waste facilities are suggested for their backyards. I really question whether his colleague the member for Mississauga South is as enthusiastic as he is for an energy-from-waste facility if it is going to be in Brampton, but I guess those are problems we all have within our respective caucuses.

I would like to thank the member for Mississauga South for her reminder that the select committee on the environment was a very useful committee of this Legislature, and I share her hope that it certainly can be convened and allowed to get on with the other tasks that it had identified.

The member for York East, I think, makes some very valid points about the need for clarification of the definition and the definitions of standing within the legislation, and that, of course, is precisely what I hope would occur when we get to committee and have an opportunity to dissect and discuss the bill in detail.

She mentioned that the Ministry of the Attorney General was developing a progressive policy for intervener funding and that that particular section of my bill would be redundant. The member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), I think, adequately dealt with the long delay in that progressive policy being produced. I hope that the member for York East will add her voice to ours in persuading the Attorney General that perhaps the principles of intervener funding which he himself espoused when he was counsel to the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry would be very adequately translated to Ontario and could form the basis for his thoughtful and progressive policy, which no longer needs to be delayed at all.

With respect to the comment that many of the elements of this bill already exist in other pieces of legislation, I acknowledge that that is the case, but one of the points I want to make is that if citizens are truly to participate, or if laypeople and not lawyers are to participate in protecting the environment and if they are to play their role in the various commissions and hearings that are established, then the most basic tool they need is to find in one place, in one piece of legislation, all the rights and privileges to which they are entitled in this province. The very fact of fragmentation across a number of pieces of legislation inhibits people’s full participation in what people in this province want to do, which is to establish for themselves that they are entitled to the clean air and clean water we all hope they will one day have and that an environmental bill of rights would entitle them to. I look forward to the debate in committee.

1100

SUPERMAILBOXES

Mr. Cousens moved resolution 8:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the government of Canada’s supermailbox program has created second-class citizens of many Ontario urban dwellers, this Legislature strongly urges the government of Canada to direct the Canada Post Corp. to: (1) immediately abandon its supermailbox program; (2) halt all projected installations of supermailboxes; (3) remove all supermailboxes at existing sites and to relandscape the area they occupied; (4) restore home delivery to all affected residences; and that this resolution be forwarded to the Parliament of Canada.

Mr. Cousens: Post office bashing is becoming Canada’s national pastime and, indeed, what we are talking about today is part of that whole debate and discussion.

As the MPP for Markham, I strongly support many of the federal initiatives that are going on from Ottawa. I am a strong supporter of the free trade discussions; a strong supporter of the deficit reduction of the federal government. I believe what it has done in child care initiatives in this last couple of weeks is also very progressive.

However, when I disagree with federal government initiatives, I am prepared to stand up and at least make my voice known. Among those things is the Meech Lake accord, about which I have strongly presented my views in this House. I am concerned that Toronto was not selected as one of the financial centres of this country and I am also very concerned with the direction of the post office.

I did not envy Mr. Mulroney when he took office. He went to an office after Pierre Elliott Trudeau had been there a few years and had left the place in a shambles. That is unlike the Premier (Mr. Peterson), in that when he came to office, the kitchen cupboards were full and he has not had anything like the problems the federal Conservatives have had by comparison.

We have to put a few facts on the table before we start dealing with this issue. I understand that this is not a provincial issue and the motion is very carefully worded so that it respects the federal jurisdiction. Yet during the recent election campaign very many of my constituents were interested in knowing my position. Inasmuch as I strongly concurred with the feelings that they had, though I am not able to do more than I am doing this morning it at least expresses the large, broadly felt feelings of the people from my riding.

Also, in context, I would like to table the concerns I have that the federal government has to reduce costs, government spending. These are honourable intentions, and I would like to see all governments continue to try to have a balanced budget. We all must do what we can in order to achieve that goal. The aim of the federal government to reduce costs is indeed an honour able one.

None the less, there are many problems with the supermailbox. The supermailbox is one of a number of different methods used to distribute mail in this country. Door-to-door service represents 55 per cent of what the Canada Post Corp. does; centralized points represents 13 per cent, group mailboxes or supermailboxes represent six per cent as a national average, rural route services represent seven per cent and general delivery four per cent.

I know that other jurisdictions, France, Sweden and United States, are finding that door-to-door delivery is not a service that can be widely extended, especially in a cost-effective and affordable manner. Other jurisdictions are looking for ways of reducing those costs.

The town of Markham has all types of the services that are offered by the federal government, but instead of the six per cent national average of those who receive supermailbox or group mailbox services, close to 25 per cent of the residents of Markham receive service through the supermailbox. In other words, 15,000 households have supermailbox availability. South York region is increasingly served by this kind of delivery.

I must go on record, along with the communities I represent, as saying that we are outraged by this form of delivery. We have in the members’ gallery a few leading citizens, representatives of my community, who have formed a group known as RAM, Residents Against Mailboxes. Mrs. Anne Derrett from Markham and Andre Foucault and his wife, also of Markham, have been very diligent in trying to draw the community together on this issue.

They have had a door-to-door canvass, they have raised money locally, they have met with all levels of government and, indeed, they are concerned that they and we are being being treated as second-class citizens when we do not have home delivery. I am pleased they are here and I am pleased they are able to have the freedom to speak their minds on this issue.

The outrage extends into some 40 different communities across this country, communities that have taken a position opposing supermailboxes. Included in those groups is the town of Markham, my own community, as well as the region of York, both of which are on record as saying they are concerned and they do not like it. The outrage can continue if this House can endorse this motion today.

Why oppose the supermailbox program? I have five reasons why I would like to have this House consider the motion extremely valid, and there are possibly other speakers who can enlighten us with some of their views as well and open it up.

The first reason has to do with the disabled. Disabled people will find the supermailbox virtually inaccessible in bad weather. It is bad enough in good weather because the platform is raised up, there is no easement for wheelchairs and the box is difficult to reach. When snow and ice and other problems get in the way, I know the federal government through the post office will try to keep the boxes cleaned up, but still they are very difficult for the disabled to reach.

Second are the elderly who rely on their mail. There will be stormy days and many times when they are not able to go out and get their mail when the rest of the neighbourhood is able to do so. The elderly certainly have to be considered with the group of people who are receiving this service.

Third is the safety of children. I do not think people have done enough to think about the problem that exists with the location of a supermailbox in a neighbourhood. There is a peak time when people coming home from work will stop to pick up their mail. They will criss-cross the road, drive across to the opposite side to make a quick run to the post box to get their mail. The location of the supermailbox is inviting bad driving habits. It is just a matter of time before there could be an accident, and we do not want that.

We do not even want to think of the possibility, but by virtue of the way these units are located and the way people are going at them, when there is a deluge of maybe 20 cars at one time, all coming to the same place, the drivers running to get their mail, the cars going in different directions, crossing the road, the hazard to children, to people in the community, to bicycle riders, especially in neighbourhoods where there are often not sidewalks, creates a hazard that has to be addressed.

My fourth point is my concern with litter. I am thinking of my very good friend the member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara). He is the most diligent of MPPs in distributing his mail and keeping in touch with his community. I can just see the people going to the supermailbox and getting some of this political junk mail and just throwing it away. The problem we have then is that litter from junk mail becomes one way of getting your mail in our communities. It blows to the door because someone did not bother to take it home along with the rest of the mail.

The whole problem is that people get some of this mail, not only from the member for York Centre but also from the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini). I am sure that his constituents, if they have any supermailboxes, will do the same thing. When they get it, they just toss it away. There is so much mail that comes to people’s homes or to these boxes that people do not necessarily want, and they are so used to just I tossing it away.

When it is in their homes, it ends up in a basket or in the garbage, but in my community and in others where there are supermailboxes, this rubbish, this overload that we receive, ends up blowing around the neighbourhood. That is becoming a constant concern. Who picks it up? It is the person on whose property the mailbox may exist, or it may well be someone else when it has blown several hundred yards away.

1110

My fifth point is that property values are decreasing. An illustration I can make on that is that the Ontario Municipal Board on June 30 had an assessment appeal by Mr. McWhirter in Pickering. He was challenging the assessment on his property and the taxes he was paying. He successfully argued his case that the supermailbox on his property was decreasing the value of his property and his assessment should be accordingly decreased. The Ontario Municipal Board reduced the market value of his home by $2,000 and he had an according reduction on his property taxes.

There are other instances of this across the country, in Winnipeg, and I suspect there could be a deluge of other people applying for a review of their assessment because having a supermailbox on their property is not so super.

When we start thinking of value and property, ads in our own local paper, the Markham Economist and Sun, now will carry in the description of a home -- l have one instance where it adds the pluses one would have in buying a house in that location and adds this point, “and home delivery,” as something that is included. Those of us who have home delivery take it for granted. Those who do not and want to buy a new place are saying, “Would that not be nice to have?” It is more than nice to have; they are willing to pay for it. Therefore, when they come out and look at the value of property, it becomes an issue.

These are five of a number of points. The disabled will suffer and are suffering and the elderly lose out. I am concerned about the safety of our children. I am concerned about the litter in our communities and our neighbourhoods because of the refuse that people just throw in a way that they should not when they pick up something they wish they had not been mailed and, finally, the property values themselves in these communities are impacted negatively.

What recommendations can one make? A sincere attempt is being made through this motion to ask this Legislature to look very seriously at the problems these urban dwellers have by not receiving home delivery while their neighbours do. Even within half a block or a few hundred yards of where there is home delivery, those who had a new house built in the last several years will not receive delivery. Rather than treat them as second-class citizens who are not able to receive the equivalent kind of service that others in the same community receive, through this motion we can make a strong statement to the federal government and the Canada Post Corp. to do something about it.

The simple thing they could do is abandon the program. How they do it and what they do if they have to change the level of service and if they have to continue their cost reducing -- and I would endorse the federal government trying to keep up the whole attempt it has tried in the past several years to bring costs under control for this country. We all know the worst thing that can happen is for a country like ours to continue to spend, especially at the government level. It increases inflation and has many negative impacts on what we are all about. In the meantime, there is going to have to be something done about the supermailbox, and whatever the federal government can do to make up for the cost differential, that in itself should be considered.

I have one other recommendation I would like to make. I would like to reserve a few minutes after other members have had an opportunity to speak. What would be the chance of the federal government establishing a review board? I think Harvie Andre, the minister, has alluded to this before, but I think there is great merit. If we were to have at the federal government level something like the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission which reviews broadcasting policy for the country -- if a citizen of this country has any concern about a broadcast, any CBC or public agency or private agency that is in the broadcasting business can appeal to the CRTC and have a fair, honest, unbiased hearing.

Could not a similar kind of review board be established for the post office? This kind of post office would act in a way similar to the CRTC, the Ontario Municipal Board or the Ontario Energy Board where people could take their concerns, have them heard, have them understood, in a politics-free, unbiased, review agency environment.

I believe this could be an excellent way of cleaning up the whole range of misunderstanding that exists in the minds and hearts of so many Canadians. We are spending so much time bashing the post office when we could be doing so much more to build housing, to improve the economy and to clean up the environment. These are the issues that we as Canadians should be discussing and working on, but instead we continue to be fraught with a heap of concerns that centre around the Canada Post Corp.

I would be pleased to see this House endorse this motion. I would be pleased, as well, if the federal government could look not only at removing the supermailbox as a method of delivering mail but also at a way of allowing people like me, people like those from RAM and others in the community, to have some way in which they can be heard and listened to. I feel now that such a review agency as I have suggested could begin to allow that process to work, so that the citizens of Canada with a concern will know that they are going to be listened to.

I think there is much that can be done. I believe the strength is there within this country to have a post office that works. I know we are fortunate in this building to have the best little post office around and I know we are fortunate in so many of our communities that there are dedicated people in the post off ice. I am not here to bash the people who make the system work the way it is. I am here to seek change in a positive way, so that service for the people of our community in Markham, where so many are affected negatively, can be improved upon as can service for the other communities that have a similar concern.

Mrs. Stoner: I would first like to congratulate the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) on putting forward this resolution. I think it is most appropriate. This matter has caused a great deal of difficulty in the growing communities of Ontario and, in fact, all across Canada. What the Canada Post Corp. has done in implementing this supermailbox scheme is to create a discriminatory system wherein communities in new residential areas in urban municipalities are treated as second-class citizens.

This becomes really obvious, and it was certainly obvious to me during the election campaign. One end of the street which had been established for a few years would receive residential mail; then in the middle of a block that service would stop and the rest of the street was discriminated against. In some areas they would have an infill situation, with an existing urban community and a little pocket right in the middle that was not allowed home delivery. Everybody else in the whole community surrounding them was given that service.

The property situation in those kinds of instances has in fact been alluded to by the member for Markham. We are seeing a proved reduction in property value. In the properties where those boxes are situated, they are actually seeing a reduction in their market value assessment. There have been two cases in the town of Pickering where they have had $3,000 reductions in their assessment.

It has created an eyesore. The physical size of these boxes is about six feet high and about 10 feet long. They are a real eyesore, particularly to someone who has just bought a new home and who is doing absolutely everything he can to improve the property and to be an asset to his community. They are surrounded with letters. There are not even waste-baskets provided by the post office to collect the junk mail they insist on delivering to all of us. Those communities are considered, as pointed out in the real estate ads, to be underserviced, and therefore different and less happy places to exist in than some of the other older communities.

But the real discrimination and the discrimination that causes me the most problems is to the individuals who are not served by the home service, such as the elderly in our community, who find it very difficult to get out on occasion to those boxes and who, when they do get to the boxes, find they cannot get at them because they are piled high with snow, ice and slush.

The boxes are right on the edges of the road, and the ploughs come along and heap great piles of snow and refuse adjacent to them and people cannot get at them. The elderly find that difficult; the disabled find it impossible. The disabled in our communities cannot even get near the boxes and even if they can, in a wheelchair for instance, get close to the box, they cannot reach the mail itself in the little cubicles that the letters are in.

1120

The safety factor that this has created has been very obvious to me. I live in a rural village and we pick up our mail at the general store. That is what is called the joys of country living and frankly it is something I enjoy about living in Greenwood. However I see just south of me on Westney Road in Ajax a situation that really frightens me.

What happens is that when people are coming home from work in the evening it is generally after dark because we are somewhat of a dormitory community. People have at least an hour a day added on to their workday in travel time in the evening, so they are getting back after dark. In many cases, they are picking up their youngsters from their day care situations or wherever they have been after school. They come to their supermailbox and stop their cars, in the dark, in an ill-lit situation in many cases. Those youngsters are then let out of the car to run across the road to pick up the mail from the box. You have the same situation at the same box for a whole lot of other people coming in, a lot of vehicular motion.

People are angry about those boxes, and because they are angry they tend to respond in ways they probably should not. I have seen over and over again people driving northbound, pulling over into the southbound lane, because that is where the boxes are, parking facing the wrong direction on that roadside, getting out to get their mail, then getting in and pulling back across the southbound traffic lanes. It is crazy but they are doing it. They are doing it because they are upset with their treatment by the federal government, with the fact they are having to use these boxes. In taking those actions, they are responsible for their fate and those they endanger, but you have to look at the core and the root of the problem, and the root of the problem is the discriminatory action of the federal government in this.

Snow removal and maintenance is causing the municipalities a great deal of difficulty. They are responsible for removing the snow from the roads and do so to the best of their ability. In doing so, they are adding the snow to the sites of these mailboxes. Those of them not cleaned or maintained as much as they should be then become a problem in themselves.

I agree with what the federal government is trying to do in cutting the costs of the post office and postal services. I have real problems, though, when I compare what is happening in Canada to what is happening in Britain. In Britain, they have a 36-cent or 37-cent stamp and twice-a-day delivery. They made a profit last year of $360 million. I do not particularly want Canada Post to make a profit, but I do think it could balance its levels of service in such a way that instead of its $129-million deficit in 1986 it could break even.

Our stamps are 36 cents. I would not mind paying 37 cents. What they could look at, but have not dealt with, is the possibility that in delivering service to all urban area householders, to homes in urban communities, all of them, they could deliver on a four-day week as opposed to a five-day week. By slowing the service a little bit, from five days to four days, they could deliver to everybody.

Frankly, it would not bother me one bit if my Bell Canada bill or my Department of National Revenue bill did not arrive for another day or two. It would not be a big problem and l do not think it really would be for anybody else. I would accept that as a fair level of service, a level of service that then did not discriminate against my neighbours.

I hope that the members of this Legislature will support the resolution of the member for Markham and assist me and my community, and those in the other communities of Vancouver, Calgary, Nepean, Winnipeg, Mississauga, Whitby, Montreal and Brampton as well as those of Ajax and Pickering, in receiving equitable service for urban communities across this country.

Mr. Farnan: I rise to speak in favour of the motion that condemns the continued use of supermailboxes by Canada Post Corp. Canada Post Corp. has been installing so-called supermailboxes in new subdivisions since mid-1985 and is only maintaining door-to-door service in areas where it already exists. In the process, the post office has created two classes of citizens,,,,, those in established neighbourhoods who continue to get their mail delivered to their door and those in newer suburbs who do not. If CPC has its way they never will. It is not fair.

Neighbours living on adjacent streets are receiving different levels of service. Anne Derrett from RAM complains: “I can throw a stone in any one of four directions from my home and hit a house that is getting door-to-door delivery.” It is not fair.

These community mailboxes are unsightly in and of themselves. In addition, residents have complained that the presence of these supermailboxes has resulted in an increase of garbage on their property. They are extremely hazardous to access in harsh weather conditions for the well and healthy residents; under such conditions, access for the handicapped and elderly is well nigh impossible. Add to all this the increased risk of accidents due to traffic. Remember that many of these community mailboxes are located in residential neighbourhoods. Children playing in the proximity of these supermailboxes are at a higher risk of injury. It is not fair.

The supermailboxes are a grave hindrance to the handicapped. Little wonder that Earle Atkinson, chairman of accessibility for the Peel Association for Handicapped Adults, has filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on behalf of all disabled Canadians. It is not fair.

Our elderly, our seniors count on home delivery for communication with their family and friends and supermailboxes are an inconvenience, a bother and an undue cause for delay. It is a system that will bring a letter from Vancouver, from England, from the other side of the globe and deliver it to a superbox in the vicinity of a senior’s home, but will not go the extra few hundred metres. It is not fair.

Do the residents who receive a lower level of service by means of supermailboxes pay less for their postal services? Not at all. For years prior to 1985, these residents of new subdivisions contributed to our postal system. They continue to pay the same amount as the rest of us for basic mailings and the same standard fee for all other postal services. It is not fair.

The real estate boards are only too well aware that supermailboxes depreciate the value of your home. More and more we find home delivery described as an added selling feature on a property. Take for example the advertisement in the Markham Weekender. It referred to, “Other features include a heated and insulated double garage, a walkout from the kitchen and home mail delivery.” If your home does not have home mail delivery, it will have a lower value. It is not fair.

The judgement of the real estate boards has a basis in fact. In Winnipeg, the city assessment department has reduced the land assessment of households unfortunate enough to have supermailboxes situated on the easement adjacent to their property by some 15 per cent. This results in significant reductions in property taxes. In Ontario, several residents appealed their market value assessment on the basis that community postal boxes were placed in front of their properties. They won their appeal. As a result, these residents received a reduction in their 1987 taxes.

As more and more residents appeal their assessments, as indeed they should, we see the potential for a significant erosion of local revenue as property values decrease. This is a decrease in revenue that must impact on local levels of government. No wonder so many municipalities and cities across Ontario and Canada are on record as opposing these supermailboxes. It is not fair.

We are all aware that the Mulroney government, in its approach to this whole area, would drastically reduce the quality of postal service and eliminate between 3,000 and 4,000 postal jobs in the process.

We should be attempting to improve the quality of postal service. This year in the United Kingdom, approximately two million homes will receive twice-daily delivery of mail to their homes. Unlike Canada Post, which had an operating loss of $129 million in 1986, the Royal Mail showed a profit of $360 million. The same is true of postal services in Australia, the United States, France and West Germany. All operated in the black last year.

Unlike Canada Post, which aims to cut employment levels by 14 per cent by 1991, other services have managed to stay profitable while hiring more workers. In Reagan’s America or Thatcher’s Britain, the post office is expanding, but here in Canada, Mulroney wants to offer reduced service, unequal service, cut postal employees and privatize. It is not fair.

1130

What I find particularly galling, although it should not surprise me, is the attempt of the Mulroney government to distance itself from this miscarriage of justice. We know that the decision to implement the supermailbox program emanated from the federal government. We know that the Honourable Harvie Andre has the official title of minister responsible for the post office. We know that the corporate plan of Canada Post Corp., which allowed it to bring supermailboxes into our neighbourhoods, was approved by the federal cabinet, and yet the federal government says it is not responsible for the post office.

To add insult to injury, we are now subjected to slick ads and brochures designed to convince us that we are in favour of supermailboxes and that we actually like them. Indeed, every postal truck in the country has been commandeered to be part of this discriminatory promotional scheme. The funding for this con job is provided by us. In fact, the very people who are being discriminated against, those who are subjected to the use of supermailboxes, are paying for these advertisements through the purchase of mail service and through their taxes. It is not fair.

I congratulate all those who have actively worked to oppose this high-handed, discriminatory, arbitrary and unmandated action by the federal government of this country. I encourage them to continue to apply pressure to this insensitive and unfair approach to the provision of postal services in Canada. The federal government must be made aware that there is a price to pay in the next federal election for hoisting on us such a blatantly unfair system of postal service in the form of supermailboxes.

