Hansard Transcript 1988-Jun-27 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Philip: I would like to congratulate the Canadian Federation of Amateur Roller Skaters and others responsible for the establishment of an international-style roller hockey team in Ontario. Seven of the 12 members from the team are from the city of Etobicoke. Although there are about 700 players of roller hockey in Canada, our Ontario team will be the first to play by international rules. The sport of roller hockey has achieved full-medal status in the Pan-Am games and also holds the world A and B championship annually.

We are looking forward to seeing it as an Olympic demonstration sport in the 1992 Olympics at Barcelona. Our team is presently working at representing Canada at the world championships in Bogota, Colombia, in October of this year. Recently, our 12-man team competed against the United States regional champions in Utica, New York. Our team tied one game 2-2 and won one game 13-8. The sport of roller hockey is well established in Europe since the 1920s. It is the number one sport in Portugal and is ranked second, only behind soccer, in Spain.

I am sure all members of the House would like to congratulate those responsible for establishing this Ontario-Canadian team and wish it every success in its future events.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Harris: The count down is on. Only nine more days and the people of this province can start working for themselves. I know it must be a great source of pride to every Liberal in this House that tax freedom day in Ontario now falls on July 6. I know they must delight in explaining to their constituents that in a large measure, thanks to the policies of the Ontario Liberal government, the average Ontarian has to work 18 more days in 1988 than he or she did in 1984 to pay his or her total tax bill for that year.

In 1984, when I recall there was another party in power here in Ontario, tax freedom day fell on June 18. That was in the good old days back when we had a seven per cent sales tax, a 48 per cent income tax and a government that had some idea of how to control expenditures. Now we have tax, tax and spend, spend. Now we have the average citizen working 188 days of the year to pay his taxes, and I fear that the worst is yet to come.

The Premier’s Council has suggested Ontario should emulate Sweden if it wants to be competitive. I fear that, left to its own devices, this government will not only Swedenize our industrial structure but will do the same thing to our tax rates. This would mean a worker in Ontario earning only $20,000 a year would be in the 50 per cent tax bracket.

On July 6, I would encourage every Ontarian to phone the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), their Liberal member, just to mark the occasion, just to let them know they do not want to celebrate tax freedom day in 1990 on Hallowe’en.

POOR CHILDREN

Mr. McGuinty: We pride ourselves on our schools which aim to develop all to their full potential.

To this end, we attempt to provide services for the average, the gifted and those with disabilities. But for all our hopes and our boasts, there is one group which has special needs too frequently overlooked, and these are the poor children.

They are different but they are not deficient. I am sure as many of us look back over our own school days:

One thing stands out most of all

The tragic fall-out waste of poor kids,

Those dropped, opted out along the way,

Kids street-smart and different,

Not deficient, slow of wit,

Not delinquent but disadvantaged, poor,

For whom so much more could be expected,

But whose gifts and talents,

Above all self-worth,

Not recognized, brought on,

And much more, much worse, demeaned, diminished,

With a complex, for all time;

Wasted talents, lives frustrated,

And horrendous social costs,

With marvellous potentials for ever unfulfilled

And with no one easy villain in this sad scenario.

But, in retrospect, one thing is certain clear:

What we met in schools had much to blame

Our world in some ways foreign

To the schools set up to serve it;

Poor kids with street-smarts loved and learned to live by

Dismissed as failings, not to pass,

In a system Toronto-programmed

To serve an upper middle class.

Poor children.

DIALYSIS UNITS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: For years, the past member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, David Warner, along with members of the Scarborough General Hospital pleaded with the government of the day to produce more haemodialysis units for Scarborough and brought forward much information about the difficulties that there were for people in the eastern part of Metro, Pickering, Ajax, Oshawa and other places in between there and Kingston to get haemodialysis assistance.

We have just had an announcement recently that 24 machines will be added, but all of them are going to teaching hospitals in the centre of downtown Toronto. I have just received a letter from Dr. Paul Tam, who basically asked me, “What is the rationale for doing that when we know that many, many people in Scarborough and eastern Toronto have a need for this kind of service in their communities and not in the teaching hospitals downtown in Toronto?”