New Democrats like to believe, and we work to ensure, that we do not have second-class citizens in Canada. New Democrats have always campaigned on providing the highest level of service for all and to ensure that segments of the population are not discriminated against. We welcome support in fighting on behalf of ordinary Canadians for a guaranteed quality postal service for all. Indeed, Ed Broadbent and New Democratic Party postal critic Cyril Keeper, together with our federal caucus, have been consistently opposed to the supermailbox program from the very beginning.

Residents of Ontario and Canada can be assured that we will continue to oppose this program vigorously, both in the federal Parliament and in the next federal election campaign. In voting on the motion before us, I encourage all members of the House to support the motion. It is fitting that this parliament representing the residents of Ontario go on record as strongly opposing this blatantly unfair program of supermailboxes.

Mrs. Marland: In rising this morning to speak on the resolution of my colleague the member for Markham, I would first of all like to commend him on the resolution. I think that in discussing this resolution in this House today, we are really simply discussing one item. Simply put, we are discussing second-class mail which equals second-class citizens. We are also discussing not-so-super mailboxes.

When we are talking about Ottawa’s plan to have in place by next April 1988, 400,000 of these not-so-super mailboxes, we are looking at a postal service for close to half a million people. It is very interesting when we recall that when Harvie Andre became the minister responsible for the post office, he said upon his appointment earlier this year, “Citizens have come to expect their governments to perform at least two functions: to defend the country and to deliver the mail.” We are not here to discuss what the government is doing about defending the country, but we certainly are here to discuss how it is delivering the mail.

It is interesting to point out that it is not a choice of the federal government. It fact, they are bound to this service by the exclusive legislative authority given to the Parliament of Canada by the British North America Act in 1867. If postal service is one of those mandated responsibilities of the Parliament of Canada, then I think what we should be discussing this morning is how to help it to achieve it equitably for all residents of Canada.

When we talk about the supermailbox service, what we are saying is that it means you walk to the large metal box at the end of your street. When you get there, you sidestep the debris left on the ground by the users who discard their third-class mail. The interesting thing is that if you are one of these unfortunate residents who have supermailboxes as a second-class postal service in their community, as you are walking to the end of your street you may in fact pass the postman who is delivering mail to your neighbour on the next street.

It means that in that neighbourhood, children have yet another place to hang out, another place to dart out into ongoing traffic. It certainly means an eyesore for those who have purchased a home beside what will become a littered lot. Because of that, it can mean a reduction in property values, which has already been demonstrated at property tax assessment hearings where appeals have been made on the basis of being adjacent to a supermailbox, and the Assessment Review Board has granted that consideration. In fact, some municipalities have felt so strongly about this matter that they have initiated court challenges.

The one area that concerns me most of all is the fact that we are ignoring the necessity for everyone to have access to the postal service. When we deal with everyone, we are dealing of course, as some other members have said this morning, with our senior citizens and the disabled. If they cannot enjoy the service of door-to-door mail delivery, even while neighbours can within the same city, then I think it really borders on a Charter of Rights and Freedoms issue. What access is this for disabled people? In fact, a supermailbox is no access at all for the disabled, even in good weather, but certainly no access in inclement weather. That is unforgivable.

I am happy to see that the member for Essex South, who is Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons, is in the House. He is agreeing with me by nodding his head. I know that anyone who works with the responsibility for seniors and the disabled in the province -- I also recognize that the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mrs. Wilson), who is Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs, is here. I know she would share my concern also for seniors.

We must be very serious and very committed, particularly about this area. There is no way that any one of us in this Ontario Legislature cannot support this very worthy resolution of the member for Markham. Recognizing that the direct remedy is not within the purview of this House, I am quite sure that the House in whose purview the responsibility lies, namely, the House of Commons in Ottawa, will look very carefully at a resolution unanimously supported by every member in the Ontario Legislature. I think the gravest impact of the use of supermailboxes is in Ontario as far as the national scene is concerned.

I would like to speak particularly about my own area in Mississauga South. Mississauga is an extremely high-growth area. The member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) very kindly mentioned Mississauga in her rundown of municipalities that have a concern with this lack of service, this second-class service. I am very happy she did because I know, as the former mayor of that municipality, the member for Durham West understands very clearly the problem my colleague the member for Markham is trying to address.

In Mississauga South, the Port Credit postal station now has 19 group boxes in service. It is unlikely that these households will ever have door-to-door delivery. In the Clarkson post office, we have two group boxes in use. To go beyond the riding, I would like to mention that in Streetsville, which is now a part of the city of Mississauga, residents there must visit a post office to pick up mail, because Canada Post simply does not have enough boxes to go around. They do not even have the superboxes in Streetsville, so those people do not even have that service, let alone door-to-door delivery. I think to ask those people not even to go to the end of their street but to go to the post office is certainly intolerable.

1140

I know that the federal member for Mississauga North, Dr. Bob Horner, is working very diligently on behalf of his constituents who reside in Streetsville and in the other new growth areas that are impacted with this problem in Mississauga. Certainly anywhere in Mississauga where the new development is happening -- and we are aware that the growth essentially is to the northwest in the largest areas of the Creditview Erin Mills and up to Meadowvale areas of the city -- any of those people who have had this problem have been totally frustrated in trying to address the remedy. They have spoken to their city council, their provincial members and their federal members. So I think collectively we have to decide what the remedy must be and the remedy is that they simply not be used.

If we look at the history of postal service in Canada since 1980 we will understand why it is that the resident is losing out. In 1981, Canada Post Corp., a crown corporation, was established, effectively removing the operation of postal service out of the House of Commons. Bill C-42 established the almost exclusive right of Canada Post Corp. to deliver individually addressed letters. Competitors are required to charge at least three times the going postal rate, if they wish to penetrate this market. Thus, for all intents and purposes Canada Post has a monopoly on personal, individually addressed letter mail. Even though this provision was heavily criticized by utility companies and municipalities, to name a few, what are essentially monopoly provisions prevail.

Since 1981 we have seen a reorganization of Canada Post and, at the same time, we have witnessed a great change in the business of mail. Canada Post is working hard to reduce its deficit, to modernize and to employ technological enhancements to mail service. It has also entered into other areas of mail service, in response to the increasing use of mail services by the business community. I refer to second-, third- and fourth-class mail and direct mail marketing. Advertisers in Canada will spend in the neighbourhood of $1.74 billion on print-basis marketing in 1987, more than is spent on daily newspaper advertising and more than is spent on television advertising.

In recognizing that the federal government is trying to cost cut and be efficient, I would suggest that perhaps they consider alternative daily delivery and have an equitable reduction to all citizens in Canada.

Mr. Mahoney: It is indeed a pleasure to address this assembly on this particular issue. As the previous speaker has mentioned, our community is impacted greatly in the city of Mississauga by this particular problem.

I also find it interesting, and I want to congratulate the member for Markham for taking a shot at his federal cousins on this particular issue. I think it is quite appropriate for him to tell the people in Ottawa that he is not happy with the unilateral decision that they made without any consultation with the people of Canada, with the provinces of Canada or with the municipalities.

I will tell you as well that I spent a couple of years on the board of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and, indeed, we are fortunate to have a past member of that board, Mr. Carman Metcalfe, in the gallery today, the reeve of the great metropolis of Asphodel. Mr. Metcalfe would tell you that we objected very strongly at AMO to this particular deed that Ottawa foisted on the people of Canada without any warning. It brings up a particular issue and that is, will they listen? I am quite supportive of the member’s resolution today, but the question is, will they listen?

Some hon. members: Never have.

Mr. Mahoney: Frankly, they never have. In the history of this, I would tell members that a couple of years ago the mayor of Mississauga; the mayor of Malton, Councillor Frank McKechnie; myself, and a couple of others met with some people in Ottawa. We had a breakfast meeting when they announced this. It was just after Michael Warren decided he was not going to take the heat for this particular decision, so he left town and they had an interim person running the post office. We said to them, “How can you do this without consultation, without discussing it with us and with the people of Canada?” The answer was: “It is done. It is irrevocable. It may be unilateral, but we are sticking to our guns and we are going to go this route.”

I do not think they will listen, with all due respect to the member, but having said that, I think it is equally important that this House put on record the feelings we have about this particular issue.

I would also point out that I believe this overall thing is a strategy by Canada Post. There is more to it than meets the eye. Let me take members through a scenario of moving into a new community.

First of all, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) referred to the Streetsville post office. Streetsville post office has car parking for about four vehicles on a good day. There are a number of new communities that are developing all around that Streetsville post office. The community of Meadowvale and the community of central Erin Mills, which has a projected population of some 25,000 people, will all pick their mail up initially at the Streetsville post office. They go there and of course they get very frustrated because they have to park on Queen Street and they end up getting a ticket and they cause traffic jams. Then what do they do?

By the way, I would add that the post office in Clarkson, and the member for Mississauga South will be familiar with it, closes at three o’clock on a lot of days and if you work for a living you have difficulty in picking up your mail at all. But after one or two years of going to the post office, being frustrated with the parking problems and the traffic problems in the community, you get a petition up to Canada Post and you say: “We want green boxes. We are fed up with going to the post office and we want a green box.” A green box is not a community box or a superbox. A green box is a bunch of little boxes stacked from right down to the ground. You provide your own lock and you go there every day and you pick up the mail. Of course you will go through one to two years of living with a green box because at least it is in the community and it is substantially better than having to drive to Streetsville or to another community to pick up your mail and have all the problems that go with that, but those boxes are ugly, to say the least.

What happens is you have some difficulty. You are going in the middle of winter getting mail and your lock is frozen and your mail is wet and it has ice on it. You get pretty fed up with that. So then you go to the post office and you say: “We are fed up with the green boxes. We want a community mailbox. It is nice. It is silver. It is shiny. It has a little thatched hut over the top of it. It looks wonderful.” You actually end up petitioning the post office for this community mailbox. You see their strategy. It is very clever. They get the community asking for a level of service that is substantially reduced from what the rest of Canada has.

The other thing I found interesting is that when the mayor and council in Mississauga met with the post office to say to them, “Could you please explain what this is all about?” they brought out a little bit of a dog-and-pony show and they showed us a slide show and a film all about it. The key word in the whole program is “community.” It is a community mailbox and it is going to be situated right in your community and everybody is going to gather at the box and they are going to talk about what is going on in the community.

In the middle of February in Markham they are going to get together. We have eight months of winter and four months of bad skating in this country, and they show you a film, which I think was shot somewhere in California -- I am not sure -- with everybody running down to the post office and talking about what is going on with little Peggy Sue at school and saying, “Is this not marvellous,” and “Would you like to come back to my house for tea and doughnuts?” It is just a clear example that the federal government has no idea what is going on in Canada. They live there in Ottawa. They seem to anyway and they do not understand the sense of community.

I believe though once the community has gone this route of picking it up at the post office, demanding green boxes and now demanding community mailboxes, they are going to get fed up. I have a suggestion for the federal government that will solve this whole problem and that is that we eliminate the post office entirely. I know the member’s motion does not go that far and he would not want to slap his buddies down in Ottawa with such a discouraging remark, but they could get rid of the post office entirely and put PCs in every home, and that is not Progressive Conservatives, that is personal computers in every home and we could get our mail through computers, right in the comfort of our living room. We could pay our bills. If we wanted to have a good time, we could probably punch up and find out whether our neighbours are paying their bills and have a good laugh at that.

1150

So we could eliminate the post office entirely and for the amount of money and for the deficit they are running in that wonderful crown organization. For that amount of money, I would suggest they could put a personal computer in every home in this country and have a much more efficient delivery service. So their strategy is working. Now the communities are going to submit petitions saying, “We now want you to take the mail service off entirely and put the whole system on to a computer base.”

The previous speakers referred to two classes of citizens. Let me give a couple of examples.

In the community of central Erin Mills, which I mentioned earlier, we have about 25,000 people now and in the future. That is the ultimate population. In the community of Erin Mills west, which is to the south and the west, we have another 12,000 people. These are very distinct communities, both of which will be served by this particular program. In the community of Erin Mills south, which is a substantially older community of about 30,000 people, everybody gets mail delivery. So very clearly, there is a major difference in the service level between living in Erin Mills west, central Erin Mills and the established community of Erin Mills south. There is no question that is a two-class society with regard to mail delivery.

The item though that bothers me more is the issue of infill. What infill is, for those not familiar with development procedures, is where you might have a site in a community that has been set aside for a school for some seven or eight years and the school board decides it is not going to build a school, so it releases it back to the developer and it goes to housing. It will take about 10, 12 or 15 houses on that site, depending on the size of the lot, and it will be right in the middle of an existing residential community, probably on a cul-de-sac.

I can show an example in my riding that is very close to home. The people in that cul-de-sac do not have mail delivery.

Mr. Wildman: Hey, Ed.

Mr. Mahoney: I am talking right over the member, so I do not hear what he is saying and that is just the way I like it.

In any event, the people in that cul-de sac do not have mail delivery, yet they can talk across the back yard fence --

Mr. Laughren: Talk to yourself.

Mr. Mahoney: It is the only way I get good answers.

They can talk across the backyard fence to a neighbour in the summertime and this guy is getting mail delivery and the person on the new street, in the infill subdivision, is not getting mail delivery. Yet the post office worker walks right by the end of the street. It is absolutely absurd and it is a clear example that the government in Ottawa is not listening. We have numerous examples that we hear all the time, but this one is an absolute sham.

I support the member for Markham. It might be one of the few times that I will be supporting the member for Markham. I also support the comments of the member for Mississauga South and she will tell you it is definitely one of the few times that will occur.

It makes sense. We should be petitioning Ottawa to stop this charade, to treat all Canadians as equal in this great country, to eliminate this ridiculous program that they have started.

Mr. Swart: I am rising to support this resolution, of course, as everybody else in this House will do, I am sure.

I think I want to emphasize that what the federal government has done is not only unfair, not only hurting people, but also simply stupid and idiotic.

I want to emphasize of course, first of all, that it is being done by a Tory government.

Second, I want to point out that the resolution itself does not go nearly far enough, because it does not deal with the matter of the post offices that are going to be closed across this nation -- perhaps 1,000 of them or so, including the one in Thorold likely, a city of 16,000 people. My colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has a resolution on that matter which must be supported at a later date.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Markham. I believe he is sincere in this, even though it is a Tory government in Ottawa that is doing this. It would be interesting to contemplate how he would vote on this issue if he was down there in Ottawa.

In the very little time I have I want to just deal with two items, if I may, that have not been covered. One is the matter of employment. What the federal government is doing by this is literally going to put thousands of people out of work. I can recall in this House when the Conservative government over there introduced some legislation that was going to cost $100,000 to provide each job for people, and here we have a situation where it does not cost any capital to provide jobs and we are going to be laying off a lot of people when we could be hiring a lot more people in the post office service.

The other matter I see -- l will not have the time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Markham has reserved four minutes.

Mr. Cousens: I appreciate the support of all those who have spoken. Indeed as the member for Durham West touches upon the safety problems, I think that she has a true understanding as someone whose community has the same kind of problems as many others do where there is an increasing concern.

The member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) starts talking about operating in the black and I have to be very proud of the fact that we have someone from the official opposition talking about that, but in such a way that he is able to draw on the experience of Britain as did the member for Durham West. I appreciate their remarks and their support.

The member for Mississauga South indeed has the responsibility for the disabled for our party but also has a true understanding about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I think has raised some very interesting points that could be raised further through those who will take this even further in discussion. I believe that her emphasis on having equal access of service for everyone is an underlying principle of this resolution.

I have to tell the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) that I have no intention of taking cracks at my federal colleagues. In fact, I believe that the Ottawa Conservatives are saints compared to the Queen’s Park Liberals. When the member starts coming along and thinking there is going to be this kind of going on, I cannot betray my loyalty to my good friends in Ottawa, except they could use some help and that is why I have put this motion in front of us.

The honourable member for Mississauga West did suggest that there be PCs in every home and I happen to know that in the PC technology, there is a 16-bit PC, that reminds me a little bit sometimes of him.

Then we also have my very good friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), and this is two days in a row that we have agreed. I do not know what is going to happen tomorrow. I think we better go home or we will end up --

Mr. Swart: You will agree on public auto insurance.

Mr. Cousens: We have problems.

I have been consulting with a number of members from my party, the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) and the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), all of whom are very concerned as well about rural mail delivery. They are looking for satisfactory service and really do not want to see people in rural Canada treated in any way other than a quality way. I have to say that as one who has rural delivery in Markham, I empathize wholeheartedly with their concerns.

Unlike the government at hand that has made a number of promises and has not really lived up to many of them, this is one of the promises that I made during the election campaign, that I would bring a resolution forward in this House and seek support from the Ontario Legislature to Ottawa to urge them to do something about supermailboxes. I would hope that the Premier and his cabinet could do something about the many promises they have made on housing and education and on auto insurance which are still lacking.

I do not want to be mean-minded. I am so pleased to get the support that is coming from these other honourable members. I also would like to go on record as --

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: I did not mean to upset them that much, Mr. Speaker.

The only other thing I would like to say is that in our own community, not only our town of Markham and the region of York, but also our federal member of Parliament, an independent, Mr. Tony Roman, is also strongly supportive of this resolution.

This is a time when everybody can have a little fun at the expense of the federal government. I wish we would also understand the federal government has major problems in trying to resolve --

Mr. Wildman: They certainly do.

Mr. Cousens: They do around the post office. I mean in trying to get the economy of the post office worked out, to try to find cost-effective ways of reducing it. I would encourage them to continue in that process but please do it without making second-class citizens of those people who are presently having to be served by what are called the not-so-supermailboxes. I would like to see them abolish that program. If this resolution is passed, we can move a step closer in that direction.

1206

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

The House divided on Mrs. Grier’s motion for second reading of Bill 13, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Black, Bradley, Brown, Bryden, Callahan, Charlton, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Eves, Farnan, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Fulton, Grier, Harris, Hart, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kozyra, Laughren, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, Martel, McClelland, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Morin-Strom, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Owen, Patten, Philip, E., Pollock, Rae, B., Reville, Roberts, Smith, D. W., South, Sterling, Stoner, Swart, Tatham, Wildman, Wilson.

Nays

Runciman, Villeneuve.

Ayes 60; nays 2.

SUPERMAILBOXES

The House divided on Mr. Cousens’s motion of resolution 8, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Black, Bradley, Brown, Bryden, Callahan, Charlton, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Farnan, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Fulton, Grier, Hampton, Hart, Henderson, Johnson, J. M., Kozyra, Laughren, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mahoney;

Mancini, Marland, Martel, McClelland, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Morin-Strom, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Owen, Patten, Philip, E., Rae, B., Reville, Roberts, Smith, D. W., South, Stoner, Swart, Tatham, Velshi, Wildman, Wilson.

Nays

Runciman, Villeneuve.

Ayes 57; nays 2.

The House recessed at 12:18 p.m.

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for members’ statements, I would like to inform the members that there is a guest in the members’ gallery, Bob McKessock, a former member for Grey. Please welcome him.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: The impending closure of the Firestone rubber plant in the city of Hamilton and its potential sale to Cooper Tire is a clear example of the very real concerns of workers in Ontario and underlines the lack of protection that the law of Ontario gives these workers.

Local 113, United Rubber Workers, and its president, Charlie Scime, have been totally responsible in trying to work out a deal to protect their workers and very co-operative in efforts to sell this particular plant. With the growing concern over the negotiations and the potential sale, the president of the local, on behalf of the 1,300 workers at Firestone, wrote to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) on November 19, underlining the very real concerns they had over the tone of the negotiations and what might be happening.

They asked for a meeting. I have a copy of their letter to the minister on November 19. I, among others, tried to ensure such a meeting for these workers. As of this morning, the minister had not even had the courtesy to respond to this letter on behalf of the 1,300 workers in the Firestone plant. It would appear that the negotiations currently being carried out do not bode well for the future or offer any protection for the workers who are involved in that plant. I think this is a classic example of why the workers have very little faith in this government in Ontario.

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATION TRAILS COMMISSION

Mr. Pollock: Today I will introduce a private member’s bill which is extremely important to many people in my riding. Running for a distance of more than 150 kilometres is the Marmora Lake St. Peter abandoned railroad line. This corridor is currently used by snowmobilers, hikers, skiers, horseback riders, motorcyclists and all-terrain-vehicle enthusiasts. The bill that I am going to introduce to the government will establish the East/Central Ontario Recreation Trails Commission.

The commission would assume ownership, maintain a safe trail, provide drainage and work out a fair agreement in regards to fencing with land owners who need fences. The commission would exercise all the responsibilities normally assumed by land owners. The commission would be made up of seven or more people, preferably from the local area. The startup point would be at Glen Ross in the south and go to Lake St. Peter in the north. It would not exclude any extension of this trail. Such an undertaking would be most beneficial. It would increase tourism and bring more people and revenue into beautiful north Hastings.

JOHN FRASER

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to draw to the attention of this House the upcoming retirement of John Fraser, the director of education for the public school board in Peel. The Peel board has a motto of “Quality Education to All” and since 1972 Mr Fraser has laid the foundation for this motto in the city of Mississauga.

In 1979 Mr. Fraser took a four-month leave of absence to review the secondary school system in Peel. His report, “Education in Peel Secondary Schools,” provided a basis for many changes in our education program throughout the province. In 1984 John was appointed by Dr. Bette Stephenson, then Minister of Education, to serve on the planning and implementation commission which dealt with provision of full funding to Roman Catholic secondary schools in Ontario.

I would also like to congratulate Mr. Fraser on being named Administrator of the Year by the Niagara University in New York state for his outstanding contribution to education. It seems only fitting that as Mr. Fraser prepares for his retirement at the end of this current school year, we honour him for his many substantial contributions not only to the school board but with the Peel United Way, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, the Ontario Leadership Seminar, the Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton and the Brampton Caledon Association for the Trainable Retarded, just to name a few.

It has been a pleasure for me to work with John over the last nine years in my capacity as city councillor and I wish him a happy and active retirement. He leaves the Peel board in great shape.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: In this house two days ago, the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) said that he felt, as minister, with the information that he had available to him, which was similar to that which is available to all members of the House, the four and a half per cent auto insurance rate increase was justified.

What was that information which is available to the House? I know and the House knows that the insurers made over a billion dollars profit in 1986, one third higher than ever before in their history, and that increased by another 52 per cent in the first six months of this year.

I know and the House knows, from the recent Insurance Bureau of Canada update, that total revenue to auto insurers in Ontario in 1986 was approximately $3.8 billion but they paid out only $2.5 billion, or less than two thirds, in settlements.

I know and the House knows, because Ontario’s superintendent of insurance said so, that insurance rates increased by an average seven per cent in the first four months of this year before they were awarded the additional four and a half per cent.

I know and this House knows that there is not a shred of evidence anyplace which showed the insurance companies needed the extra $135 million which the government just took out of the motorists’ pockets and gave to them.

I know and this House knows that the minister did not discuss with the Consumers’ Association of Canada, the Canadian Automobile Association-Ontario or any other consumers’ group its proposed gift to the insurance companies.

I know and this House knows that the insurance industry worked hand in glove with and for the Liberal Party in the recent election.

Therefore, I know, this House knows and all the people of Ontario know that the Liberal government has just paid with motorists’ money the first instalment on its election debt to the insurance industry.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Mr. Sterling: I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my party to join with my colleagues in commemorating this very special day. Today, December 10, marks the 39th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations in 1948. This signing signified the first time that countries paid recognition to the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all people. The 1948 proclamation by the General Assembly of the United Nations serves as the ideal for human rights legislation in the free world.

Here in Ontario, we have been well served by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Our Human Rights Code, based on the fundamental principles of the universal declaration, is now a quarter of a century old. Over the course of its existence, it has helped to create an environment of goodwill and understanding in our many diverse communities.

By extending this awareness and understanding to provincial, national and international levels, we can attempt to allay the prejudice that leads to discrimination and ultimately the removal of the fundamental human rights, which, unfortunately, continues to plague many areas of our world. We must reaffirm our commitment and support for human rights on a global basis. I can think of no better occasion than on the anniversary of International Human Rights Day.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. McGuinty: I wish to comment on remarks made a few days ago by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) regarding economic development in eastern Ontario.

During the 42 years of Conservative governments in Ontario --

Mr. B. Rae: Forty four.

Mr. Breaugh: It is 44 now.

Mr. McGuinty: -- 44, the people of eastern Ontario had the feeling --

[Laughter]

Mr. McGuinty: I am sorry, I was thinking of the 42 years that my riding was in Tory hands -- when we had the feeling that Toronto was 5,000 miles away. We suffered under Tory indifference to our needs for adequate highways, health care and education, among other things. I can assure the members of the Progressive Conservative Party that those days are long gone.

As chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton caucus, I can assure the House that we meet with groups regularly to deal with issues that transcend party lines, and with respect to the Eastern Ontario Economic Outlook Conference that the member alluded to, the Liberal government had supported that conference in years past. I can assure the members of the Legislature that the people of eastern Ontario are now in good hands and that the Liberal government will continue to make up for years of Tory neglect.

1340

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: Workers being forced to work Sunday after Christmas should be aware of Liberal opposition to our efforts to protect workers’ rights. Yesterday, both amendments I moved to the act were defeated by the Liberal majority.

The second amendment effectively allowed all workers the right to refuse work on a Sunday following a statutory holiday; one day every seven years. It was based on the stated logic of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that it is wrong to allow some employers to open on Sunday after Boxing Day while others must close. I wonder why the majority Liberals would not give the same right to workers one day out of every seven years.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HUMAN RIGHTS

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Today, Ontario, Canada and progressive nations around the world join together to celebrate International Human Rights Day.

It was 39 years ago today that members of the United Nations General Assembly, including Canada, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This historic document proclaims that “... recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” The declaration is an eloquent statement of the minimum standard of conduct which peoples of the world are entitled to expect from their governments.

We must never become oblivious to the sorry condition of human rights in certain places around the globe. Nevertheless, it is important for us to collectively reflect upon and mark some of the positive steps we have taken to bring us closer to the achievement of true equality.

December 10 is a very appropriate date for such a reflection. It is a day to remember that the violation of human rights is not simply a moral issue, it is a legal wrong which demands a legal remedy, whether in South Africa, in east bloc nations, in Latin America or anywhere else in the world.

Ontario has played a leadership role in the development of human rights. Our province was the first to pass human rights legislation in Canada. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the establishment of our commission.

It is therefore appropriate that upon the retirement at the end of this month of the present chairman, Canon Borden Purcell, I announce the appointment of Raj Anand as the new chief commissioner of our Ontario Human Rights Commission effective January 1, 1988.

Mr. Anand brings outstanding professional and academic credentials to his new post. As a lawyer whose preferred areas of practice include human rights and labour relations, Mr. Anand has demonstrated a high level of expertise in the human rights field. As a legal writer, he has already made a significant contribution to current thinking in the critical area of equality rights under our charter. Mr. Anand recently authored a major task force report for the government on the impact of present trespass laws on youth and minorities. Through his involvement with community legal clinics, the bar association and other nongovernmental organizations, Mr. Anand has proven himself to be a dedicated human rights advocate at the community level.

Quite apart from his very impressive qualifications, I wish to convey to him how pleased I am personally that someone of his energy and talent will take on this very challenging task of heading the commission. I congratulate Mr. Anand on his appointment and I welcome him to the commission.

I would also like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the people of Ontario, to express publicly our very sincere gratitude to Canon Borden Purcell for his commitment to the advancement of human rights generally and to the work of the commission specifically.

During his stewardship, we have seen substantial improvement in human rights protection here in Ontario. This includes the important amendments that we made in the code in 1981 and 1986. As a result of those amendments, the work of the commission has increased substantially. I would like to publicly thank Canon Purcell, on behalf of the people of Ontario, for guiding us and the commission through these difficult years.

To assist the new chairperson with the many challenges that lie ahead, I am announcing today certain measures that will strengthen the ability of the commission to enforce the Human Rights Code.

We are committed to making the commission truly independent. As both a substantive and symbolic testament to this objective, within the next two months the commission will move from its current two different locations to one location where it will be together in new, larger nonministry headquarters.

On an organizational level, as of January 1 the executive director of the commission will report only to the chief commissioner, not to the Deputy Minister of Citizenship. We will enable the commission to better provide the policy, research and communications services demanded of it during a period when its workload is increasing dramatically.

We hope that as a first step the new commissioner will quickly identify the resources he requires to enable him to go forward with his important work.

As an initial measure, the government will increase the commission’s base budget by at least $1 million. This will allow the commission to deal more effectively with individual acts of discrimination and to begin the important process of overcoming systemic barriers to full equality.

In 1987, human rights protection means much more than commitment to an abstract principle. In some cases, it means governments casting aside oppressive laws which abrogate the human rights of their peoples. It means individuals taking personal steps to change attitudes and behaviour. And it means unceasing community resolve by all of us to pursue the goal of true equality.

Human rights protection and equality of opportunity are the strengths that flow through the hands of our society. With the changes that I have announced today, I believe we move one step closer to achieving our goal, and we ensure that the force of that strength remains undiminished.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Legislature today about the government’s plans to improve the municipal electoral process in Ontario.

It is very important that the process by which municipal and school board representatives are elected is as open and accessible as possible.

As the members may recall, an Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections was established early in 1986. That committee met with a wide range of groups and individuals and received a great many written submissions before producing an interim report in August 1986. The interim report was circulated widely, more meetings were held, and more written submissions were received. The final report was released last February and circulated for comments. Some 200 responses were received. So there has been extensive consultation.

It is now time to act. I will therefore be introducing, as soon as possible, legislation to put in place a number of reforms. This legislation will improve the election process in a number of ways. It will strengthen local government institutions by requiring full disclosure and reporting of election campaign contributions and expenses. It will make the electoral process more accessible to voters.

I would like to outline, briefly, the changes the government intends to make to the local government electoral process.

I would like to talk first about some of the changes that will improve accessibility: the accessibility of the election process to candidates; the accessibility of the election process to voters; and the physical accessibility of polls to disabled and physically challenged voters.

In order to make the process more accessible to candidates, the legislation I will be introducing will help to control the cost of running for office. It will establish limits on campaign expenses based on a formula related to the number of electors in the ward, municipality or school board area in which the candidate is running. It will also limit campaign contributions to a candidate to $750 per individual contributor. This is consistent with the rules that apply to provincial elections.

In keeping with this government’s commitment to openness in government, the legislation also provides for mandatory disclosure of campaign financing. Given the diversity of local government, the disclosure requirements would vary according to the amount spent by the candidate.

Candidates who raise or spend $1,000 or less will be required to make a statutory declaration. Candidates who raise or spend more than $1,000 but less than $20,000 will be required to file detailed unaudited statements of contributions and expenses with the municipal clerk. Those with more than $20,000 in either contributions or expenses will be required to file detailed audited statements with the municipal clerk. These statements will be available for public scrutiny.

1350

The new legislation will call for two mandatory advance polls. It will require that all advance polls be accessible to the disabled and physically challenged for the 1988 elections and that all polls be accessible for the 1991 elections. This government will not allow anyone to be disenfranchised simply because of a physical disability.

Foremost among the administrative concerns was a concern about the recount procedure and the burden it places on the courts. To deal with that concern the legislation will permit recounts to be undertaken by a recount officer rather than the courts. That recount officer will be the municipal clerk or someone appointed by the clerk well in advance of the elections.

Recounts will automatically be undertaken at the request of a candidate if the spread between the winning candidate and the runner-up is less than half a vote per poll. Such a request will have to be made within seven days of the declaration of official results. Other requests for recounts will have to be made within 30 days of the announcement of official results. Appeals, disputes and irregularities will continue to be dealt with by the courts.

Another change will require elected representatives to maintain their qualifications for their entire term. This means a municipal representative’s seat would be declared vacant if he or she moved away from the municipality and was no longer eligible to vote in that municipality.

The legislation I will be introducing will make Ontario’s local government electoral system fairer and more accessible to both candidates and voters. Local government shapes the fabric of our communities and has a direct influence on the quality of our lives. A strong local government depends on the participation of its citizens both as candidates and as voters. The legislation I am proposing will encourage that participation which is so important to the democratic process.

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker: I want to notify the House that public disclosure statements from members of the executive council as per Bill 1 have been tabled today with the office of the Clerk.

RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. B. Rae: First of all, I want to say how very proud I am of the announcement that was made today by the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips). I know that all honourable members will want to join with the minister in congratulating Canon Borden Purcell on the leadership he has shown in the field of human rights for many, many years.

There are a great many people in this province who felt they did not have a voice and did not have someone listening and someone fighting for them. I know when they have heard, over the years, Canon Purcell talking about problems of human rights, not only in Ontario but also throughout the world, they have known they had a friend in Ontario and somebody who was there for them. I know we all want to congratulate Canon Purcell on a job well done.

Let me also say how very proud I am of the announcement that has been made today by the minister with respect to the appointment of Raj Anand. I suppose I should declare on this day some kind of a conflict in that Mr. Anand and I were at law school together, but I cannot think of a better appointment. If my opinion had been asked at various times, his name would certainly have been on the list, and I just say how very pleased I am with the announcement that has been made today. I know that Mr. Anand will provide very good leadership to the province and very good leadership to the commission as it heads into the future.

Yesterday the minister was kind enough to say that he would release some documents with respect to the question of systemic discrimination, which, in fact, he has done. I want to thank the minister for the documents he has provided to us and just say to him that I hope he realizes that, having provided us with these documents, he now is under an obligation to act.

He has been presented by Peter Robertson, in his report on systemic discrimination, with three options, two of which require amendments to the law. The preferred option of Mr. Robertson, as the minister will know, is mandatory employment equity legislation.

As I said yesterday in the House, the minister’s colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) announced -- and he may have been speaking, as he often does, off the top of his head, without knowing what he was saying -- nevertheless, he said the government had no plans to bring in mandatory employment equity legislation and no plans to bring in affirmative action legislation.

I hope very much that there will be an opportunity now for the government to bring in legislation that will deal with the question of systemic discrimination. I hope that the minister will recognize that the report states very clearly that the current law and practice of the government does not give the government the power, and in particular does not give the commission the power, to deal with the problem of systemic discrimination.

The additional resources of $1 million are fine, but it is not going to be enough. As the report states very categorically, it is not simply a question of allocating additional money; it is also a question of making sure the commission has that additional focus by ensuring the changes in the law which will allow that to happen.

That is the question the minister has to answer. I say, with due respect to him, he has yet to answer that question clearly, and we are going to be continuing to press him on that matter in the House.

It is a day of celebration and congratulations, it is also a day for us to recognize that much still remains to be done and there are specific things the government can do.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins). It is a statement that we welcome, something we have called for over a long time, as have a number of other people. I believe the minister has a good beginning outlined here. We will be very interested in the details in the act. I have two areas of concern that I would like to put on the record now.

The first is that much of what the minister said today is a proposal to have disclosure, and it will require the filing of documents, presumably in most cases with the local municipal clerk’s office. There is not much more in the way of a monitoring provision that was outlined in today’s statement. I anticipate that when the minister does introduce legislation, we will have an opportunity to see in more detail precisely how that proposal will work.

The second thing I think should be noted in passing today is that although there are limits on expenditures here, it still will remain true that the rich and the poor will not have equal access to public office in municipal government. There is no proposal here to offer any assistance. I would like the minister, when he does introduce the legislation, to give us his rationale for why no moves were made in that direction, when that does continue to be a problem, particularly in major urban centres.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Brandt: I too wish to associate myself with the remarks in regard to the honouring today and the anniversary of the declaration of International Human Rights Day some 39 years ago by the United Nations.

As well, I think it is only appropriate that on this day we have Canon Borden Purcell with us in the gallery, a gentleman who has literally guided the Ontario Human Rights Commission from the days of its infancy to the time we now share when that commission is well respected and well recognized as being the body that fights for human rights and against discrimination here in Ontario.

The career that Canon Purcell has had with this commission is one I have personally admired, and I know that admiration is shared by literally thousands upon thousands of Ontarians, who perhaps have a better way of life in our province as a direct result of the involvement of this commission in matters of concern or when decisions had to be made with respect to the protection of an individual’s rights in our society.

I associate myself with the minister’s remarks as well in his comments with regard to the appointment of the new commissioner and chairman of the commission. Mr. Anand is a gentleman about whom I have read a great deal, and I respect the background and expertise he brings to his new responsibilities. I look forward, as I know the members of my caucus do, to working with the commission in the days ahead.

1400

Certainly I take some pride in the fact, I say to the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips), that it was our party that pioneered the concept of a human rights commission in this province. We brought it forward with the specific view of making the province a better place for all of the citizens of whatever race, colour or creed who had made the decision to come to Canada and, more specifically, to the largest province in Canada to seek out a home in which their rights would be protected.

As we look around the world at the number of trouble spots, at the number of very, very desperate circumstances and conditions that so many people live under, even today as we speak and 39 years after that first declaration was made by the United Nations, I think we can be very proud of the successes we have achieved. But I think we also have a responsibility not to lose sight of our role in attempting to become world leaders in regard to showing the example of how rights can be protected in a society and setting this example for many other nations of the world to follow.

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

Mr. Eves: I would like to rise to comment briefly on the statement about the conflict disclosure statements referred to by the government House leader. We are very pleased to see that Mr. Aird has indicated that he would like to become involved in the committee process when this very important piece of legislation goes to committee.

I might point out to government members that Mr. Aird has also indicated that he is not totally in agreement with the government proposals with respect to its proposed conflict-of-interest legislation. It might be noted that there were a few extensions granted, and those ministers have yet to file their statements. It will also be very interesting to see whether the statements filed by Mr. Aird today are identical with and exactly the same as those the members filed with Mr. Aird. Are the ones filed with the Clerk the same things that were filed with Mr. Aird in the first place?

I think we have some interesting legislation and work ahead of us in committee, and we look forward to discussing this in an open and forthright manner, with Mr. Aird’s assistance, in committee.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. McCague: We welcome the statement from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) re the revamping of the election process in municipalities. I note the limits on spending. I just hope this does not give the message to the people of the province that they have to spend money in order to win. There are many small municipalities in the province where, as the minister knows, they spend no money on their election promises.

I presume that his research is better than that of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and that there are no municipalities within the province that have only one poll. It would be very difficult to have a recount in that regard. But we do thank the minister for the statement and look forward to the bill.

Mr. Cousens: The statements that were made covered a number of issues, but there was a statement that was not made. I am shocked that the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) is making announcements outside the House and not having the courtesy to bring them into this House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) about conflict of interest in the light of the announcements that have been made today with respect to the assets that are held by various members of the executive council.

The Premier may be aware that last week Mr. Justice Parker of the Ontario Supreme Court issued a report with respect to the question of conflict of interest as it related to Sinclair Stevens. In the course of the last part of his report he had some very critical things to say of Ontario’s legislation. In particular, he was critical of the fact that the Ontario legislation has substituted one legal fiction, that so-called management trust, for another legal fiction, the blind trust, and that there is as yet in the Ontario legislation no clear rule as to what should be divested and what should not be divested.

I wonder if the Premier can comment on the statement by Mr. Justice Parker on page 352 of his report, where he says: “The management trust is a confusing and unnecessary device. The confusion will arise from the fact that the management trust has nothing to do with divestment and yet will be seen as an attempt to further true divestment.”

He then goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, if I may, with your indulgence, read one last quotation: “To my mind, the hard decisions about which assets can be retained and which have got to go must be made, and those that have to be divested should truly be divested.”

I wonder if the Premier could contrast that clear statement by Mr. Justice Parker with his own legislation and the statements that are made today in the disclosure statements by the members of his cabinet, which indicate that many members of his cabinet still have very substantial private holdings.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: May I refer that to the Attorney General, please.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, I had the occasion to read the Parker report and I read it somewhat differently in the result than the honourable leader does. I conclude from what he has said on the subject of management trust that he regards the word “trust” as confusing and that he contemplates that to simply state that the arrangement was one in which an asset was managed would be sufficient. That is the first point. There is a nomenclature problem that the members of the committee who are charged with hearing the matter can deal with.

He then goes on to say that in determining the propriety of an appointment to cabinet, it may be appropriate to consider assets that the honourable member considered for inclusion in cabinet owns. It may be a matter for a member of cabinet to decide that he cannot accept a certain portfolio without putting his assets in the hands of a manager or, alternatively, divesting himself of them. That is how I read the Parker report. It will be of interest to members of the committee, of course, and they may want to make amendments to this bill.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to say for the record that this is a matter of public policy that has traditionally, in both the House of Commons and the Legislature, been one in which the Prime Minister or the Premier, the first minister, took a personal interest and had personal responsibility for. The Premier of this province has refused to answer the questions and has simply passed them on to the Attorney General. I think that is something which is disgraceful and indicates a lack of leadership on an issue where we have seen a lack of leadership for the past two and a half years.

Since he has now obviously been thrown the ball by the Premier, I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us where, in the bill that has been presented to us, it gives the commissioner the power to order divestment or divestiture of assets. Where specifically in the bill is the question of divestment discussed or dealt with in any way at all?

Hon. Mr. Scott: First, it is an aside but I think it is appropriate, Mr. Aird in his letter points out what a number of commentators have pointed out, that the guidelines that were traditional in this House were entirely unsatisfactory because they were guidelines and that a statute is absolutely necessary. I think it is a major tribute to the Premier of this province that distinguishes him from the Prime Minister of Canada that we have before the House for debate an act that is going to concretely spell out the requirements of the law. I think that is leadership.

My honourable friend is correct to say there is no reference by terminology to divestment in the proposed bill, but if he will read Mr. Aird’s letter to the Clerk, which is filed today, under the heading section 7(1), it will be obvious that Mr. Aird has interpreted that section as if divestment was an option. He says, for example, at the bottom of page 3, “I have required all ministers holding interests in private companies, whether majority or minority interests, to divest or to place such interests in a management trust.” That is the option.

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General should be embarrassed because, having finished his sentence, he realizes there is not the power to order to divest in the act, nor has Mr. Aird been able to do it because he does not have the power to order it under the act. It is right there. The opinions of Mr. Justice Parker are very clear. They are quite contrary to the legislation of the government.

I would like to ask the Attorney General this final supplementary: can he tell us whether any member of the cabinet to this point -- since the Premier (Mr. Peterson), in announcing these guidelines in the law, said that in fact the ministers should conduct themselves as if the law was in place -- can he tell us whether any one member of the cabinet, under clauses 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b), has disclosed the general nature of conflicts of interests and withdrawn from meetings without voting or participating in the consideration of the matter; and if they have, in what matters have they withdrawn?

1410

Hon. Mr. Scott: I can tell the member, first of all, that the option that Mr. Aird found in the statute is precisely the one that I have read.

Mr. B. Rae: No, it isn’t.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Well, he says it. They are his words that you have an option, either to place that asset in a management trust or divest yourself of it.

On that observation, the interim commissioner, Mr. Justice Parker and the government are ad idem and the Leader of the Opposition is out in the cold.