He would like an explanation and I would like an explanation from this government as to why it continues to pour money into the teaching hospitals while ignoring the needs of our suburban communities.

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Sterling: The recent appointment of two high-profile Liberal supporters to the board of TVOntario serves to remind us that this government has its snout well entrenched in the public trough. In fact, what we have is a government of trough Grits busily appointing true Grits.

There can be no doubt that Mrs. DelZotto, the wife of the president and chief fund-raiser of the Liberal Party, and David MacNaughton, the Premier’s friend and adviser, are true Grits, but there will always be an element of doubt about the merit and appropriateness of their appointments.

That doubt will be there because the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has refused to undertake any meaningful reform of the appointments process and has refused to allow this Legislature even the courtesy of a review. As one editorial noted, “It is difficult to imagine what the Liberals have to fear from a committee review of their appointments unless they have decided to emphasize patronage and partisanship as opposed to merit and accomplishment in appointments.”

True Grits can rest easy. The gravy train runs from the Premier’s office to the pork barrel and it is still running on the track.

1340

CELEBRATION 30

Mr. Cleary: Thirty years ago, work was coming to a close on a major eastern Ontario project. This completely changed the face of the Seaway valley and the very lifestyle of the people living in the villages on the border of the Cornwall riding. These villages were Mille Roches, Moulinette, Farran’s Point, Wales, Aultsville and Dickinson’s Landing -- better known today as the lost villages.

These villages were surrounded by 20,000 acres of land, which was to become submerged beneath the swirling waters of the newly-brought-into-being Lake St. Lawrence. Lake St. Lawrence was created to be the headwaters of the new Ontario Hydro power project at Cornwall, which has been a major provider of electricity for the province since 1958.

The 700 people who lost their homes for the benefit of society as a whole were housed in two entirely new villages, Long Sault and Ingleside. Today, both Long Sault and Ingleside are thriving, well-adjusted communities, of which we can be justly proud.

I thought it appropriate that I should bring this milestone of 30 years in our history to the attention of the House. Maybe we could invite all members of the House to join in the activities, festivities and displays that will take place in those communities July 1, 2 and 3.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr. Allen: The members of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses are winding up a series of regional meetings and consultations and will soon be putting their suggestions and recommendations before the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney).

As we know, one of the concerns of the shelters that has been raised again and again is that funding for counselling services to men who batter must come from this very same pot.

While the women are quick to point out that they welcome these programs -- and they have helped organize and have facilitated many of them -- they feel that financial support should come from the Ministry of Correctional Services or other appropriate programs. When funds are limited, they argue, priority should be given to the victims.

I urge the minister to do all that he can to bring pressure upon his cabinet colleagues to assume full responsibility for those programs.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am pleased to announce the release of a major and important report on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. This report was prepared by the minister’s advisory committee, a panel of independent individuals with wide and varied expertise.

The strength of this report is that it does not merely identify the causes of homelessness, but it recommends specific strategies for increasing the supply of social housing to meet the needs of homeless people in Ontario.

The report stresses that if we are to put an end to homelessness, then municipalities, the nonprofit sector and the ministries of Housing, Health, Community and Social Services, and Correctional Services must work together. We must combine our resources and be united in our goals. The needs of homeless people and other low-income groups experiencing complex social and economic problems can only be met through these co-operative efforts.

A key recommendation is that the Ministry of Housing work with municipalities and the nonprofit sector to speed up and increase the construction of low-cost housing. Specifically, the report recommends making government lands available for low-cost housing, streamlining the approval process, amending the Planning Act, providing more funding for nonprofit housing producers and resource groups and developing a system to facilitate corporate and community investment.

The advisory committee report calls upon the provincial government to provide a wider range of support services, including increasing social assistance shelter subsidies and providing an income supplement to low-income people to help them meet the high cost of shelter.

The report also makes some solid recommendations for dealing with native housing issues. It proposes that urban native groups be assured access to provincial housing programs and that a conference with native housing advocates be organized to ensure that the situation is addressed with appropriate input from them.