The honourable member now asks whether in fact anybody has refused to vote on any item. I cannot answer that question. I will undertake to see if inquiries can be made.

HOUSING SUPPLY

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions for the Minister of Housing. Yesterday’s report of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), with respect to matters of housing starts, indicates very clearly that it is anticipated that there will be 24,000 fewer housing starts in 1988 than there were in 1987. Although that is very clear, I wonder if the minister could confirm that the number of authorized units for nonprofit housing allocated by the government of Ontario is in fact going to be less next year than this year.

Can she explain how it could possibly be that she would be reducing the number of allocations with respect to nonprofit housing coming within the jurisdiction of the government of Ontario at the same time as the Treasurer is announcing that the private sector is not going to be doing the job in terms of producing new housing supply?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is very important to recognize that the market conditions in the province vary quite widely. The statement of the Treasurer yesterday had to do with the increased housing supply and the fact that the market is turning down, which indeed it is.

We think that might be somewhat helpful for the production of more affordable housing in the province, because much of the province’s production in the private market recently has been at the high end.

Our production of affordable housing is continuing. One of the things that I announced yesterday was the $25 million fund of loan guarantees for the nonprofit sector. What we think will happen as a result of that is that many more units of affordable housing will be produced by the nonprofit sector, as a result of loan guarantees for land.

Mr. B. Rae: That was not an answer to my question. Perhaps I could try again. Can the minister tell us, will there be more nonprofit units allocated by the government of Ontario next year, in comparison with this year, or fewer? Which is it, more or fewer?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The number of housing units will continue in the same pattern as before, and we will be working harder to make sure that they all come on stream.

Mr. Breaugh: Just to help the minister, in fact it will be fewer by somewhere around 1,800 units in 1988 than in 1987. Could she tell us why we have spent so much time and effort putting together a network of nonprofit housing groups to meet a variety of housing needs, while last year her ministry itself, although it allocated the money, failed to deliver the units.

Why would she now cut back on the actual allocations for the number of units? She has spent all this time and effort encouraging people to put together nonprofit proposals. We know where they are. We know how to do it. Her ministry might even get its act together this year. Why would she now start to cut back on the number of allocations?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The number of allocations is not being cut back. What we are doing is proceeding apace in the plan that we had, which is a three-year plan. The number of units will be increased and one of the things that we have done is to increase the possibility of producing the units more quickly, as a result of the land process.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: Yesterday I had raised a question with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) regarding the whole area of free trade and the provincial position with respect to that issue, and while the Premier was haranguing to some extent about his negative attitudes towards free trade, his Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) was at the selfsame time releasing a report which indicated some support for free trade.

To take one of the statements from the report --

Mr. Speaker: Is the question to the Premier or to the Treasurer?

Mr. Brandt: It is to the Premier.

The statement out of the report which I would like to quote indicated that, “The net effects of mutual tariff reduction will be very small, but marginally positive.” Would the Premier give us his interpretation of what that statement implies as it relates to provincial economic activity?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that to the Treasurer.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. After all, as the honourable member has indicated, I had the honour of tabling the report. It is the second Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review which the Treasury has been able to present to the Legislature for the particular use of the standing committee and all members. I am very glad the leader of the third party has read the report, or at least the headline in the Globe and Mail.

I think he should be aware that the policy of the government is very much in favour of improving trade and that any improvement that is a result of the reduction of tariffs is much to be desired. That is why the government of Ontario strongly supports the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which reduces trade with all the countries that are signatories of that agreement.

Mr. Harris: Reduces trade?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: On this particular deal, if the honourable member had read past the headline in the Globe and Mail, if he had read the report he would know that the report is very critical of the deal that the honourable member supports, which is at the initiative of the government of Canada, in that it fails to gain secure access; it fails to take account of higher Canadian adjustment costs; it fails to remove export tax on softwood or get access to defence procurement; it limits regional industrial development policy; and it fails to give safeguards for future foreign investment in autos.

The report is a balanced one, it is a very useful one, and it is does not support in any way the so-called trade deal that the honourable member is pushing with all his might.

Mr. Brandt: Since the Treasurer is now fielding these questions on the trade matter, I wonder if the Treasurer could comment. Since he is in favour of reducing tariffs and any inhibitors to trade between all nations of the world that we deal with, and I guess more particularly the United States, since 90 per cent of our trade out of Ontario goes to the United States, would the Treasurer tell us what plan he has in mind to reduce these barriers, these tariffs that exist at the present time, outside of or as an alternative to a free trade deal? Does he have some other secret plan in mind that he would like to share with us?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There is nothing secret about our support of improving trade. As a matter of fact, I attended the first ministers’ conference as an observer and heard the Premier say that liberalized trade is everyone’s goal, and I believe that is true for every member of the Legislature and every person in our provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Brandt: How do you accomplish it, Bob? Come on.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: All right. The policy of the province is strongly in support of Canada as a signatory of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We have sent delegates to the present round of these discussions, and we hope that this is going to mean a meeting of the minds in all the trading countries in the western world that is certainly going to be to the advantage of Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: The Treasurer’s own report indicated that the trade deal would “lower consumer prices and modestly increase real incomes in Canada.” I will tell members, given the anti-free trade attitude of the government, the author of this report was a very brave man or woman indeed, if the Treasurer has read his own report.

Does the Treasurer agree with the report he released yesterday that, in fact, as a result of this trade deal, consumer prices will go down and real incomes will go up? Or, alternatively, does he disagree with the report he tabled in this House yesterday?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very valuable document and I agree with it, because it points out clearly --

Mr. Brandt: That’s all I want to know.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, that is not the end of the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

1420

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Are you going to help me, Mr. Speaker, or will I speak over --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is quite clear that the view of the government of Ontario in opposition to this deal is associated with its very serious shortcomings having to do with the auto pact, having to do with the role of the agricultural industry, particularly the food processing industry, and having to do with our rights to regionally expand our trade. If the honourable member feels this is some sort of a feather in his cap, he is wrong again.

MINISTER’S ROLE IN TRANSMISSION LINE DECISION

Mr. Sterling: If I get a chance to ask this question over the interjections, I would like to ask the Premier if any of his members of cabinet, over the past two and a half years since he became Premier, have either declared a conflict with regard to their private interests, or have appointed another minister to act in their stead over those two and a half years?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I am aware of any. This is something I can check. Obviously, that is the intention of the legislation. I am not aware of any at the moment.

Mr. Sterling: Was the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) involved or did he become involved in a cabinet decision with regard to the Bridlewood hydro corridor over this past few weeks and over the past two and a half years?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is yes.

Mr. Sterling: I think there is a serious problem with regard to the Attorney General’s involvement with this particular decision. The Attorney General acted as legal counsel for the joint board some 12 or 13 days before he was sworn in as a cabinet minister under the Premier’s premiership. The appeal, in two parts, was against the process. The Attorney General’s involvement before the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court was to uphold that process.

I feel that in this particular case, the Premier should refer this matter to Mr. Aird so the commissioner can immediately report back to this Legislature whether there was a conflict. Will he refer this to Mr. Aird immediately?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very much aware of the situation the honourable member raises, that particular case. In my judgement and in the judgement of others, there was not a conflict. My honourable friend thinks there is a conflict of interest. I can tell him the Attorney General sought legal advice from Mr. Robinette and others prior to his assuming the job of Attorney General, and he was satisfied in his own mind that there was not a conflict of interest.

I do not assume that the member will ever agree with that, coming from where he does. But I do not believe there is a problem and certainly I have no problem at all referring that to the commissioner. In fact, that is his responsibility.

HOURS OF WORK

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

For two years, the union representing the workers at Stelco’s Hilton works, Local 1005 of the United Steelworkers of America, has been trying to get the ministry to enforce the sections of the Employment Standards Act that would reduce the excessive amounts of overtime the company is scheduling.

The minister has a letter dated November 26 which outlines the many delays. Without going through them all, the bottom line is that his ministry has done nothing. Meanwhile, hundreds of workers have lost their jobs and recall rights, and even the 400 workers hired for summer relief are now gone.

Could the minister tell us what steps he is prepared to take to reduce the excessive overtime being worked at Stelco’s Hilton works?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The letter dated November 26 that the member refers to has not come to my direct attention. I assume officials within my ministry have received it. If I cannot answer fully to the member for Hamilton East today, I will undertake to do so early next week.

The issue at that particular plant has been under some dispute, as the member says, for a very long time, and there is disagreement as to what actually constitutes overtime; whether the terms of the collective agreement ought to apply or the terms of the Employment Standards Act ought to apply.

His question was: what are we prepared to do with it? I should just tell him, as I have on other occasions dealing with the issue of overtime, that now that the work of the Donner task force has been completed, I would anticipate changes based on that work.

Mr. Mackenzie: If the minister has not yet seen a copy of the letter dated November 26 -- which is damning in its indictment of his ministry -- then we obviously have a problem in the Ministry of Labour.

It appears that once again, as with McDonnell Douglas, the minister refuses to prosecute, indeed even to investigate some of them. This is a virtual licence to companies to flout the laws that are meant to protect workers.

McDonnell Douglas and Stelco are large plants with large and powerful unions. What message is the minister sending to the thousands of workers in smaller plants and unions and many unorganized work places where the workers are even more dependent on the laws of Ontario? Can the minister give us a commitment today on when the problems at Stelco will be resolved?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I realize that it is important from the political perspective for the member for Hamilton East, and indeed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), in whatever comments they make, to suggest that the Minister of Labour is not doing his job. Historically, we have seen that as long as I have been doing it.

The fact is, he referred in his supplementary to McDonnell Douglas. There were allegations early on in that situation that somehow we were not taking action, and the member for Hamilton East has not yet taken up an opportunity during question period or otherwise to suggest he was satisfied with the resolution of that dispute. Maybe some day he will.

I cannot give him a specific date with respect to Stelco. I can simply tell him that we will look into the matter and that the reforms we will be proposing will be based on the work Arthur Donner has undertaken.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: Yesterday we dealt with a bill that requires working on Sunday, December 27, to be a voluntary choice only for employees of large retail stores. Can the Minister of Labour tell us why the government opposed our amendment to allow that same voluntary choice for all employees of retail stores that would not normally be open on a Sunday?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The answer to that question is rather simple. The whole thrust of the bill that we gave second reading in this House yesterday was to provide protection for workers who may, under some circumstances, be asked to work in stores that are legally required to be closed. It was a simple act that provided for reinstatement and/or compensation in the case of dismissal.

There are certain stores which will be opened on December 27 because of the Sabbatarian exemption that is contained within the Retail Business Holidays Act. Inasmuch as the act that I introduced and that was given second reading yesterday was an interim measure, it was our determination not to expand the rights within the context of that bill.

Mr. Harris: In deciding not to prosecute large businesses for violating the law by opening the Sunday after Boxing Day -- and the amendment only dealt with Boxing Day, one day every seven years -- the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) argued when he allowed it that it would be unfair to force some stores to remain closed while others could benefit from what he called a loophole in the law.

I guess I would ask the Minister of Labour why somehow it is fair to force some retail employees to work on this one Sunday with no recourse or protection while others will receive special treatment by way of legislation from his ministry for one day every seven years because of what the Attorney General said was a loophole in the law. The minister has given the protection to all the stores, they can all open; why not the same for the workers one day every seven years?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Nipissing will know that the requirement or lack thereof to work on any Sunday is broad and diverse, depending upon what occupation a particular worker has and the nature of the industry he or she works in. For example, operations like hospitals, airports and industries that are in continuous operation are situations where workers in those industries have to work on Sunday. In the retail sector as well there is a broad variety of rules and regulations that apply.

When my colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) announced the changes in respect of Sunday shopping, I undertook that we would be looking at what appropriate protection there needs to be for retail workers, and that work is ongoing right now.

My friend wants specific protection for December 27 for a specific field. I suggest that within the context of Bill 51, we have offered a measure of protection.

1430

SENIOR CITIZENS’ SERVICES

Mr. Velshi: First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Raj Anand on his appointment. He has a tough job ahead of him and I wish him well.

My question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. What is the status of the one-stop-access projects and when will the first projects be operational?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: One-stop access is an integrated approach to the delivery of a broad range of community-based health and social services for the elderly and for the disabled.

Earlier this year, five pilot projects were announced. They are to be introduced in two phases.

The first three projects will be introduced this fiscal year. They are in Huron county, the district of Cochrane and the regional municipality of Waterloo. The phase 1 sites are currently in the process of consulting with their local communities so that they may each develop a project which is unique to the needs of their respective communities. I expect that their proposals will be in early in the new year for implementation this spring.

The phase 2 projects are in, first, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto -- the borough of East York -- and, second, the area of Prescott-Russell and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. Our aim is to have these sites operational in the fiscal year 1988-1989.

Mr. Velshi: Here in Metropolitan Toronto the pilot project site in East York has local interest. Can the minister tell this House if the introduction of the one-stop-access pilot project is being delayed by the introduction of the integrated homemaker program?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: The integrated homemaker program is a very important part of one-stop access, and for this reason the integrated homemaker program was fast-tracked in East York. It will be implemented effective January 1. I had an opportunity to meet with Dennis Flynn, the Metro chairman, just yesterday and to formally invite the municipality to present a proposal on behalf of the borough of East York for implementation of its one-stop-access pro-gram. I do expect that their program will be implemented on schedule.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Health. It refers again to the forced relocation of residents of two nursing homes in St. Thomas, Caressant Care and Rest Haven.

Why has the minister appointed Harvey Nightingale, the president of the Ontario Nursing Home Association, to be one of her representatives to go and find out the facts of what is going on in this community when she knows as well as I do that the Ontario Nursing Home Association is an industry lobby group. It is not representative of the best interests of the residents of nursing homes but is there to represent the interests of the owners of the nursing homes.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, the member’s facts are incorrect. Let me clarify for him what the status is. I have asked the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health, institutional health, Randy Reid, if he will go to St. Thomas as my representative to gather the facts and bring them back to me.

I happened last week to be meeting with the Ontario Nursing Home Association. I mentioned to them my concerns in that area, which had been expressed very well by the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts) on behalf of the people of the community with whom she had met. They expressed concern as well from the perspective of their industry and their members and offered to go out on their own initiative and do their own investigation and report back.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: In answer to a previously asked question, on December 7 the minister indicated that she had asked the Ontario Nursing Home Association to go to St. Thomas, and in press clippings she indicates that she had asked the president of the Ontario Nursing Home Association to go out and find out what was going on and to report back.

Who is representing the residents of these nursing homes’? It is certainly not Harvey Nightingale. Who has she got out there representing the residents? She knows very well that her own assistant deputy minister in charge of institutions is very closely connected with Harvey Nightingale. I would like to make sure that the residents are being protected, not the Ontario Nursing Home Association.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me respond in this way and say to the member that my primary concern is the quality of care for the residents across this province and those, in this particular case, in nursing homes. Let me say as well that my approach to resolving these kinds of issues is to gain as broad a perspective as I can from the different points of views as to what the issues are.

I accepted the offer of the industry representatives to go out and give me their perspective. I asked the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Reid, to go out and give me his perspective. I am pleased to hear from the member. I have heard, as well, from my colleague the member for Elgin. Once I have gathered all of this information, I hope to have a broad perspective so that the decision I make will be in the very best interests of the people in that community and those in the nursing home.

USE OF GILL-NETS

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister is well aware of the controversy between the commercial fishermen and anglers over the use of gill-nets. What is the minister doing, if anything, to resolve this issue?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The very first thing that we are doing is to establish how much we have to harvest in that resource. It is something that needed doing for a good long time and for the first time in the history of this province we are making assessments of the Great Lakes to see what is there to be harvested. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) of course realizes that he never ever did that while he was the minister and he is somewhat disappointed that we are doing it now.

Having said that, we certainly have taken the initiative on buying out gill-netters in Ontario. We are very cognizant of the fact that the resource has to be divided among commercial fishermen and sports fishermen. We are doing what is in the best interest of the resource to not only protect it but also to bring it back to the kind of experience that we had in this province not all that long ago. That is being done and it is in good hands, I must say.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Many people feel that trap nets instead of gill-nets would be the answer and many commercial fishermen have their money tied up in gill-nets. Would the minister give consideration to financially supporting these commercial fishermen to switch to the trap nets?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course, I am fully aware of the fact that the incidental catch and the loss of incidental catch is greatly reduced by the use of trap nets. As I said before, the first initiative that was taken was to buy out some of the gill-netters and in some parts of Ontario they are completely gone. For instance, on Lake St. Clair, all of the gill-netters have been taken out of that fishery.

I am not sure that I could respond and make a commitment that we would be talking about now going in another direction to put money into a situation where we would change from gill-nets to trap nets, but I would assure the honourable member that we are intent on keeping as viable a commercial fishery as we can with the available harvest that is there; and certainly addressing the concerns of sports fishermen, whose numbers have really burgeoned in the last few years because of greater opportunities in the province.

SALE OF DRUG-RELATED EQUIPMENT

Mr. McGuinty: I have a question for the Attorney General. As I plod my weary way at the end of each day up to my spare monastic cell provided by the Ontario taxpayers, I pass a number of shops in which there are for sale some rather curious paraphernalia. One day I asked one of the natives what was in the windows. He was a typical bystander with his long hair and beads, a genuine Canadian artefact manufactured in Jersey City.

When I asked him to explain what was for sale, he asked me if I was from some town I had not heard of by the name of Dullsville. Then he went on to explain to me that in these stores there were for sale scales for weighing opium and pipes to smoke it, vials for hashish oil and papers for rolling marijuana and clips for holding burnt-out ends of what he referred to as joints. Although I spent a lot of time in joints, I still have not found out what this stuff was.

1440

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. McGuinty: My question is, if the substances for whose use, trafficking and consumption such devices are intended are illegal, why are such items permitted for sale?

Hon. Mr. Scott: First of all, I would like to take the occasion to welcome the member to Toronto.

Secondly, I take the substance of his question to be that these articles offered for sale can be used in the commission of acts that are prohibited by the criminal law. They can also be used for other purposes. The honourable member will remember it was not long ago that behind the barn one rolled one’s own cigarettes made of real tobacco or pine needles; so these instruments are not instruments of crime, they are neutral instruments. It has not been the practice of the Criminal Code of Canada, passed by the Parliament of Canada, to make their possession unlawful, any more than it has been the purpose of the law to make unlawful the possession of a knife, a rope or a match.

Mr. McGuinty: My supplementary is based on two preamble statements. First of all, the possibility of a knife being used for crime surely should not preclude its being sold, whereas the probability of devices being used for illegal purposes should. My question is, is there a distinction in law in that context between probability and possibility?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Some honourable member or some bystander has sent me a note apropos the member’s question that says, “I have drafted a response to this question.” But unfortunately, the response to the question is not enclosed, so I will have to do the best I can.

I think the answer to the question essentially is that the law does not prohibit the possession of artifacts unless they are absolutely unlawful in any possible utilization, such as, in some instances, guns or revolvers. What the criminal law does do is prohibit their use in designated ways, and it is in that sense that the use of drugs is prohibited but not those artefacts, such as a Bunsen burner or a spoon or a pipe, which may be used in fact to ingest them. That, Mr. Speaker, is the best I can do.

USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Reville: I have a question to the Minister of Health. The question is also about drugs. However, it is a serious question, whether in Toronto or in Ottawa. It has to do with the fact that 20 per cent of all elderly persons admitted to hospital are being admitted because they have a drug problem.

We have had nothing to date from the Minister of Health to indicate that she is concerned about this very serious problem. Will she today signal concern by immediately making public the study by Dr. Goldberg and others on prescription drug use, which the previous Minister of Health commissioned some nine months ago?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say that I am aware of the recent publicity around this particular issue and express my own concern. I am very aware that the number of senior citizens entering hospital with cognitive impaired drug reaction or a combination of drugs is increasing. I am also aware that in my own municipality recently they had a “Bring your drugs in a brown bag” event hosted by the public health department and that it was not only a successful day in assisting seniors but also drew attention to what I believe is potentially a very serious issue.

I am attempting to address that now, in the few weeks I have been at the ministry. This is on the agenda, and I am hoping to have a more comprehensive response in the very near future to the kind of action we can take to begin to look at this as an issue. It is quite complex and worthy of some discussion, and I invite the member opposite to give me his suggestions as I look at the different ways we can address this very serious issue.

Mr. Reville: With respect, I did make a suggestion. Will the minister release the study that has been prepared by four eminent scientists who are experienced in the prescription of drugs? I understand that study has been residing in the Ministry of Health for about three months now.

The problem the minister describes as being serious is very, very serious indeed. We have doctors scribbling prescriptions like crazy. We have large numbers of seniors who, as she points out, are being admitted to hospital because the drugs that have been prescribed for them are making them sick.

Will the minister not now release the study, together with her proposals for making sure the Ontario drug benefit plan, which is a good plan, does not rapidly become a scandal?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am extremely concerned about the issue the member opposite has raised. I would like an opportunity to review the study he has referred to, and I must say I have not had an opportunity to date to thoroughly review that. As soon as I have had that opportunity, I would be pleased to make it available to him, and publicly, and issue the invitation once again to have not only the member opposite but also any other member of this House who would have any suggestions and would like to do so come forward with information or documentation of specific cases. I would be pleased to hear them, but as well, I believe we have to approach this complex issue in a comprehensive way. I invite the member to join me as we look at this.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Villeneuve: Some nine weeks ago, I wrote the Premier a letter requesting that a committee of the Legislature address the implementation of the French Language Services Act, Bill 8. To date, I have received no reply. What does the Premier intend to do with the implementation? It is creating a lot of problems.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is right; at the moment we do not have any plans to have a committee to do that. We are not persuaded that would be helpful in the implementation. That being said, it is always one of those questions that is under review.

Mr. Villeneuve: The government has done a woefully poor job of communicating the implementation of this particular act. The Premier should be aware of the many communities, particularly those close to designated areas, and the concerns expressed by unilingual Ontarians, particularly in those jobs that touch the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Ontario Hydro, government-funded institutions and hospitals. Would he not seriously consider bringing the implementation of Bill 8 to a standing committee of this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s advice on this matter, and I can tell him it is something that has had a considerable amount of discussion by the government. As I said, we are not persuaded that is the appropriate approach at the moment.

I appreciate the member’s question, because I think it is given in goodwill by a member who wants to assist all of us in resolving some of these problems that have in fact developed. I appreciate his constructive suggestion. It is not one, as I have said, that we have chosen to adopt at the present time, but I assure my honourable friend it is something we will constantly consider, and if we think that is an appropriate approach or would be helpful, I can assure members we will then have further discussions with my honourable friend about how to do that.

ETATECH INDUSTRIES INC.

Mr. Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It deals with an industry in my community, Etatech, which over the last few weeks has been in receivership. A recent story in the press indicates the receiver has announced that the highest bidder is a liquidator. Despite attempts over the past several weeks to work out an arrangement to continue this operation and try to save the 60 to 80 jobs involved, it appears the company will now be closed.

My question to the minister is, has his ministry explored every possible avenue and done everything in its power to ensure that every possibility has been explored for this company to continue as an ongoing, viable operation?

1450

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for his question. I should tell members that the member has been monitoring this very closely over the last few weeks.

The situation is that we as a ministry, through our Ontario Development Corp., have provided substantial funds to that company. We have advanced loans of $900,000. The company is unfortunately in receivership. The receivers, Peat Marwick, were given instructions to realize on the assets and they put it up for bids. We tried to encourage the receiver to accept a bid based on keeping the company going. Legally, unfortunately, they have to take the highest bid and the highest bid by about $200,000 was from a liquidator.

Mr. Neumann: If one of the lower bidders has been willing, as I understand the case to be, to consider the operation viable and continue it, has the ministry explored the possibility of working in co-operation with the employees on some kind of joint venture basis between the workers and a lower bidder, providing some assistance and keeping this company going, in view of the fact that the products made by Etatech, as I understand it, are not available from other Canadian suppliers and Canada as a country would lose the jobs and the production?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is right. The company manufactures specialized motors. We have been in a position where we are exposed to the tune of about $518,000. We are not in a position to take over the company because of its problems, but certainly if any proposal had been made that showed some viability, we would co-operate and do what we could to help save it.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. The minister maybe aware that last week I presented a petition in the House addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly, signed by 38 riders on GO Transit buses in the Oshawa-Toronto downtown corridor. In their petition, the riders complained of stress, backache and fatigue resulting from the use of outdated and inappropriate equipment on the two-hour trip they make twice daily, five days a week.

Since in the throne speech the government promised to “address the issue of transportation in the greater Toronto area,” when can the riders on this route expect a replacement of the old and inappropriate equipment provided by GO Transit at present, which is seriously affecting their health?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member for Beaches-Woodbine is perhaps not aware that the sale of some of that used and outdated equipment is in fact being exercised almost at this very moment. GO Transit is in the process of ordering new equipment, both for the roadways and the bus system. GO Transit is also in the process --

Mr. Breaugh: GO rail system.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: She will be aware, I am sure, via messages from her colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) that we are expanding the rail service of GO Transit, both east and west on the lakeshore line, and expect to have revenue service available by December of next year, a promise we made in October 1985 and a promise this government is keeping.

The member will also be aware that we were very much involved and aware of the tremendous congestion within the Metropolitan Toronto area and surrounding regions. Because of that, when we took office, we appointed certain review committees. One has reported.

The member will be aware of the generosity of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to the greater Toronto area, so that on May 13 of this year we were able to announce an additional $130 million for the region of Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding regions to address not only the increased level of service from GO Transit but also those other areas of relieving the congestion around Metro and the surrounding areas.

Ms. Bryden: I thank the minister but I have a question following from his reply. If he is selling the buses today and does not bring the train service in till a year from now, what are the people going to travel in while that year is going by? I hope better equipment.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Ms. Bryden: My second and more significant questions is, of that money the minister says he is spending in the greater Toronto area to improve service, is he increasing the grant to the Toronto Transit Commission to get more people out of their cars in order to relieve that congestion?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member must have misunderstood the first response. Of course, when we are selling off or trading a bus, we are replacing it with new equipment. We are not diminishing the number of buses in service in GO Transit. We are in fact expanding that.

The member will be aware that through the office of the Treasury, we are spending $100 million this year in expanding GO service throughout the regions of Metro and the surrounding areas. We have a commitment to improving transit operations and roads operations in Ontario and we are carrying out our responsibilities on that commitment.

CONTINUING EDUCATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Yesterday, I raised the issue of the findings of the Dobell report on adult and continuing education for Ontario school boards. For some reason, he has seen fit not to table that document in this Legislature. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that his government is on record as promising to provide full funding for these costs. In 1987, his government guesstimated and funded at the rate of $1,900 per adult student. This report clearly establishes that the full costs will be $3,075 for 1988. Will the minister make the announcement today, confirm this funding and simply put his money where his promise is?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member for Burlington South is always quick to accuse this minister of suppressing information. I point out to the member that in fact the reports he refers to were the reports of the task force on continuing education, as well as a report undertaken by the Ontario Association of Education Administration Officials, for which the ministry provided funding and at the same time indicated to those organizations that the dissemination and the utilization of the material was totally at their discretion. They are free to release that information in any form or any manner they choose. That is the first point l would like to make.

Second, I want to reiterate the answer I gave to the member yesterday. This government is firmly committed to the funding of continuing education in this province. We will give careful consideration to the recommendations contained in both of those reports. Frankly, I am quite certain that the material contained therein, as well as the work of Professor Lawton from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, will provide us with an excellent resource to assist us in determining what those costs are and what level of funding should flow next year.

Mr. Jackson: The minister has been sitting on this report for over two weeks. He knew it was coming. Ontario school boards deserve a straight answer from me -- from you.

Interjections.

Mr. Jackson: At least they are getting a straight question from me. We are waiting for a straight answer.

His 1987 funding commitment for adult education expires in 21 days. There will be no more funding for Ontario school boards after 21 days. Access to these programs will be cut off in school boards across Ontario, programs like literacy training, English as a second language, special skills upgrading programs for women who are seeking these programs to better their employment opportunities. All across Ontario, specifically in northern Ontario where they do not have access to post-secondary institutions or skills training institutions, they have to go to their local high school. These programs are going to be cut off in 21 days if the minister does not provide the funding.

1500

Mr. Speaker: The straight question is?

Mr. Jackson: Where does the minister suggest that the hundreds and possibly thousands of Ontario residents who are seeking these programs go in January when those programs are cut off? Where is the minister going to tell them to go?

Hon. Mr. Ward: Let me first clarify that the member’s question is not even straight, because again he accuses me of suppressing a report that is not a report of my ministry but a report of an independent task force that is free to disseminate and release that material. Perhaps they do not want to give it to him; I do not know why. I assure the member that we are indeed committed to funding continuing education in this province. It was our ministry that sought their input in terms of determining the costs of extending those programs, and after giving careful consideration to those outside reports, we will be forthcoming with our grant announcements.

ONTARIO YOUNG TRAVELLERS PROGRAM

Mr. Campbell: My question is also to the Minister of Education.

Mr. Wildman: Just lean over and ask him.

Mr. Campbell: I might just do that.

The question deals with the Ontario Young Travellers program which currently is in effect to bring students to Toronto to visit the Legislature, the museum and so on. I am wondering if the minister has considered, and what the status is of that consideration, a young travellers program expanded to other parts of the province, such as northern Ontario with Science North or Old Fort William in Thunder Bay.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am happy to indicate to him that indeed the ministry does have programs that encourage those kinds of educational trips to northern Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The interjection from the member for Sault Ste. Marie --

Mr. Wildman: Algoma.

Hon. Mr. Ward: -- seems to indicate that those programs are underfunded, but I will say that those programs have been well received and our ministry will continue to encourage such programs.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, and I know I have to get it in one because the answer will be prolonged. The minister will be aware that there is a very serious environmental problem which is still facing residents in my riding in Dill township.

Since May 1987, a sanitation company has been dumping large volumes of untreated human waste into a gravel pit which, in essence, is in their back yard. In September. there was an agreement reached between the various ministries involved in the issue to have the dumping occur at an alternative site on the Burwash property. To date, there has been no transfer of the site from the Ministry of Government Services to the Ministry of the Environment and the dumping is still continuing.

I want to ask the minister what the holdup is. Can he assure the 300 residents in that area that the dumping is going to stop soon and be transferred to the Burwash site?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I should indicate that the previous member for Sudbury East had communicated his concerns to me on this matter as well and I know it is one of some import to the people who live in the immediate area.

I am attempting to expedite with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) any transfers of property that might be required in order to resolve this matter. I understood there was a court proceeding that the individual who was involved in the dumping is involved in, which has complicated it a bit. I thought there was a resolution of this problem at one time. There was a public meeting that the member attended and the Liberal candidate attended --

Miss Martel: I didn’t go.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Well, some people up there attended anyway. We tried to resolve it. I thought we had a resolution. Perhaps the member thought at one time it might have been a resolution of the problem. We are trying to iron it out and move as quickly as possible, because I share her concern with any potential impact on the residents in that area.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Petitions; committee reports; motions; introduction of bills.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I could remind many of the members that the House is still in session and I do have a member who wishes to introduce a bill.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATIONAL TRAILS COMMISSION ACT

Mr. Pollock moved first reading of Bill 67, An Act to establish the East/Central Ontario Recreational Trails Commission.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I want to table answers to questions 18 and 22 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Monday, December 14].

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before we go into committee of the whole House, I should remind the members that the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) gave notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) and this matter will be debated at 6 p.m. today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN ACT

Consideration of Bill 20, An Act to provide an Incentive to Ontario Employees of Small and Medium Sized Corporations to Purchase Newly Issued Shares of their Employer Corporation.

Mr. Chairman: Do any members have any comments, questions or amendments that they would like to bring to this bill, and if so, to which sections, please? Right now I have received motions to amend sections 6, 27 and 28. Would other members have any other sections?

Mr. Harris: What bill are we on here?

Mr. Chairman: Bill 20.

Mr. Harris: I think I do. Did I not table an amendment yesterday?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, you did.

Mr. Harris: I am told by the table, by the way, that rather than move a new section 27 and renumber sections 27 and 28, it would be appropriate if I slipped my amendment in under section 26a. There are a whole bunch of nodding heads behind you there, Mr. Chairman, too, telling me that is the way to do it, so I will have a new section called section 26a.

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

1510

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) A corporation is not entitled to have its employee share ownership plan registered under subsection 7(1) unless, upon the completion of the employee share purchase agreement,

“(a) the employees of the corporation hold at least 25 per cent of the voting shares of the corporation, and

“(b) the proportion of the number of employees of the corporation who are directors of the corporation to the total number of directors of the corporation is equal to or greater than the proportion of the number of employee shares of the corporation to the total number of voting shares of the corporation.”

Ms. Bryden: I would like to speak to it.

The thinking behind this amendment is that the cost in a company of establishing an employee share ownership plan, as it is called, is consider-able under this act. In fact, the minister told us that the startup costs were anticipated at $500,000 to $600,000 in the first year. That is half a million dollars that will have to be raised by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) or come out of the budget by cutting some other program.

Therefore, what I am suggesting by this amendment is that an employee share ownership plan should not be registered unless at least 25 per cent of the voting shares in the corporation are held by employees. My reasoning is that for any plan that goes into a company with a smaller share of employee participation, it would be too costly to the government to set up the plan in such a firm and it would not necessarily be fulfilling the objective the minister has stated the bill is aiming at -- promoting employee-employer co-operation -- because it would be such a small percentage of the employees who were involved in the plan. Therefore, that is what clause 6(2)(a) asks.

Clause 6(2)(b), which we may wish to vote on separately, would provide that there be representatives of the employees on the board of directors in any eligible corporation that is approved for this plan, and that that proportion of directors should be in proportion to the number of employee shares in the corporation compared to the total number of voting shares. That is the meaning of the two sections of the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: At this time I am not very fond of the amendment. I think it would destroy the purpose of the act. I think the act is well written as it is now. I am surprised, especially by clause 6(2)(a), “the employees of the corporation hold at least 25 per cent of the voting shares.” This is a bill to encourage employees to take part in their small business. Why say “at least 25 per cent”? The bill was not any good last evening and now the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) is asking for at least 25 per cent of the voting shares in the corporation. This is not acceptable.

Ms. Bryden: The minister did not comment on the second part, which is to add employees to the board of directors. That is a new provision that was not provided for in the bill. It was mentioned in the debate by myself, and possibly by others, that we should go in at least for this amount of democratization of boards of directors. It is compulsory in Sweden that all boards of directors have employee representatives on them.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I did not address clause 6(2)(b), but I think (2)(b) is really related to (2)(a). It is a complement of (2)(a), and again, this is not acceptable to us.

Mr. Harris: I share the minister’s concern with (2)(a) as far as its being, in my opinion, very restrictive on the intent of the legislation. I indicated yesterday that this legislation, in my opinion, is not going to do as much as the expectation out there will be or as much as we would like. I pointed out that very small companies will have difficulty with the costs involved.

I do not know how many corporations there are in Ontario, although somewhere in my stack of stuff I have that number, but the ministry itself is projecting, I think, 50 companies in all of the province in the first year will be willing to take advantage of it. I do not think 50 is a very large and significant number, based on the total number of companies in this province.

I cannot see any advantage in placing further restrictions on the program by maintaining that employees have to hold at least 25 per cent. I think that would be fairly restrictive starting out. Perhaps the estimate of $1 million -- that is, the $500,000-$1 million cost of the program -- will be nothing other than administrative costs if there is no takeup to get it started. We have great concerns with that and we would be opposed to that.

On clause (b), we are not opposed to the principle of allowing employee representation on the board of directors of corporations. Indeed, I would be surprised if a company hit a level of 25 per cent or greater and did not want and encourage employee representation on the board. But to make it a mandatory condition, and on the basis of any proportion, I think is far too restrictive on a company and really can lead to a number of examples I could see that would not make very much sense.

For example, if you had a situation where employees held a tenth of a per cent of the stock of a company, I am not exactly sure where you get in there. I understand the amendment if there is 25 per cent. I am not sure I would support it even then but it makes some sense there.

But really, if (2)(a) is not going to carry, and I do not think it should, I do not think (2)(b), as it is written, should carry either. Our party will not be supporting either one of the amendments.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I still stand with my first comments, that we should take clauses 6(2)(a) and (2)(b) as a whole. I can understand the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) saying he does not agree with (a) but possibly with (b), but I think that both (a) and (b) are complements of each other and not acceptable.

Ms. Bryden: Since the member for Nipissing was not quite sure whether he would oppose (b) but definite that he would oppose (a), could we have those two sections voted on separately? In a way, they really are two separate concepts: the fact that the drafting people put them together was because they both came under subsection 6(2). I would request that we vote separately on clause 6(2)(a) and clause 6(2)(b).

1520

Mr. Chairman: Right now we have in front of the committee a motion on your part to change it the way you have said right now. I guess what you are proposing to do would have to be done afterwards, or whatever, because right now --

Ms. Bryden: As a separate amendment.

Mr. Chairman: -- we have the motion as you see it. If you want to change that, do you want to withdraw your amendment and move another one, a different version of your amendment’?

Ms. Bryden: Can this be done quickly?

Mr. Harris: I might be able to facilitate this by saying that however it is done, our vote will be the same.

Ms. Bryden: Let us have the vote then, as is.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Ms. Bryden’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Harris: I was short one copy. I wonder if the New Democratic Party got a new copy of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman: It is being provided right now.

Mr. Harris: The language has been tidied up by the experts, once again, from what I handed out yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: If I may, can I get a copy of the amendment?

Mr. Harris: I was told by the minister’s staff that he had one.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I do not know if it is the right one. Oh, it is.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Harris moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“Review

“26a(1) In the fifth year after commencement of the act, the incentive program established by the act shall be referred to a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly.

“(2) The standing committee shall review the incentive program established by the act to assess the effectiveness of the incentive program in achieving program objectives.

“(3) The standing committee shall report its findings to the Legislative Assembly and shall make a recommendation as to whether the act should be continued unchanged, be amended, or be repealed.”

Mr. Harris: First of all, I want to thank the staff for tidying up the language. I think it reads better than what I had suggested yesterday and I thank them for that.

The intent of what we are proposing here is basically that this program be reviewed by a legislative committee at the end of five years. This, I believe, is something that is long overdue in a number of the statutes, in a number of the programs, in a number of the bills this Legislature passes. Very often, we spend a detailed amount of time on legislation. We go through it, dot every i, cross every t and examine the implications. We go through hearings. Yet we still have to rely on some estimate or expectation of how this program will be received by the public, in this case by employers and employees of companies across Ontario. Very often, we find the program does not meet the objective that is intended.

As well, we have had a move in recent years in this assembly, and of course in the House in Ottawa, towards a far more intense scrutiny of value-for-money auditing practices. I believe we should be looking at value for money in a number of the incentive programs we put forth as a government and as a Legislature.

It is something I will be pursuing in a number of other areas. I want to say I was delighted with the indication from the minister yesterday that he would support this amendment, that he would support the principle as it pertained to his specific program. If I recall -- I have not had a chance to review Hansard -- I think he said the principle that is being espoused for this particular piece of legislation is one that he too shares and that he too would like to see perhaps applied to a number of other of the statutes and programs this Legislature approves from time to time.

I mention that in this context because I plan to bring in a private member’s bill which will ensure that does happen.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Got all kinds of backing.

Mr. Harris: That is right. I have a lot more now because I have the support of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) with that type of philosophy or philosophical thinking. I mention that as well, and I know all members will look forward with anticipation when I figure out how to draft it. It is now in the hands of a number of staff and drafters so that it can apply to more than just this --

Hon. Mr. Elston: That sounds like leadership delegation if I have ever heard it.

Mr. Harris: The member would appreciate -- where is he from now? His riding changed.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Yes; Bruce.

Mr. Harris: The member for Bruce will appreciate that our staff funding was cut drastically after the last election of September 10. Some $700,000 was whacked out of the amount of money opposition parties had and we do not have the resources we had before the election. Should the government become less arrogant with its 95-seat majority and restore our funding level to the level it was at before September 10, I will be able to come up with these amendments correctly drafted much quicker. I would not cause problems such as I caused yesterday and today in this chamber, and I would have my private member’s bill on sunset provisions in a little sooner, to cover most of the statutes that are on the books here.

1530

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the third party is under a sunset review.

Mr. Harris: As a matter of fact, we are, of sorts, but I know the Chairman is about ready to bring me back on topic. I am delighted that the minister and the member from the racetrack, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), are also prepared to support this amendment and agree with the intent of it as well.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is Beaches-Greenwood.

Mr. Harris: Beaches-Greenwood, right.

I think it will be very beneficial, particularly in this piece of legislation where I have mentioned on second reading a number of concerns that we have and that the small business sector had with the bill. We are prepared to support it and see how it works out. At least we will be secure in the knowledge that within the fifth year, if not before -- and if the government wants to review it before, of course, that proviso is there -- this bill will get a thorough review as to whether it is still appropriate or whether some changes ought to be made.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I think the amendment is a reasonable one -- I think every program, for that matter, should be reviewed after five years -- not because I do not think the program is a good one; I think it is a very good program. Finally, the government is paying back the small and medium-sized businesses or providing them with the incentive to do more for this province. I also recognize and agree with the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) that 84 per cent of our jobs are created from small and medium-sized businesses, and we should give them all the programs necessary to improve their facilities. Also, they will be paying more taxes to the Ministry of Revenue, so why not encourage them to do more business in Ontario?

Maybe after five years, depending on the success of the program, more moneys, more incentives could be added to the program, because I believe in this program. I believe it is a good one now, but surely after five years, if necessary, we could improve it.

Ms. Bryden: After listening to the member for Nipissing, I may at the next redistribution consider renaming my riding, if the commission so approves, to Beaches-Racetrack. Woodbine, as the member probably knows, refers to a geographical street in my riding, not to another horse racing track far from my riding; so it is confusing.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Then you could change the parking bylaw.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Why do all the New Democratic members have racetracks in their ridings?

Ms. Bryden: Yes, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) has the Woodbine Race Track. Anyway, I was flattered by the minister yesterday saying that obviously the member knows a great deal about racetracks; possibly about horse races also, as elections can be considered.

To be serious, regarding this amendment, l did hint yesterday that in the event I did not convince this House to vote against the bill on second reading along with the New Democrats, who did vote against it, I would consider the member for Nipissing’s proposed amendment a useful one. The fact that he brings it forward indicates he has a sort of nagging feeling that maybe the legislation does fit my description of it, which is “half-baked,” and that we do need to look at it again within five years to see how this new form of rewarding share purchase is working out, how it is helping small business and how it is helping employee-employer relations.

I think I and my party would support the proposed amendment. As the minister says, perhaps we should look at this kind of amendment to a great many acts which are bringing in what might be called a new idea; although as I mentioned before, it is not a new idea across the continent, people seeking methods of encouraging a purchase of shares. I would support the amendment on that basis.

Motion agreed to.

On section 27:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 27 of the bill be amended by striking out “1987” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “ 1988.”