I am proud to say that my ministry has already begun to act on most of these recommendations. We have already set a social housing target of 55,000 units in the next three to five years; we will double the social housing allocation in this province. We are already working with municipalities to streamline the zoning and approval process, and we are dealing with them on such issues as amending the Planning Act and developing government lands for affordable housing. In addition, the Ministry of Housing is actively working with community groups to increase its capacity to meet the assisted-housing target. We have a strong commitment to ending homelessness in Ontario, and this report confirms that we are on the right track. I know there is a lot of work ahead of us.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee for their excellent report. Some of the committee’s members are in the gallery today, and I know all members would wish to recognize their hard work. They are Jeffrey Patterson, chairman of the committee and senior program director of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto; Dolores Blonde, past president of the Ontario Social Development Council; Joyce Johnson, executive director of Anduhyaun House; Maylanne Whittall from the single displaced persons project; and Bill Belfontaine, who is the controller of the city of Scarborough. I am very pleased to be able to thank them for all the very good work they have done this year.

The recommendations in this report reflect the committee members’ genuine commitment to eliminating homelessness in Ontario. The government shares their commitment, as I am sure all the members of this House do.

ELECTRICAL POWER

Hon. Mr. Wong: In the light of the possible implementation of the trade agreement between Canada and the United States, there is a real need to ensure our ability to secure and manage Ontario’s electricity supplies. Today, I am pleased to advise the House that I am taking steps to reduce the province’s vulnerability under the trade agreement and the federal government’s implementing legislation.

Later today, I will be introducing for first reading An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act. This legislation is meant to respond specifically to Ontario’s concerns over the energy provisions of the proposed free trade agreement. As I have indicated previously, broader amendments to the Power Corporation Act will follow.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the honourable members the nature and scope of the amendments we are proposing today. The amendments respond to the risks arising from the energy provisions of the trade agreement by asserting Ontario’s authority over electricity matters. The trade agreement weakens the federal government’s role in securing our energy future. Unlike the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the trade agreement includes obligations with respect to electricity.

The trade agreement also contains proportional access provisions with respect to energy supplies, including electricity, which would be far more restrictive than the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Under the Canada-US free trade agreement, Canada would be required to share its energy production proportionately with US customers in times of reduced supply. The energy provisions in the trade agreement pose a real threat to our future energy security.

Under the amendments to the Power Corporation Act, Ontario Hydro will be required to give priority to the needs of domestic energy consumers when considering export contracts for electricity. Ontario Hydro will be required to ensure that any sale of electrical power proposed under an export contract is surplus to the requirements of Ontario and other customers in Canada. Furthermore, Ontario Hydro will be required to ensure that the export price is higher than the price charged to Canadian customers for equivalent service.

The amended act will assert Ontario’s authority to provide economic development assistance to designated regions of the province and will authorize Ontario Hydro to take part in economic development activities to assist these areas.

The amendments I will be introducing later today will ensure that the trade agreement will not deny Ontario’s ability under the Constitution to provide for the energy security and economic wellbeing of its people.

1350

WINE INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Members will be well aware that over the past two decades, European and other wine producers have undertaken programs of expansion and quality improvement that have radically changed the international competitive environment in wines.

In recent times there has emerged a European surplus in both wine and grapes, which is matched in Canada by a surplus of grapes and fierce competition for existing markets. These market changes have been accelerated by a variety of government programs around the world, such as production subsidies, acreage incentives, quality control programs, marketing assistance and tax breaks.

If we in Ontario are to maintain a successful and prosperous industry, it is imperative that we address the challenge of international competition. We have recognized that need and have acted upon it in partnership with the Ontario industry.

Consumers of fine wines will know that Ontario wine products have come a long way over the last several years. It is evident from some of the international awards we have won recently that our best wines are beginning to compete successfully with any in the world. These success stories are proof that Ontario has the climate, soil and skill to become a globally competitive wine-making region.

Our industries still have much work ahead of them in achieving this ambitious goal. In particular, Ontario’s grape-growing acreage must be converted more fully to growing the high-quality hybrids and viniferas that produce our successful wines. These grape varieties require further development and testing. New vines need time to be brought into production. Then wines must be developed and refined.