Ms. Bryden: The point of this amendment is to eliminate the retroactivity that is at present in the bill, because the bill says it shall come into effect on January 1, 1987. I feel that is a dangerous precedent to set, to make a bill that is passed in December 1987 retroactive to January 1, 1987, particularly with regard to giving grants to people who purchased shares during the 12 months of 1987 and giving grants to companies that set up plans to purchase shares. I think it is completely improper to have that clause in the act.

Even if we put January 1, 1988, as I am suggesting, it may not be really operative until the first employer plan is filed and approved, but it could apply to all shares purchased in the whole 12 months. I think most of them will probably be purchased after the share plan is put into effect, but I do not want to endorse the use of retroactivity in this legislation.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Regarding the proposal to amend section 27 by striking out “1987” and inserting “1988,” at the present time there are possibly some companies that could qualify for the program, but I think at this time we would prefer to stay with 1987 just in case we would prevent some small or medium-sized corporation from qualifying instead of stalling them until 1988.

1540

Mr. Harris: I too am not a great fan of retroactivity if there is not some logical reason why it should be retroactive. I wonder if in the original drafting of this bill it was not January 1, 1987, because the original intention was that the bill would have been dealt with last spring.

Having said that, I am not sure what the resistance is to it. Is it that something will happen between when this bill gets third reading, probably next Wednesday or Thursday, and the end of the year; or that something is in the works right now that we should know about; or that your big problem is that you will have to change the title of the act to the Employee Share Ownership Plan Act, 1988? In the latter case I would indicate that we would facilitate that change in section 28 as well.

I am not sure the minister has given me a convincing enough reason as to why the amendment ought not to be supported. Unless I hear that, given the tremendous support I have had from the New Democratic Party over the last couple of days on some of the amendments I have moved, I am inclined to support one with them.

Ms. Bryden: I would also like the minister to indicate to us if there are actually any plans before the ministry seeking approval because, as the member for Nipissing says, none could have been approved until this act was passed, and no company could be sure that this bill would be passed.

Even if there are some who have perhaps been tipped off that the act may pass, particularly in view of the majority, it seems to me that it would only be companies that managed to get their act together in the last two weeks of the year that would be able to benefit.

I do not think all companies would be as aware, perhaps, on an equal basis that the act was in effect, say from December 15 on. Even if they were and had not anticipated that it would happen at that time, they would not have time in those two weeks to get their plan put together and approved and to notify their employees that they could start purchasing shares, even if they had any money left over after Christmas shopping.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I did find out if we do have anything in the works, if any companies could qualify in 1987, that is a possibility, but we think we can live with the amendment that section 27 of the bill be amended by striking out “1987” in the second line and inserting, in lieu thereof, “1988.” We can live with that.

Motion agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

On section 28:

Mr. Harris: I am not sure whether it is appropriate, but I wonder now whether section 28 might not better read, “The short title of this act is the Employee Share Ownership Plan Act, 1988,” in so far as it will not apply for any period of 1987, and I would so move. I apologize that I do not have it written out, but I move that we strike out “7” and insert “8” in “1987.”

Mr. Chairman: I would like to advise the member for Nipissing that he is out of order because in section 28, “1987” refers to the year in which the act was passed.

Mr. Harris: For matters of clarification, then, can I ask the Chairman whether, should this act not pass third reading until 1988, it will still be in order that it read “Employee Share Ownership Plan, 1987”? In cases where that happened, are all those laws that were passed in that situation then, in fact, not really legal?

Mr. Chairman: I have just been advised that legislative counsel will make the change automatically if it is passed in 1988.

Section 28 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

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

MINISTRY OF REVENUE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 21, An Act to amend the Ministry of Revenue Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This bill, An Act to amend the Ministry of Revenue Act, empowers the minister to enter into reciprocal exchange of information agreements with governments in other jurisdictions for the better administration of statutes entrusted to its direction.

Administrative and technical amendments are also being made to update the act on additional statute administration responsibilities now within the minister’s purview and also on references to the manner in which the ministry is now conducting its business.

I would like to point out that this act has not been amended since 1972, so it is really an update of the practices that have been going on since 1972 but now would be enacted with this new amendment.

Ms. Bryden: The Ministry of Revenue Amendment Act, 1987, is, as the minister said, the first amendment since 1972, which does seem a rather long time to be updating this act. However, I am glad to see that it is being updated. I think there are some important additions to it as well as a number of housekeeping changes which become necessary when an act is not amended for such a long period.

One of the important additions, I think, although it may have fairly marginal importance, is that the minister is authorized to enter into exchange of information agreements with non-Canadian jurisdictions. It already has the power to do so with regard to Canadian jurisdictions, but the kind of exchange of information here contemplates agreements relating to the export of gasoline, diesel fuel and tobacco products to American jurisdictions, which also tax these commodities. As these commodities move back and forth across the border frequently, it is valuable to have this extension of the right to enter into exchange-of-information agreements with the tax authorities in the United States. There may be similar situations with regard to other jurisdictions in specialized commodities, so I welcome that addition to the act.

1550

I also welcome giving the cabinet power to remit recoverable grants when collection would impose a hardship. This power is needed because the ministry’s huge program of seniors’ tax grants, tax credits, guaranteed annual income system payments and small business development grants often results in overpayments or payments to ineligible people, which are not discovered until long after they occurred. In many cases, they are the result of errors. It would be a hardship to the recipient to repay something he has probably long since spent, and when such a hardship appears the ministry will now be able to remit those grants.

I know that power is needed from my experience with the people who have received the seniors’ tax grants or tax credits, but when it was later discovered that a mistake had been made and the grant was not correctly awarded, that they were not eligible, it was really too late to ask them in most cases to give back that money. I hope the ministry wild, of course, be diligent in seeing that the mistakes that caused those overpayments are not repeated.

Cabinet, under the act, is also given the power to remit interest paid as well as tax and penalty when it is considered in the public interest to do so. Knowing the way interest piles up, usually at about 11 per cent on tax arrears or taxes which the ministry is disputing, I certainly think if it is found that the ministry was in the wrong and the taxpayer in the right, it should able to remit interest paid as well as tax and penalty.

The act broadens the minister’s powers to delegate his power or obligations under ministry statutes to the deputy minister or other officials. While I think the broadening of powers is necessary, with the complexity of new statutes and the increased responsibilities of the Ministry of Revenue, I think the exercise of the delegated powers should be subject to the same scrutiny to which the exercise of the regulatory power is subject. In this province, the regulatory power is subject to review by the standing committee on regulations and private bills, and it has a staff person who reviews all the regulations and reports to the standing committee on any regulations which appear to go beyond the enabling legislation, or in which the regulations appear to be in contradiction to the policies of the ministry.

I am not proposing an amendment on this until we know more about the extent to which this extension of delegation is used, but I would like to put it on record that after a year has passed, we should look at how many new delegations have been made and what kind of acts they have undertaken under the delegated powers so they could possibly be referred to the committee on regulations.

The ministry was subject to some fairly substantial comments by the auditor this year, and I would hope during this debate that perhaps he would indicate to us what is being done with regard to two or three fairly substantial conclusions of the Provincial Auditor regarding the administration of the ministry. One program that they mentioned was the guaranteed income payments and property tax grants to senior citizens. While I am 100 per cent in favour of those property tax grants and guaranteed income payments to seniors and as well to those who receive payments from the guaranteed annual income system program who are not seniors, I think that the ministry should be looking at ways of improving the efficiency of the administration of those grants.

About two or three years ago we had literally dozens of calls to the constituency office about people not getting their property tax grants or their guaranteed income payments for seniors. In many cases it was really that people did not know where to phone, their names were not on the list or the addresses were wrong. They tried phoning to find out when their grant was coming and they would go through a very long runaround of phone numbers.

I think in the past couple of years the ministry has greatly improved the administration of those plans, but there is still much that could be done. The minister should review the administrative procedures for these plans every year and see if streamlining is not possible. The Provincial Auditor did suggest that economies could be obtained by further staff reductions and by depositing Gains-A payments and tax grants directly into senior citizens’ bank accounts rather than mailing them.

I know that the preceding Progressive Conservative government would have probably rejected that proposal outright because it loved sending letters with cheques in them to senior citizens. That is one reason those grants went out twice a year in two bites and also why they usually went through the mails. The problem with the mails is that people change their addresses between the two payments and the grants sometimes took a long route getting to the intended recipients.

I do not know whether some of the grants could, with the consent of the seniors, go into seniors’ bank accounts upon authorization by the seniors and whether this would save a great deal. I think the ministry should look into this and perhaps not overburden the mails with as many letters saying, “Your grant is coming,” and then, “Here it is,” and, “Another one is coming in six months.” We have to look at the economics, under our present postage rates, of using this system of delivery.

On the other hand, I do not want them to be delayed until, say, the end of the tax year and the seniors get it through their income tax rebates. I think most of them do need the money very badly. The main thing is they want to get it quickly, without a lot of need for phoning up and seeing what has happened to it.

Another criticism that the Provincial Auditor raised was the possibility of unauthorized access to confidential computer files. Since the ministry has so many payees on its rolls because of the seniors’ tax grants and the many other programs -- the Gains program -- it does have a lot of confidential computer records on those payees. I would like to know what the ministry is doing to make sure that such files are protected by a security system, which was recommended by the Provincial Auditor.

1600

Of course, the auditor said that the ministry must guarantee total protection in security matters without prohibitive cost or severely restricting the use of data for business purposes and its own purposes. The auditor did not find instances where the confidentiality had been violated, but it is indicated that it is an area where there should be considerable activity by the ministry in reviewing its security systems every year and making sure that they are state of the art, that they are updated as much as possible.

Another area the auditor mentioned was concerning the corporations tax branch. While the auditor’s overall conclusion is that it is well managed, it did say that certain “Important areas in the branch’s operations have been neglected because of insufficient resources.”

That indicates a real weakness in our revenue collection system, because if there are insufficient resources, the revenue ministry may not be collecting the full amount that it could from corporations. I would like to know what the minister is doing about the recommendation from the auditor that there be a substantial investment in technology and auditors in order to obtain “greater returns in tax revenues for the province.”

I would like to draw to the attention of the minister a recent study. My copy has disappeared, but I can tell the minister briefly it is from the Institute for Research on Public Policy that operates out of Halifax, which has analysed the corporation tax returns at the federal level and has been studying the degree to which many corporations escape paying any tax at all, and a great many also have a very low effective corporation tax rate, considerably below what is considered the average rate of about 36 per cent.

This sort of study is something that we are completely lacking in Ontario. We do not have an annual report from the minister. It is not required in the statute. We do not have a statistical report from the minister on tax collections that is published and available to the public. I am sure he keeps statistics in the ministry. We do not have a statistical report on all the various taxes that he collects and the cost of collection thereof. We do not have material that would be useful to students and researchers who are writing essays, books or PhD theses in this field.

I think that is an area the ministry must look at. because it is very difficult for anybody, including the opposition, to criticize the administration of the Corporations Tax Act in Ontario without those kinds of statistics. That is one of the things I would hope he would comment on as to whether he intends to become a pioneer as Minister of Revenue and institute such an annual report, both an annual statistical report and an annual report of the ministry activities in the collection of each tax and the costs thereof.

I have found the study from Ottawa that I was mentioning. It is from the Institute for Research on Public Policy. Its address is Halifax, Nova Scotia, but it is a think-tank on public policy. In the September-October, 1987 issue, it has a few things to say about corporation tax that I would like to draw to the minister’s attention.

It mentions that the report of the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration in 1976 said that there was no fundamental bias either in favour of or against corporate concentration in the federal corporation income tax. However, this new study I am bringing to the minister’s attention casts doubt on this conclusion. I suspect the conclusion applies to Ontario almost equally as it does to Ottawa, since our corporation tax, in many senses, mirrors the federal corporation tax. Ontario tends to adopt changes in the federal corporation tax almost willy-nilly, although it does have some areas where it diverges from the federal tax. So, this comment on what is happening under the federal corporation tax is probably indicative of what is happening under the Ontario corporation tax as well.

It studied what it calls ETRs, effective tax rates, in relation to the size of corporations, and it came to the conclusion that almost half of all corporations in each size range had federal ETRs, that is effective tax rates, of less than 10 per cent. For the top size range, over $100 million in assets, at least half of all corporations paid no federal corporate income tax. In all size ranges, at least 25 per cent of all corporations paid no federal tax in 1983.

The conclusion of this study was that this kind of treatment which the corporations were able to achieve, this kind of low tax rate, gave them an opportunity to make more profits, and made the corporate tax system biased towards industrial concentration. To the extent it is true for the overall corporate sector, the tax system can be said to be biased towards conglomerate concentration.

The minister should study that, and see if he can bring up similar figures for Ontario, so that we can know exactly whether our tax system is biased towards corporate concentration. This is something our party is generally opposing, because it does mean less competition and higher prices for consumers.

I also wanted to speak about the ministry’s relations with the taxpayers. A couple of years ago, when the provincial Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) was also Minister of Revenue, he made a speech in the House about how he was going to improve tax relations with the taxpayers. He said he was going to have more opportunity for taxpayers to find out about taxes, to get rulings quickly, to understand their rights under the appeal procedure and to inform taxpayers about changes in administrative procedures.

In particular, the ministry has contact with a great many taxpayers under the Retail Sales Tax Act since every retail business is covered by it and a good many service industries as well. Under that act, retailers are paid a percentage of collections to cover their costs of acting as tax collectors. I may say that did not always happen. The previous government did bring it in finally, but at one time the taxpayer got no compensation for collecting the sales tax. I certainly support the idea of compensating the retailer for it.

1610

After the minister’s great statement saying he was going to be more humane and more co-operative in educating taxpayers about their obligations and their rights, I had occasion to deal with a constituent’s case. He had been assessed a penalty under the Retail Sales Tax Act for alleged underpayment on sales. I must say my experience with that very much disillusioned me about the ministry’s friendliness to taxpayers, particularly to small taxpayers who are not as familiar with the collection procedures and many of whom do not read English.

None of the ministry’s bulletins, as far as I can see, are published in any of the immigrants’ languages, except possibly French. A great many of our retailers are Greeks, Italians, Portuguese or people from Asiatic countries and none of the bulletins appear to be published in those languages. Very few of the ministry staff are versed in those languages. In my case, it was a Greek immigrant who had been in the shoe business in his native country and knew it well, but when he got into trying to understand the regulations here as to what was taxable and what was not taxable, he got very little help.

I may say that his case started back under the Progressive Conservative government which put the assessment on him about 1984 that he owed close to $10,000 in unpaid taxes.

One of the things I learned from his case was that it took a long time for him to find out exactly why they were asking for this $10,000 in extra assessment. When he tried to go to his MPP or a lawyer or an accountant, this of course all took time too and he finally appealed. The whole process took over a year and during that whole year the interest cash register was ticking away every month. At the end of the process, he ended up with a debt of about twice what the original assessment was. He did not win his case.

He still claims he was underserviced by the ministry. They did not visit him and tell him what they thought he was doing wrong; they just simply sent an auditor around who looked at his books and then put in a reassessment. They sent him a letter, but they did not really explain to him what the situation was. I asked for a copy of how they calculated what sales he had not paid tax on and I must say I could not understand it, although I am not an accountant. I am sure the shoe retailer could not either and nobody really tried to explain it to him.

In addition, they gave me a copy the day I had an appointment with him to see the people who were ready to try to work out a settlement. I had asked for it earlier but it did not come.

All this sort of poor service, both to the taxpayer and to anybody who is trying to help him, does not enhance the ministry’s reputation. I hope a great deal of that has been improved in the meantime, because really, with regard to the small taxpayer, the ministry should not consider that they are all criminals who are trying to cheat. For a great many of them, it is lack of information, lack of knowledge of the system and lack of contact by ministry officials. In most cases, very little field-work is done to call on the person who is under challenge and explain what is going on.

The appeal system is the worst part of the whole thing, I think, and yet the ministry makes a great claim that it has a wonderful appeal procedure. In fact, it even gets out a little brochure, of which I have a copy here, about the appeal, and it says:

‘‘The right to appeal government decisions on tax, grant and refund matters is essential to the integrity of Ontario’s tax system. Individuals or companies who are dissatisfied with a tax assessment or the minister’s decision to disallow a grant or refund may register their objections with the ministry’s tax appeals branch.... The enclosed publications may be of help to your constituents.”

The one thing you may not be aware of when you go through this is that the tax appeals branch is just a few different employees of the ministry who are examining how the ministry’s employees have handled this case. In other words, it is not an independent appeal; it is just different people in the ministry.

Another thing I found out with my constituent’s case is that if he does put in an objection and asks for an appeal hearing, it takes several months, even up to a year, before the process is completed. The ministry gets out a little flowchart, of which I have a copy here. It shows he has 180 days to appeal and then five days for the tax appeals branch to receive his notice in the mail, and so on. Anyway, if you add up all the 30-day periods allowed for here, there are 365 days possible under this appeal flowchart.

Another thing I discovered was that after the objection was received, he got a letter saying, “It has been received and the tax review officer” -- who is another employee of the ministry – “will review your case and get the facts and let you know what he finds, but it is best for you to pay up the total new assessment you are complaining about before you go through this process.”

The man was asked to pay $10,000 he did not think he owed and was told he had to put up the $10,000 before he could have it reviewed by the appeals branch. I was told later that could be waived if it was going to be a great hardship. For most retailers, it is a great hardship. This particular man was $5,000 into the bank for a loan to finance his Christmas stock, which he hoped he would be able to pay off after Christmas, and the ministry was asking for another $10,000. He really could not go back to the bank. The ministry will offer terms, at 11 per cent interest per year over a period. He felt he might as well go to the bank, because he would get about the same terms from the bank.

It did not seem like a very humane process and I do not think it was the proper procedure for a small businessman, particularly a retailer. Ultimately, after he made Herculean efforts on the suggestion of the ministry officials to try to pay it off over a quicker period, he did go to the bank and got an agreement in the hope that if he paid off half of it, they might give him some sort of remission He got nothing, except that he paid up half more quickly. He went out of business shortly afterwards. Whether it was entirely the extra tax assessment -- it could have been partly business conditions in his district, but certainly the tax assessment and the requirement of putting up so much money in such a short period and getting really no credit for attempts to deal with this problem in some sort of rational and fair way -- at least what he thought was a fair way -- certainly contributed to his going out of business.

1620

In the process, he had improved his knowledge of the tax, he had improved his methods of remitting on a regular basis. He had not entirely understood what were the requirements, so he had become a better taxpayer, but he ends up not being a taxpayer at all because he has no business. That is the sort of case that does illustrate to the individual MPP that the system is just not working.

The minister will say he can appeal to the Supreme Court of Ontario if he is not satisfied with the tax appeals branch’s decision. But as we all know, for a $10,000 debt, you go to the Supreme Court of Ontario and it costs you at least $10,000 in legal fees. You are in a gamble situation; you may or may not win your case. You would certainly have to have lawyers and accountants to help you make your case, so that is really not an answer. It might be an answer for a big corporation that is appealing a $1-million tax assessment, but it is not for the small retailer.

Whether you could have some court similar to the assessment appeal court, which operates more informally and which does not usually require lawyers to go to, is something the ministry should consider. Certainly the present business of the Revenue officials examining their fellow Revenue officials -- behind closed doors, too -- is not exactly my idea of an appeal procedure.

Those are some of the things that I hope, under the new act, we will get some changes on. I suppose I and my colleagues will support the bill because of the things I mentioned at the beginning, which are badly needed improvements, but I hope that we can expect from this new minister more improvements in the appeal procedure, improvements in reporting and statistics and in carrying out the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor’s report.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. McCague: Madam Speaker, I am standing in for the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) who just got back.

The Acting Speaker: I assume that I have the unanimous consent of the House to let the member for Nipissing continue?

Agreed to.

Mr. Harris: I may want to comment on the speech that was just given by the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague). There used to be a “Dufferin.” Did he not use to have a “Dufferin” in there?

Mr. McCague: That’s right.

Mr. Harris: I have a couple of notes on this somewhere. I guess all I had was a couple of questions of the minister. One had to do with the security of the information that was exchanged, and I apologize: I did not hear all the remarks the minister made. Perhaps he could respond to my remarks with a couple of things that would help to satisfy me.

I want to say, first of all, that we are going to support the bill. We do not have particular difficulty with any of the housekeeping changes or with some of the changes in responsibility, nor do we have any difficulty with the principle of the exchange of information that will be negotiated with the other jurisdictions, but I would not mind if the minister could comment. I will try to keep the question such that the minister can respond in the two minutes allocated to him.

The security provisions with information that is being exchanged by Revenue officials always concern me. Anybody who is at home when the mail comes will know the number of lists that are being sold by organizations and associations. The recent revelation that there is nothing illegal now about income tax preparation companies selling lists concerns me. I do not have a concern about the Ontario Ministry of Revenue, but I wonder if the minister could comment and assure this House that security provisions with the other jurisdictions the information is going to be shared with are discussed and that he does receive assurances from these jurisdictions, particularly the non-Canadian ones, that information is secure and is being shared only for the reasons the minister is suggesting in the bill.

The other thing perhaps just clarifies some of the delegations of authority from the minister to the deputy minister as to why they are deemed to be administratively important. I am always concerned when those delegations of authority are proposed. I guess I would like to be assured that the minister has received some briefing and concurs with the delegation that is being asked for by the deputy minister and ministry officials. It is not that I do not have the utmost confidence in the current deputy minister and those officials who are in the ministry, but this act, after all, will apply for ever and a day because there is no sunset provision in this one. I think it is a fair question to ask and I want to be assured that the minister has indeed done his homework in this area.

The other area that always concerns me a little bit is the cheque-writing or signature-writing machines. I presume that is also being asked for in this bill which will authorize facsimile signatures. Perhaps the minister can clarify: on what and whose signatures? I apologize if I should have read the bill more closely and discovered it, but is it just the minister’s signature that is to be authorized that way or is it other signatures as well?

I certainly understand that is appropriate. For example, I do not expect the Treasurer to sign every paycheque that goes out to 60,000 civil servants. I would like him to sign mine so that he can see it is difficult to live on it. Perhaps in signing it, he would realize that. How can private members possibly exist on the amount of money they are getting ?

I would be interested in knowing the extent to which the signatures are being authorized. I guess perhaps, from my own lack of understanding, the very short time when I had the wonderful opportunity to be a minister in the government of Ontario was hardly long enough for me to find out the answers to all these very important questions. But if I had been asked, I would not have known, in my short tenure at the Ministry of Natural Resources and my even shorter time at the Ministry of Energy, all the places where my signature was being used.

1630

I think it is something that happens very often, when one is in a job such as the minister has been in now for a short period of time and has the responsibilities of reading through the massive briefing books that his staff will want him to read before he gets into the House, ready for question period and everything else, that too often these questions are not asked by ministers. I would like to be assured that the minister knows where his signature is going to be used and by whom.

Other than that, we are supportive of the legislation and we have no amendments to propose.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to respond to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). We were kidding about Woodbine, or her racetrack. I should not call it her racetrack, but our racetrack. The honourable member has brought up a number of very good points which really are not reflected in Bill 21 or in the amendments to Bill 21, but I can assure her that I have taken note of most of her points.

We are continually trying to improve the efficiency of our ministry. I know we are responsible for a number of programs, such as the guaranteed annual income system and the property tax program, sales tax and a number of other programs. I can assure the member that for a number of years, especially since 1983 when the ministry moved to Oshawa, a lot of these programs have been better supervised because of better facilities, better equipment and more computers.

We do keep an eye on these programs, and as the member rightly pointed out, we have improved, or the system has improved, in the last couple of years or three or four years. I can guarantee her that the system is still improving. We are still trying to define the perfect way to send out a cheque by mail, through the bank or whatever the case may be. By the way, she was referring to seniors’ cheques and the mailing system that is being used at the present time. This is another note I have taken and I will certainly look into it. If there is a possibility of speeding up the process, why not? We will do it.

The member talked about our tax relationship or the information provided by this ministry. I have only been around for a short number of months and I hear some very good stories about this ministry. I think our people are trying to make a very complex matter simple to a lot of people. By “a lot of people,” I am talking about people like the member’s friend, the Greek taxpayer. I recognize that our province is very diversified.

We have a number of very important ethnic groups in this province, and we have to recognize that their needs are different from ours. We are responding. I think we are printing material now, not only in French and English but even in Italian and Korean. We are trying to reach as many people as possible, even Italian, if I am not mistaken. We are trying to reach as many people as possible, because we realize it is not very interesting when you are asked to pay taxes. We are trying to do our job as politely as possible. We do have a job to do, but we also like to respect taxpayers.

Also, I was very satisfied with the auditor’s report, because actually my ministry was told that great efforts had been made in the past and was continually improving; and certainly we will continue to do so. I was very pleased with the auditor’s report.

The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and also my honourable friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine asked me about our security system. Again, since the ministry moved to Oshawa in 1983, I can assure the members that security has improved greatly. It has been tested and it is operating very well. We do not have any fear that anybody can get into our system as easily as some people might think.

As for the delegation of signature or facsimile, I could assure the member for Nipissing, if he were here, that it is only the minister and the deputy minister’s signature.

If there are no other questions, let us go on with the business.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Travel Industry Act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Speaking very briefly to this piece of legislation which is now moving forward after introduction on a number of occasions, I wanted to just touch on two matters.

I touched on the first in making a brief statement on first reading; that is, to note for members of the House that one of the major impacts, perhaps the major impact of this amendment to the Travel Industry Act is to allow the ministry to deal more effectively with travel firms which are in serious financial difficulty.

Specifically, the act will allow the director of the consumer protection division to apply to the court for an order to appoint a receiver and manager for failing companies. If unable to salvage the travel firm, the receiver-manager will be empowered to dispose of the frozen assets. This is currently not allowed.

1640

There are a number of housekeeping changes, but I think the House would most want to know about one, because in my short time as minister I have received a number of letters: that is, we are moving forward in terms of the definitions and registration requirements of “travel agents” and “travel wholesalers,” which are being changed to clarify that wholesalers and retailers are respectively registered as such, and to make it clear that consumers must deal only with registered travel agents. Every person who sells travel services to the public must be registered as a travel agent, whether or not that is his business.

The requirements for registration of travel salesmen were never proclaimed in force and they are being dropped in this piece of legislation. In a number of cases which have been brought to my attention, wholesalers who are not also retailers were involved in a number of failures and because they were wholesalers only, the consumer was not eligible for money from the compensation fund. The legislation makes it clear that every wholesaler who is to deal with the public even on one occasion must be registered as a travel agent, and every travel agent who deals wholesale must be registered as a travel wholesaler.

There are a number of other changes, most of them housekeeping. I look forward to hearing comments from my friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and members of the third party as we finally move forward with this piece of legislation.

Mr. Velshi: When the minister referred to the two other parties, I hope he did not leave us out inadvertently. I also have something to say.

I think it is a known fact that most travel agents and travel agencies are very small businesses owned either by single persons or by a husband and wife team. There has always been one problem that has never been looked into; that is, when a retail travel agency makes a sale to a client or a consumer, it is almost always the case where the product is purchased from a travel wholesaler and then sold to the consumer. In this case, the retail travel agency also becomes a consumer; it has earned its commission by getting a commission from the travel wholesaler and not from the consumer. Yet when the travel agency experiences difficulty with the travel wholesaler, if the wholesaler gets into difficulty and stops doing business, the consumer has a right to claim from the compensation fund, but the travel agency loses the commission it has earned through the sale.

This is unfair to the very small travel agents. The largest losses come from travel wholesalers and not from travel agencies. Yet the fund is one; all payments are made from the one fund. When the travel wholesaler goes bankrupt, the travel retailer has to subscribe and pay into those funds and yet lose the commission that it has earned in the process of trying to make that sale.

I would like to see -- and I hope the minister will agree -- a change in this act so that any claim for commissions earned by the travel agency should rank equal to the claim made by the consumer, as all those funds are being paid out of the compensation fund and it is paid by the industry itself.

Mr. Harris: I am not sure whether this is the appropriate time to comment. What I really want to do is bring to the attention of the House, and express, a concern. I really do not know if it is appropriate or not. This whole conflict-of-interest matter is getting more difficult all the time. I appreciate that farmers speak on farm legislation and lawyers speak on legislation that has legal implications, but I am not sure whether it is appropriate for the member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi), who is a travel agent, to be asking the minister and this assembly for changes in a piece of legislation.

I bring it to the Legislature’s attention. I suggest it is something that those who know far more than I do about these matters ought to consider and the member for Don Mills ought to consider. I think it is easy at times to inadvertently bring forward an opinion.

At times I think it is important that we do consult with people from a business background, and I have been one of those who think it is important that we have far fewer lawyers and far more business people in this chamber than has very often been the case. I mention it reluctantly and not in any sense to say the comments are appropriate or inappropriate, but it is something that I think should be brought to the attention of the chamber.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The member’s time has elapsed. Would any other member like to comment on the remarks of the minister? Would the minister like two minutes at this time?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Only that I take note of my colleague’s comments, and it is certainly a matter that one might want to take a look at, for I hear what he says. We will take a look at his comments that are not spoken to in the legislation.

Mr. Swart: I am going to be very brief too. In fact, I think that on this bill and the next three that come, the time spent on comments may be greater than the time spent on speeches for the first time in the history of this House.

These two bills -- or four bills, actually, including the travel bill -- have been around for quite a period of time; they have been introduced at least three times that I know of, and some of them have been introduced perhaps four or five times and have never been dealt with.

All of them, and that includes Bill 25, are bills which are necessary to protect consumers more adequately and to operate the compensation fund reasonably and responsibly, and therefore we supported them and agreed that they should be dealt with expeditiously at that time.

The travel industry in particular seems to have been an industry that has been prone to collapse. There came across my desk just in November the press release from the ministry that three other travel groups had collapsed and that there would probably have to be reimbursement paid in the amount of some $400,000 to people who had booked flights. It is my understanding that since the fund started in 1975, we have paid out now almost $13 million.

I mention those not in any way to be critical of this bill, in fact, the reverse, a greater need for this bill, which does certain things which will expedite the paying of the compensation. However, I just want to point out -- and this is the comment I am really going to make -- that I think there has to be some further action taken not just to protect consumers but also to ensure that there are fewer of these travel agencies that do collapse.

I am not sure what the answer is, but I believe our record in Canada of the number of travel agencies that collapse is as bad as or worse than that in any other country. They may have to be looking at some method of establishing some funds or some guarantees that these travel agencies have to give before they can be registered. I would think this would come about naturally by the premiums that have to be paid in by all the other travel agencies. It is unjust to many of them, as has been pointed out already, that they are having to pay into this fund to compensate for some travel agency, whether wholesale or retail, that had not been operated properly, that perhaps should not even have been in business, that did not have enough financial background. I hope the minister perhaps will comment on that in his final remarks.

1650

The Deputy Speaker: Would the minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will respond in my closing remarks.

Mr. Harris: The minister has mentioned it has taken some time for this particular bill to get to the House, and as has been mentioned, it does not answer all of the problems in the travel industry. However, we will support the legislation.

I have only one question. Maybe the minister can answer it for me when he sums up. The question really arises out of my incomplete understanding of the travel industry.

I was looking at the definition of a travel agent: “a person who sells, to consumers, travel services provided by another person.” There are a lot of people who work with travel agents whom I would not call travel agents and I guess I would want to he assured they are not in any way construed to be travel agents. I am thinking of people in religious organizations, for example, who will organize and encourage people to sign up for tours which will be booked through a travel agent but in fact the agent himself may not be the prime person selling that trip.

Agents enter into arrangements with, for example, people active in the ski industry. They may be in the sporting goods business and they will sign up 10 or 15 or 20 people to go on a ski holiday together and the package will be put together by an agent. Normally, the compensation offered to the person who really is doing the selling is a free trip, accompanying the group. Sometimes there is a commission, though, that is payable, and I believe that type of informal relationship exists within the travel industry in a number of areas.

I know a number of golf professionals or golf clubs have relationships with travel agencies. Maybe they will sign up their members on a trip and in fact they are the front-line people. Very often they collect the cheques and very often they will have the cheques sent to the travel agent.

I believe a number of churches or members of churches do the same, where they organize trips to shrines or to various holy places.

I would just like to have the minister clarify for me whether indeed they would be travel agents per se, whether this bill would disallow that type of informal activity, and if they are deemed to be travel agents, whether he foresees any problems in that area or not.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Let me wrap up. Let me start with my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold -- I guess that is still his riding -- who expressed a general concern about the numbers of failures and indeed about the money that has been paid out of the compensation fund.

Certainly, because, as was pointed out earlier, I think the nature of these operations is in many cases as very small businesses, I am not certain we are going to be able to always improve on these, but we continue to look at ways in which we can improve upon the situation while ensuring, in the current situation, that all the consumers will be compensated.

That is why we have a tightening up, and I will get to it in a minute, of the definition of a travel agent. That is why we have made it very clear that there is a splitting of the travel agent and the travel wholesaler, so that situations such as a number of members in all parties have written to me about will not arise in the future.

In terms of the compensation fund, that is why we will be allowing the director, hopefully, to get involved in some situations and move matters into getting a court to appoint a receiver in the situation where there may be assets, to salvage as much as possible.

My friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) raises an issue that really, in a sense, we are trying to deal with. I tell him that with respect. I do not think he had a copy of the old act.

One of the difficulties, and my friend the member for Welland-Thorold will know this, is that under the definitions, the previous legislation had as the definition of a travel agent, “a person who carries on the business of selling to the public travel services provided by another person.” We really had some difficulty legally with “carries on the business of selling.”

The new definition, as the member knows, because he has the bill in front of him, is “a person who sells, to consumers, travel services provided by another person.” It is quite explicit.

In the example that my friend from Nipissing offers of the church, the golf group or whatever, the organizer is getting some kind of a profit. He then becomes a travel agent and he must be registered. That is very clear and very explicit in the bill and, again, is in the legislation not to cause trouble in these informal arrangements but to ensure that the consumer will be protected, because a payment of money to a travel agent is required or recovery from the compensation fund is not allowed. That would be the problem. If there was an exchange of money informally between members of a golf club, and not to a travel agent quite directly, and then there was a problem, the compensation fund could not come into service.

I think consumers here are really well advised, and we are well advised to suggest to them in these remarks, that they deal and be very clear that they are dealing with registered travel agents, and that even in the kind of arrangement that my friend from Nipissing has raised, the individual who is organizing this trip must, himself or herself, be a registered travel agent or there could be problems down the road. This bill seeks to clarify that.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

1700

House in committee of the whole.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Travel Industry Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Harris: In section 1 we are dealing with the definition of a travel agent. As I would understand “travel agent,” it would be the person who is officially responsible for booking trips with travel wholesalers or directly with airlines, hotels or whatever services are being provided.

The question I asked and was hoping to get some clarification of on second reading dealt with a type of informal arrangement. I do not think it is the intent of this Legislature or of the minister to require that every executive of every golf club, every board member of every ski club, hobby or car club, has to be registered as a travel agent to want to seek to involve his or her club or other people who may be interested in the club in a joint trip that he or she may want to escort.

If the minister has consulted with the officials, he could perhaps clarify this, so that when this becomes law, as it will in the next few days there will be no doubt as to what is intended. I am aware in my riding alone of a number of these arrangements that go on; there have to be literally thousands of them. I will talk a little longer so the minister can get more clarification. There have to be thousands and thousands and thousands of these arrangements going on as we speak, perhaps teachers involving fellow teachers in their school or Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation members, or various labour unions on behalf of a group of employees in a shop.

I do not think it is the intention, as the minister said, that these people will have to be travel agents to organize in that way. I could understand if the minister said to me that any cheques they collect must be payable to a registered travel agent. I really would hope the minister might have a little better clarification, so l do not have to go back and report to all the people in my riding and, I am sure, literally thousands of organizations that they must cease and desist or they will be contravening the Travel Industry Act.

I can wrap up now? The minister has a little better clarification, I think. I wonder if he could comment on that further.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am going to try to be helpful and use a specific example. I was just checking with my officials to make sure the information was right.

If we had a situation where a number of members of the Legislature were going to go away and I was going to go through the Mike Harris Travel Agency and collect all the cheques made out to the Mike Harris Travel Agency, there would be no problem, because he is the agency. If, on the other hand, I was to collect the cheques, all made out to Bill Wrye, and then I was going to write one giant cheque, there would be a problem, because I would then, in effect, be the middleman. I ought to be the travel agent and I would have to register as a travel agent.

The problem is that if there is a failure at that point, there is no receipt to show the money was paid for those purposes, and the compensation fund that we all want to be viable does not come into play. So I say to my friend, there is nothing about these informal arrangements, about these various hockey groups, golf groups and the like getting together, but the money must be paid directly by the consumer to the travel agent. That is being done for the benefit of the consumer.

Mr. Harris: That is very helpful. In other words, there could be a category called a travel escort who would not have to comply with this act. He could circulate information to friends or others saying, “I will be escorting this trip. Here it is. I encourage you to buy it and make your cheque payable to...” somebody else, a travel agent who is registered.

The example the minister gave me is very informal, but there are, to go from there, others I suppose a little more formal but still, in my opinion, not acting as a travel agent. I could interpret them that way -- and I would like confirmation from the minister -- provided the cheques were payable to a travel agent or the cheques were payable directly to wherever you are staying.

In other words, if I organized a Progressive Conservative caucus trip to a particular hotel and I asked all the people --

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: It would not take a big hotel any more. I understand that. We cannot afford many hotels either. I cannot even think of one we can afford.

The minister understands what I am saying. If I had the cheques payable to that hotel, that would be permissible. He would go one step further, though, in what happens with these people who do escort trips because of a certain expertise in an area, and usually it is related. If it is a golf club, you are going on a golf holiday. If it is a ski club, you are going on a skiing holiday.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: If you are a wine taster....

Mr. Harris: That is right. If you are a wine taster, you are off on a wine tour.

Very often, it is somebody’s expertise in those areas that attracts people to go with that escort. If I am right, as long as the cheque is made payable to an agent who is registered and would handle the funds, and/or directly to wherever it is, whether it is Air Canada or a carrier or directly to the hotel, that would still be permissible.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I again draw my friend’s attention to the word “sells. “ As I understand it, it would have to be that the cheque that would be payable, having had this escort sell the service, must not be a cheque that would be for a larger amount. Otherwise, the individual is acting as a travel agent. I do not think we have a problem with this.

The factor I want my friend to look at is the issue of a person selling travel services to consumers. If he is selling travel services, he must be registered as a travel agent.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

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

1710

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 54, An Act to amend the Theatres Act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Briefly, under this legislation the chairman of the Ontario Film Review Board will be appointed through an order in council rather than being hired as a civil servant. By giving cabinet this authority, the Ontario Film Review Board will become more directly accountable.

Essentially, what this bill also does is split the functions of the chairman of the board and the director of the theatres branch and permits, thus, the creation of the position of director responsible for administrative and support services. As the members of the House now know, the current chairman also acts as director of the theatres branch under the legislation. We in the government believe that separating these positions will bring the operation of the film review board into line with other government agencies, boards and commissions.

Mr. Swart: One is tempted, I suppose, when we have a bill like this before us, to start into the issue of censorship, but I assure you it cannot be dealt with in this bill in any event, although we might get away with talking about it, so I do not intend to do that.

We will be supporting this bill on our side of the House because, in addition to the comments of the minister that this will put the operation of this board in line with other boards by separating the chairman of the board and the director, I think it is desirable because it obviously gives a much greater degree of independence to the film review board. If you have the director of the theatres branch also chairman of the board, obviously he tends to get things the way he wants in the recommendations for government policy; it comes down instead of going up. With the independent chairman of the review board, it means that it works in the opposite direction and provides a greater degree of independence, certainly, to members of the board, who in fact are supposed to be and to a very large extent are representative of the citizens and the various sectors of this province.

All the bill really contains is that one article. I think it is desirable; therefore we will support it and not send it to a committee.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: On behalf of my friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), I should indicate his enthusiastic and wholehearted support of this bill. Were he here, I know he would have said those words.

I thank my friend the member for Welland-Thorold for his endorsement of this legislation and for indeed making another important point as to another reason this separation may well be of some assistance in this area.

With those remarks, I will move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

UPHOLSTERED AND STUFFED ARTICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 55, An Act to amend the Upholstered and Stuffed Articles Act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I know that this is the bill the House has been waiting for all week and that indeed, even as I begin these remarks, there is a crowd gathering around the Legislature, waiting to hear what important changes we have to the Upholstered and Stuffed Articles Act. Indeed, my friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) was commenting yesterday that he intended to bring his stuffed teddy bear. I note with some distress that I have not seen in his place the stuffed teddy bear.

Very briefly, there are a number of housekeeping changes, including the removing of the reference in the act to the director of the consumer protection division, to reflect a change in the administrative scheme in the technical standards division.

What honourable members might also most want to know, however, is that fines under the act are increased quite substantially, but members would find that they are increased to bring them into line with other legislation administered by the technical standards division of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. That is why we have fixed those numbers at the levels that we have found.

For my friend from Oshawa, who I know was about to ask, “What are those numbers?” the fines were $500 and $2,000, and they have been changed to $2,000 and $10,000. They are simply changes to bring them into line with other fines in areas that are administered by that division, and I would hope the Legislature would give its fast and speedy approval to these important changes.

Mr. Harris: I wonder if the minister could tell us how much money the director of the upholstered and stuffed articles branch makes and how many staff there are in this branch?

Mr. Breaugh: I think he’s in trouble. Pretty shaky there.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am. It is a very small branch, and I am going to get exact numbers because they are writing them even as we speak; we will check them before I make my final comments. But it is a very small branch. I believe there are about 10 to 15 people within the branch. It is located out in Etobicoke. My friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) is welcome to go and visit and see what good work they do, but it is a very small branch.

There are only, I think, four inspectors across the province, two in Metro and two elsewhere, one for eastern Ontario and one for southern Ontario. We are hoping --

Where is my friend the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston) when I want to make a pitch for money? The general salary of directors in that area I will check for my friend, but I would think it would be in the range of $50,000 per annum.

Mr. Swart: I would not want to let this bill go by without making some comments on it and saying to my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) that, to date, on the two bills we have had already and the two that will still be coming up, he must be pretty delighted in his reincarnation in this new ministry compared to what he had before.

Mr. Breaugh: Something he can handle: panda bears.

1720

Mr. Swart: But I just want to suggest to him that things may go downhill from that point of view after this afternoon is over. There may be some which have some very real controversy and I may be involved in some of those.

Obviously, we are going to support this one too. It is housekeeping, but I do want to say that the increase in fines is warranted. It is a kind of a little act and an issue we can all joke about, but when it comes to matters of some company using flammable materials in toys or used materials that are not clean, it has some very real significance in our society. The increase in fines is very supportable. I have forgotten the exact number of years, but I believe it has been at least a decade since they have been changed, so the new fines will not be any greater in reality than they were previously.