To this end, I will be introducing later today the new Wine Content Act, which will provide the framework for a restructuring plan for Ontario’s grape and wine industries. Developed in co-operation with the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board and the Wine Council of Ontario, the new act will expire after 12 years. This legislation represents a realistic, comprehensive restructuring strategy that will ensure the ability of our grape and wine industries to compete head-on with products from around the world in terms of quality, image and price.

It is our view that Ontario must adapt to the new realities of international competition and changing consumer tastes. We have the environment and the entrepreneurial knowhow to produce world-class wines in this province at competitive prices. We also have the strategy and the will to make it happen and, with the co-operation of my colleagues, the Wine Content Act, 1988, will provide the framework for meeting this goal.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I wish to inform the members of certain government initiatives regarding automobile insurance.

It is our intention to proclaim relevant provisions of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board Act on July 4, 1988. On the same date we intend to transfer to the board the authority over the mandatory rate classification system so that the board is vested with the full powers needed to meet its projected timetables.

At this time I also wish to inform the members of the government’s intention to allow an across-the-board adjustment to automobile insurance rates to a maximum of 4.5 per cent, effective August 1, 1988. The responsibility for setting rates beyond this time will now fall to the automobile insurance board.

Until now, there has been one increase allowed in the 14 months since rates were capped in April of last year, and that increase was a maximum of 4.5 per cent. The combined effect of changes, including this one, is a 9.2 per cent premium increase. Since the board expects to establish new rates by January 1989, the 9.2 per cent increase covers a period of about 20 months.

Rate increases in those provinces where automobile insurance is government run have been much higher. In Manitoba, for example, since April 1987 there has been an average increase of 18 per cent; in Saskatchewan, 10 per cent; and in British Columbia, 22 per cent. It should be noted that those increases are already in place. These provinces could impose other increases by year-end.

As members of this House know, the chairmanship of the board is now in the capable hands of John P. Kruger. I am pleased to announce today the other members of the board, whose names are appended to this statement.

I am informed it is the board’s intention to begin a series of hearings on August 10, 1988, leading to the establishment of industry-wide benchmark rates or rate ranges. The hearings will include the classification system and other issues affecting the setting of industry-wide rates. The board has set a target date of January 1, 1989, to establish its benchmark insurance rates.

MULTICULTURALISM AND AGEING

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: It gives me great pleasure today to rise to share with my colleagues three initiatives, which the office for senior citizens’ affairs is undertaking in support of this government’s commitment to Ontario’s multicultural society.

The ranks of Ontario’s elderly are growing, and this trend is accompanied by demographic changes occurring within our multicultural population. These initiatives will respond to the needs of this growing and diverse segment of our society and help ensure that all citizens will continue to enjoy the access and the opportunity that characterize life in Ontario.

I am pleased to announce that the office for senior citizens’ affairs has supported the publication of a literature review of ethnicity and ageing. This study was conducted by Dr. Milada Disman of the University of Toronto’s faculty of medicine, department of behavioural sciences, in conjunction with the program in gerontology, and will be released next month. Ethnicity and ageing will help us to understand the concerns of our ageing multicultural population and assist those who work with the elderly to address their individual needs.

Second, with the support of the Ministry of Citizenship, we will be publishing our Guide for Senior Citizens in Chinese, Italian and Portuguese, to extend its current availability in French and English.

Finally, I am pleased to announce, again thanks to the support of my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips), that the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens is conducting a series of public discussions throughout Ontario on the subject of multiculturalism and ageing. These consultations will help us to explore attitudes towards ageing in a multicultural society and provide direction for our future planning.

I believe it is fitting to announce these initiatives during June, senior citizens’ month. In doing so, we have expanded upon the theme of “opportunity is ageless” to include the richness and diversity of Ontario’s multicultural communities.

RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I just say in response to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) of the province, who has announced yet another giveaway to the insurance companies, that he might have added, for example, that Canadian general insurers made $1 billion in 1986 and made $1.65 billion in 1987. It was a record profit-making year for the insurance companies in 1987. He has now given them another present.

He might also have mentioned, if he were trying to be as straightforward as I know he would want to be, that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of the province said during the last election campaign, and how well I recall these words some 10 days before election day, “I have a definite plan to reduce rates.” If he had a definite plan, that plan is out the window, gone, flown like the bird of last summer, like all the Liberal promises, destroyed by the cynicism of a government which knows no limits in terms of what it will do to the poor consumers of this province.

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: I’m feeling much better.

Mr. Breaugh: You ought to see him when he is well.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Breaugh: I want to reply to the statement made by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) tabling the final report of the minister’s advisory committee on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.

It is a fine document. I believe it gives us a good analysis of the problems that are there and identifies the biggest single problem, which is land. How ironic it is that the province of Ontario itself owns 90 per cent of the land mass, the biggest single problem in housing is the cost of land and it is made worse by the fact that the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. R. F. Nixon) wants to become a land speculator in the midst of all of this.

It identifies that some of the biggest single problems they run into are within the various ministries as they try to preserve their own turf and at the same time respond to the needs of our community. It identifies that land speculation and speculation in housing is a major problem and is causing all kinds of hardship for people. It has some startling numbers attached to it. For the first time, it says in a report tabled in this House that 200,000 households are affected by homelessness.

It is refreshing to see that they did a thorough job covering even the needs of native people, who very often in the middle of Metropolitan Toronto are totally forgotten. There are people who are native aboriginals to this country who have no home either.

1400

I was quite pleased when I read this report this morning. The thing that turned it around for me today was that I had a second report on my desk this morning, from a group called Aldebrain Housing. They went to the ministry last year with a proposal for something that is not done very much here: They wanted to build nonprofit housing for disabled persons. They have a community board. They went to the Ministry of Housing last year. The Ministry of Housing, oddly enough, referred them to a consultant, and they were quite happy with the consulting firm, Gibson Consultants.

Gibson Consultants got them in touch with a private developer, the Leacock Holding Co., and they found a site owned by the Metropolitan Separate School Board here in Toronto. All things seemed to be working: public property already owned, assisted by the ministry.

How ironic it is that the same private developer who helped them put together their proposal also put in a similar bid on the exact same site. The housing for the disabled is forgotten; the housing for the luxury condominium market is embellished by another 20 units. How sad that on the same day we see such great promise and such hard work in one report, we see another report that shows the actual reality of what this ministry is doing: nothing.

ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr. Morin-Strom: Just a brief comment on the statements of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) in regard to the introduction of amendments to the Power Corporation Act. The initiative appears to be a positive one. The province is attempting to assert authority, according to the statement of the minister, in the area of energy. However, we would like to hope that the bill itself in fact does contain more than the promising rhetoric, and certainly more than the rhetoric we heard from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) last summer when he made his commitment that there would be no free trade deal if we were going to lose in all these areas, such as energy.

Here we have an initiative that is required. I would hope that we get something positive out of this, not just the protection of our right to control our own energy resources, but that the minister will act to see that Ontario Hydro is stimulating economic development throughout the province through this new bill.

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Cousens: The queen of social housing has at last released a report on social housing. She has been sitting on it since April 1, three months’ delay. We are used to delays, but it is, again, another delay. I commend those who worked on it. They must wonder if it is ever going to be read when it takes as long to get it printed. But none the less, to what extent, I wonder, did the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) influence the recommendations and decisions of the committee, because I see they are very good recommendations in many respects; but it also becomes a political whitewash for many of the recommendations that were made by the Peterson government during its election stampede last summer.