Again, the other change about the director is a change that has to be made to conform with the facts that exist within the ministry.

Mr. Harris: I too want to congratulate the minister on being able to bring these pieces of legislation forward. It is something the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter) was unable to do in his two-year tenure. I am not sure why he was not able to get these bills before the Legislature and get updated. However, whatever the secret is, obviously the new minister has figured out a way.

Mr. Breaugh: It is an awesome display of political power.

Mr. Harris: That is right. I can assure the chamber, on behalf of our party and the New Democratic Party, that we would have been equally receptive to facilitating legislation throughout that two-year period, so there is nothing that is happening on this side of the House that should cause this minister to be so superior to the minister from Wilson Heights on this matter.

I share some of the concerns of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) on the amount of fines. I have to be honest and tell members that I am only the deputy, deputy, deputy critic for this ministry. Our critic, unfortunately, was called away this afternoon, and I have not had a great deal of time to study these bills in the depth that members might have expected that I normally do with every piece of legislation that I become involved in.

I do not know whether $2,000 or $10,000 is an appropriate fine for, I assume, using materials other than those that are approved. I gather that is what the fines would be for. I have not read the whole act that this bill is amending. I recall, a couple of years back, there was a stuffed toy in the United States -- I do not know if it got into Canada -- that had poisonous material that if a child --

Mr. Swart: It was imported.

Mr. Harris: Was it from Korea? If they had torn the article, as children are wont to do -- certainly my two-year-old, anyway -- the first way they explore things is to get them into their mouth.

I do not know whether the fines are appropriate. Sometimes we are wont to look at the title of a particular bill and wonder about its significance. It is not a startling title nor does it sound like an earthshaking piece of legislation, although obviously it is a very important department because the director makes significantly more money than a back-bencher in this Legislature makes, and I consider my job to be relatively important. I might ask if there are any openings in the department.

Mr. Haggerty: Are things that bad over there?

Mr. Harris: Fifty grand does not sound too bad. I do not know whether the fines are appropriate. We are going to support the legislation. It is an increase, obviously; it is a move in the direction and they should be updated. If these types of materials are flammable, if they deal with children or if they are poisonous in any way, it is something that should be treated very seriously, certainly more seriously than the title of the act sometimes suggests to us. We will support the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thought my friend the member for Oshawa was going to jump in and make some comments as we move through these extremely important pieces of legislation. If we could get on this much of a roll, we could do the prepaid services bill and a few others. My friend the member for Welland-Thorold might want to make some modestly expanded comments on those pieces of legislation.

These are fairly routine housekeeping bills and we do make light of them, but I think beneath those comments, both of my friends alluded to the fact that for a number of individuals, especially young individuals, this piece of legislation, with a name that brings a smile to everyone’s face, is nevertheless of critical importance. I would not want to make light of the very important work done by a number of the inspectors who are involved in the branch. I had an opportunity to spend some time at our offices in the west end of Toronto, in the Islington and Bloor area, and saw some of the things they come up with. They are not very pleasant.

As my friends will know, it is extremely important that we have inspectors to ensure that the legislation and the use of new material, etc., is being adhered to and also that there be appropriate fines. I want to note particularly for my friend the member for Nipissing, as he is kind of pinch-hitting today and I am not sure he knows the original fines, that the increase in the area of fines for individuals is four-fold, the increase in the area of maximum fines for corporations is five-fold. It is, as my friend the member for Welland-Thorold points out, the first increase in some period of time. Nevertheless, it is quite a significant increase.

We believe that represents an important change and an important signal that it is critical that the legislation be adhered to. I see my staff sitting down. I do not know whether we have those numbers. If we can get a page over there, perhaps I can talk just a little longer while we get the exact figures for my friend the member for Nipissing. I do not want to disappoint him. I do want to come up with the correct figures for him.

The member for Oshawa was a little worried when the member for Nipissing said he might apply for this job. I have some disappointing news. There is a total of eight staff. I said nine, did I not? The director’s salary, I say to my friend from Nipissing who has been waiting for this information in breathless anticipation, is $43,127 per annum. It is an important job and this is an important piece of consumer protection legislation. I hope the House will give it second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

1730

OPERATING ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 56, An Act to amend the Operating Engineers Act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The legislation to which I hope we will give second reading today, representing changes to the Operating Engineers Act, will ensure fair treatment of qualified operating engineers from other provinces. As I know you, Madam Speaker, and certainly some colleagues in the House are aware, currently they qualify for only a one-year provisional certificate at one grade below their existing qualification.

There have been a number of cases. Because he and I have talked about it privately, I know that my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) has some constituent problems in this regard. Quite frankly, so has the minister before the House as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I think many members of the House will note constituent problems they have had in this regard.

The amendments we are presenting will enable operating engineers certified by other provinces to apply for an Ontario certificate at their current level of education and expertise. I believe the change reflects our confidence in the standards set for operating engineers by other provinces, our support for removal of barriers to employment across Canada and our desire to help the employers of this province with the hiring of skilled workers that they need. That is a particular problem in some areas, not so much around Metropolitan Toronto and some urban areas, but I am advised that it is a particular problem at times in northern Ontario.

Not all provinces have taken the action we are taking today, but for a number of good reasons this bill, in terms of showing interprovincial co-operation, is an appropriate one for us to deal with on this Thursday afternoon when it was my understanding the details of the free trade agreement would be coming out.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Swart: I would. I was going to make the comment as well that this is sort of the implementation to a minor degree of some further free trade within our own country because it means that these tradesmen may now go across into other provinces or come from other provinces here and have the recognition of their operating engineer’s certificate, whatever class that may be.

Because this is such a small bill, I think it is not unfair to fault the government for not having dealt with this sooner. I know he is new in this ministry but as the minister has said, there have been a lot of people affected by this. In my riding there are a number who have come to see me about this, and of course it is really too late for all of them now. A lot of these people came back to Ontario from Alberta when the oil economy out there started to collapse and they had to be moved down from a first-class operating engineer to a second-class operating engineer for one year. Most of them have been back here long enough now that they are up to their first-class operation again, but they lost substantial money. More than that, they were precluded from getting jobs which they otherwise could have got with their first-class engineering certificate.

As I said to the minister previously, this is a bill that will probably get through the House in a few minutes and I think it is not unfair to criticize the Liberal government of the past two years for not having dealt with it. I think I am also correct in saying that this bill was first introduced by the Conservatives, so that has to be over two and a half years ago. I remember when I questioned the minister at that time about why they had not introduced it sooner, he said, “Well, we were waiting to get compliance from the other provinces.”

Mr. Haggerty: It wasn’t in the accord, Mel.

Mr. Swart: Well, it may not have been. It is the kind of thing Liberals wanted to get in the accord instead of something real; I have to tell the member that. Instead of something like auto insurance, they would be glad to have put this in, but we thought there might be some issues of more significance to the people of Ontario to get into the accord than this item that we have before us at the time. It could have been dealt with very quickly. Some people felt pretty severe discrimination and were quite angry about this.

I will be glad if the minister can tell me what other provinces do not have reciprocal legislation at this time. When I discussed it with the minister back in the Conservative government, the majority of other provinces had it at that time. We are one of the later provinces, at least among the larger provinces in Canada, to pass this kind of reciprocal legislation and I think we should have led the way, given that we are an industrial province and the largest province in Canada.

Having said that, belatedly we will -- let me put it another way: We will support this belated bill to correct an injustice which has been needlessly long.

Mr. Harris: We are certainly supportive of the principle of this piece of legislation. It is another one that the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter) for some reason or another was not able to get before the chamber. This minister deserves commendation again for bringing it into the chamber.

I would not mind knowing, though, from the minister, what other jurisdictions -- he is getting that information? --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Do not do it?

Mr. Harris: -- do not do it, and whether it is proposed that this will be reciprocal only with those who do it or whether it will apply to all other provinces regardless of whether they offer reciprocal agreements the other way.

The minister is ascertaining what other provinces do that now and which ones do not.

I do not think on this one I have to get into the definition, as I did in one of the earlier pieces of legislation today.

Also just clarification from the minister: It is my understanding that the whole concept of provisional certificates is totally removed and there will no longer be any provisional certificates. Does that apply out-of-country as well? I am not familiar with the original act that this bill seeks to amend, but it would strike me as logical that there may be provisional arrangements for out-of-country, not just out-of-province, as this seems to address.

For operating engineers who may come into Ontario, I assume that if the provisional is removed, then if there are no arrangements with other countries -- perhaps the minister can let me know as well whether we have reciprocal arrangements with the United States or other countries -- presumably they would have to write the exams here; there would be absolutely no arrangements for provisional certification.

I wonder as well if the minister could tell me what requirements there are to write the exams for an operating engineer, whether there is a mandatory course one must take and how long it is or whether in these arrangements, if somebody came from out-of-country, for example, he could just write the exam because of some course he has taken in the other country and then be licensed in Ontario, and whether the minister knows of any reaction by operating engineers in Ontario, whether they are in support of these changes or not. One would expect they would be.

1740

I wonder if the minister knows how many provisional certificates there are now operating in Ontario and whether they are red-circled, grandfathered or whatever the appropriate term would be, and whether everybody in Ontario who now has a provisional certificate will automatically be granted a permanent certificate or whether they will be terminated and have to write the exam before they can carry on doing business, if they already have a job on the basis of a provisional certificate.

Those are the few questions I have that I would appreciate the minister responding to.

Mr. McCague: I would have appreciated having the answer to the questions raised by both the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) with regard to the reciprocal agreements. If the minister will consent to doing that, I might have a question following that.

The Acting Speaker: The minister, when he rises, will speak to it to close the debate.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order: I would not object to reverting back to the minister. It would require unanimous consent. I notice one member of the Liberal Party about to object. It might avoid having to go into committee of the whole.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to allow the minister to answer the questions at this time?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I do not want to be difficult. I do not have as yet, but we are trying to get, the numbers and indeed the names of the provinces which do not have this same provision for operating engineers going there from this province.

On the question of reciprocity, this is a provision which will change section 23 of the bill and end the issuing of the provisional certificates for operating engineers coming from all other provinces of Canada. That is without any reciprocity being demanded.

The member for Nipissing has also raised the issue of outsiders from other countries. I cannot find offhand -- I apologize to him but I do not have the act memorized quite yet -- any reference to a provisional certificate. I rather suspect, at first thought, that these individuals from other countries, the United States and elsewhere, will simply have to go through the proper certification process.

It is because we have confidence in the standards set in other provinces across the country that we had provisional certificates in the first place. It is also through the confidence we have that the standards in other provinces of this country are similar to ours that we are now offering an end to provisional certificates and offering this level of interprovincial co-operation.

My friend may want to make a speech based on my comments. I hope he will because I still do not have the answer to how many other provinces do not have the same arrangements. I see somebody writing; I may have that in a minute.

Mr. McCague: I do not want to make a speech. I did want the answer to that question in particular, as it applies to the provinces to the east and to the west of us. I know that in some instances there have been problems with those provinces in regard to the sort of protectionism they have instituted, which was often complained about by labour, by trades and by professionals from the Manitoba side and the Quebec side. That is the only reason I raised it, so that the minister might answer the question for us.

The Acting Speaker: Does any honourable member wish to comment on the comments just made by the member for Simcoe West?

Mr. Harris: Perhaps briefly, since I really do not want to go into it. The minister does not have that information? Then I guess not.

The Acting Speaker: Does the member for Simcoe West wish to reply? Two minutes.

Mr. McCague: Probably the minister would agree to get that information for us prior to third reading. That is all I would ask.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to apologize for my colleagues. We checked over at the technical standards branch and there is no one there. I know my friends want that information. It probably is not critical to the passage of second reading but I will send my friend the member for Welland-Thorold and the House leader for the third party the information first thing tomorrow morning.

I apologize because I am neglectful in not having had this all spelled out, but it was my understanding in discussion -- this was brought up in passing -- that, I believe, seven or eight other provinces did not have it, but I may have it wrong. My friend the member for Welland-Thorold seems to remember that I might have it wrong, that it may be the other way around.

I will be in contact and send a written list over to my two friends in the morning and I will certainly share it with my friend the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) as well, so that by the time this legislation comes back some time next week for third reading, if there are any remarks that need to be made, and of course they can be made in third reading debate, my friend can make them.

Mr. Harris: Plus the other questions I asked.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will see whether I can get an answer for my friend on the out-of-country certificates and make him aware of that as well as my friend the member for Welland-Thorold.

Notwithstanding whether other jurisdictions have done this, I think it is very important that we do it. I note in passing that the member for Welland-Thorold also alluded to something of the irony of all of this happening as this free trade matter goes forward, in that as this government wishes to see interprovincial co-operation ties strengthened this piece of legislation goes one small step towards doing that.

In closing, I appreciate the very kind comments about the fact that these four pieces of legislation have come forward. Many of them have been around for a while, but I would not want it to be misunderstood. My friend and colleague the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter), my predecessor in this job, did quite an exemplary and I would say spectacular job, not only in shepherding a number of consumer pieces of legislation through the House but also as Minister of Financial Institutions.

Perhaps if we had had just a little shorter debate on some of those matters, such as insurance and pensions, and if the speeches had been just a touch shorter, these four bills might have received second and third reading before this day, but that is a matter we might all ponder. Suffice it to say it is a very positive day for a number of people in this province as we move forward with four important pieces of consumer legislation, and I am very pleased to move second reading of Bill 56.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

1750

Hon. Mr. Conway: Recognizing the lateness of the hour, I want to proceed with the customary business statement for next week. But before I do, I might add on behalf of my good friends the House leaders that I want to ask for unanimous consent to revert to motions.

The Acting Speaker: The minister has asked for unanimous consent to revert to motions. Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank the House very much for its unanimous consent, and again on behalf of my friends the House leaders, I want with particular enthusiasm to make a motion.

The Acting Speaker: Hon. Mr. Conway moves that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Tuesday, December 15, 1987.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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

On Monday, December 14, we will consider second reading of Bill 29, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act. Following that debate, we will proceed with the interim supply motion.

For the remainder of the week, we will consider the following items of business at times to be announced and arranged among House leaders:

A motion in reference to the text of the Canada-US free trade agreement; Bill 61, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act; Bill 58, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Amendment Act; and Bill 65, the Farm Products Marketing Act. There may be additional legislation which will be added through the agreement of the House leaders.

Next week’s private members’ business will consider ballot items standing in the names of the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray) and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

I should also note at this time that when the House adjourns next week, it will not sit again until February 8, so that --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Of 1989.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes, 1989. I thank the member.

An hon. member: You mean 1988.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Sorry. Did I say 1989? Pardon me. It just tells you that with the advance of the holiday season, one tends to need to be careful.

Mr. Breaugh: Watch this majority at work.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) that when we adjourn next week, the House will not sit again until February 8, 1988. During the intersession period, of course, many important items will be discussed and debated at various committees.

The Acting Speaker: It being close to six o’clock, there having been a request for an answer to a question, I would request the unanimous consent of the House that we proceed with standing order 30. Agreed?

Agreed to.

TRANSMISSION LINES

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 30, the question that the House be now adjourned is deemed to have been made. The member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) has given notice of dissatisfaction with an answer to a question given yesterday by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr. Sterling: I could stand and debate on the mismanagement of the Bridlewood hydro corridor issue by this Liberal government over the past two years for five hours, but tonight I will confine my remarks to the response to my question yesterday with regard to compensation for the people of the Bridlewood community.

Yesterday I asked the minister whether or not he would treat the people of eastern Ontario equally with the people of southwestern Ontario with regard to possible compensation for Ontario Hydro coming through their backyards with a 500-kilovolt, twin-tower line 16 storeys high.

As you know, Madam Speaker, this dispute has been going on for two years in front of the Ontario cabinet. Ontario Hydro, two days after the residents received notice that cabinet had made a decision, moved on to the corridor and started construction this morning. I am happy to say that the residents went out and picketed Ontario Hydro, that the response by the residents was peaceful and my fears of violence were allayed.

With regard to the minister’s response to my question yesterday, he said: “People should be treated fairly.” I could not agree with him more. “I would like to point out to the honourable member, although he probably does know, that the right of way, the transmission corridor, was established in the Ottawa West area in 1971, well before any houses had been situated there. The people who have acquired and purchased houses and live there came in after that point in time.”

That is true. People came and bought houses where there was a hydro corridor, a 230-kilovolt hydro corridor with a single tower, eight storeys high.

Now, through Ontario Hydro and through the cabinet of Ontario, twin towers are going to be erected there with 500-kilovolt lines, 16 storeys high. The reason they have to put them up 16 storeys high is because the Hydro corridor is too narrow to have them lower than that. That is the way they beat a technical problem of having them at a lower level.

I took from the minister’s answer that the people in southwestern Ontario located along the line from Bruce all the way down to London, all the way over to Barrie, all the way down to Nanticoke -- l took from his response that all of those corridors that were established in south-western Ontario were on new ground; new easements were being formed.

Now I find, after consulting with Hydro, that in fact most of the right of way is going to be an old right of way and they are going to upgrade lines, just as they are going to upgrade lines in Bridlewood. I looked back at the decision of the joint board dealing with the southwestern Ontario situation, dated February 20, 1987. Recommendation 21 says, “The easements or lands taken for the rights of way where they coincide or use existing Ontario Hydro rights of way are to be considered new easements and new rights of way and are to be treated accordingly for the purposes of compensation.”

The people of southwestern Ontario have been given a fair deal by Ontario Hydro and, it being an agency of the Ontario government, by the Ontario government.

I do not accept the stonewall this minister continues to put forward. He talks about a due process that went through, when we have a process that is muddied over a two-year period. Particularly, again I raised a matter today with regard to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) being in a direct conflict of interest in being both a counsel and a member of cabinet when this decision was made.

The Acting Speaker: The member’s time has elapsed.

Hon. Mr. Wong: I thank the honourable member for this opportunity to address this problem, this very important situation, which has been before the government for approximately two years.

I would like to begin by addressing the last question the honourable member raised, with respect to the process. We live in a law-abiding country where we have certain laws and processes set up. It could be that the honourable member feels the process should be changed. If that be the case, then that is another discussion.

However, in this particular situation, which started approximately two years ago, there were certain legal procedures put into place that I would just like to review very briefly. With respect to the Bridlewood section of the eastern Ontario transmission project, the recent appeal, the second appeal to cabinet, was fully considered by the cabinet, which, upon that deliberation, confirmed the joint board’s decision.

In consideration of its decision, cabinet was not convinced that the joint board was wrong to reject the appellant’s case for rerouting or burial as mitigation measures -- and I will just say this quickly because I want to give the member as comprehensive an answer as possible -- on the question of possible health effects, cabinet concluded that the appellants had failed to show that a causal relationship exists between extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure and a variety of adverse health effects.

Zeroing in specifically on the honourable member’s question yesterday and today with respect to a potential buyout or purchase of these properties, these homes, by Ontario Hydro, I listened with consideration to the point that the member has made, but in addition I would like to point out that, even if that situation which he quoted to me created a similarity between the Bridlewood and the southwestern Ontario corridor situations, there are other differences and I want to get back to the process.

In the case of the southwest corridor, a 75-metre buyout option was requested by the interveners in the southwest hearing. Furthermore, expert testimony on the desirability of this option along the southwest corridor was provided.

In the case of eastern Ontario, a buyout option was not requested at the eastern Ontario hearings, and Mrs. Hunter’s appeal, on behalf of the Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee, requested such a buyout option -- I want it to be clear -- but offered no evidence to support the need for it. Many of us are going before different boards and organizations requesting this, requesting that, but there was no evidence to support it.

In addition, let me choose my words carefully and state that the cabinet also addressed specifically this request, dated June 16, 1987, from the Bridlewood Residents Hydro Line Committee, that a school and approximately 80 homes affected by the line should be made candidates for expropriation.

What I am saying is, the cabinet addressed this. This is our system. The cabinet addressed it, and cabinet noticed also that no request was made by interveners at either the routing hearing or at the mitigation hearing for the buyout option.

In conclusion, I want to say that the full legal recourse available to the citizens has been utilized and this was the conclusion.

Furthermore, I ask myself, if we take this independent joint board and say we are going to throw out that process and overrule such a body, to me this would be very disruptive to the democratic system and processes that we have set up.

In addition, what it would mean is that we would be setting a precedent whereby there are other corridors and other homes and perhaps similar situations where the cost would be quite significant.

I thank the honourable member for asking the question. I hope I have been able to shed some factual light on this.

The Acting Speaker: There being no further matters to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

December 10, 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

SUPERMAILBOXES

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

SUPERMAILBOXES

VISITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATION TRAILS COMMISSION

JOHN FRASER

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

EASTERN ONTARIO

RETAIL STORE HOURS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HUMAN RIGHTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

HOUSING SUPPLY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

MINISTER’S ROLE IN TRANSMISSION LINE DECISION

HOURS OF WORK

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SENIOR CITIZENS’ SERVICES

NURSING HOMES

USE OF GILL-NETS

SALE OF DRUG-RELATED EQUIPMENT

USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

ETATECH INDUSTRIES INC.

TRANSIT SERVICES

CONTINUING EDUCATION

ONTARIO YOUNG TRAVELLERS PROGRAM

WASTE DISPOSAL

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATIONAL TRAILS COMMISSION ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN ACT

MINISTRY OF REVENUE AMENDMENT ACT

TRAVEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT

TRAVEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

UPHOLSTERED AND STUFFED ARTICLES AMENDMENT ACT

OPERATING ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

TRANSMISSION LINES