I do not see this government following all of the recommendations. I wish they would. The fact that, early on, they laid into the need for co-operation and working together with the nonprofit sector is, I think, a fundamental rule and a cardinal rule that it will be very difficult for this government to follow through. I question that the strategies being followed by the government will improve or enhance existing housing starts. It is discouraging right now to landlords and tenants alike, and the fact is that we have the Planning Act being withdrawn from this House because the government is not ready to do it. There is not a housing statement, there is not a housing policy and we have not had any announcements that will affect and improve upon the services in Metropolitan Toronto, so it is more words.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Sterling: I would like to respond briefly to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) on the Wine Content Act, which we are going to see this afternoon. We find the Liberal government with another shadow to box. The Wine Content Act proposes a 12-year phase-in period for adjustments to take place in that industry. While we would like to believe that we would be allowed 12 years to have such a phase-in period, we are not unmindful of what the European countries are saying with regard to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

This is merely, in our view it appears at this time, a direct confrontation with the federal government over the free trade agreement whereby it has agreed to a seven-year phase in. Therefore, we feel that perhaps the introduction of this legislation may be untimely in terms of trying to get the best deal for our grape growers in the final analysis. In fact, what the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade may be forcing the Ontario government to do in the final end is to give us less than seven years. We only feel that, by doing this, the Ontario government is precipitating a more urgent situation in the end. Therefore, we are somewhat chagrined that the Liberal government is again using another side door to try to circumvent the federal government in attaining a free trade agreement with the United States.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: In responding to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) with respect to the interim increase for the auto insurance industry, we have suggested from the outset, in terms of the government’s initiatives, that it is heading down the wrong path and that it entered the slippery slope towards government-run auto insurance when it initiated Bill 2, and this is further proof of that fact.

They are flying by the seat of their pants. We had some of the members of the industry who took increases in 1986 and, in effect, with the government’s freeze, got the interim increase in 1987 and now have been awarded another increase. There is no equity in terms of the way the minister is approaching this, but he has to do something or he is going to start losing a great many insurance companies in the field in this province. In any event, the ultimate achievement, if you will, of this government with respect to auto insurance is going to be running most of the private sector out of the business.

ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr. Runciman: With respect to the comments of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong), again, this is very disappointing. When we take a look at Ontario Hydro’s position with respect to free trade, it said that Ontario is going to be the major beneficiary of free trade. The Premier (Mr. Peterson), in response to a question of mine a couple of weeks ago, was not even aware of that recommendation.

The minister should be doing more to get Ontario Hydro under control. His leader said it was a monster out of control, and they are doing nothing in that respect. We have Ontario Hydro with no debt repayment plan. Over 50 per cent of their revenues are going towards the repayment of their debt. They have 2,400 redundant employees they do not want to deal with. They have a very expensive building, to say the least, which is being constructed in North York to house those redundant employees. Let’s see the minister do something meaningful and get Ontario Hydro under control.

TRANSLATION OF REPORT

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have a very brief point of privilege concerning the document, the report that was tabled today by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), More Than Just a Roof: Action to End Homelessness in Ontario. I thought the precedent had been set by the Ministry of Housing with the Thom report, that these reports were very important from a housing viewpoint and that they would be translated into French. I notice there is no French translation of this particular report. Other than the fact that this one is after the election and there is no need to hold it up, I wonder why this document is not being translated and released in French as well.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully. It certainly is not a point of privilege. I suggest the member may wish to use question period to ask the minister that question.

[Later]

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, could I rise to correct the record?

Mr. Speaker: To correct your record?

Mr. Harris: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I made comments on a matter of privilege that you ruled was not a matter of privilege, and I concur with your ruling. That did not allow the Minister of Housing to get up to give her side of the story. It had to do with --

Mr. Speaker: And you are correcting your record?

Mr. Harris: Yes, I am, sir, and I am explaining to you why I am doing it. The Minister of Housing did not have an opportunity under the rules of the House to respond. I indicated my concern about the lack of a French translation of the housing report. I understand there is a French translation; I did not receive it. I received two English ones and one with some of the pages printed upside down, but I am told there is a French translation and I would like to indicate that to the House.

SIDNEY HANDLEMAN

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, could I ask for unanimous consent to note the passing of one of our former members of the Legislature.

Agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: It is with sadness that I inform the Legislature of the passing of Sidney Handleman, a former member of this Legislature for the riding of Carleton, which I now represent.

I first met Sid Handleman in a nomination contest in 1971 after I graduated from the bar admission course. There he defeated me on the final ballot to represent the Progressive Conservative Party for the riding of Carleton in the 1971 election.

While it is hard for any politician to say he is happy that he lost and really mean it, I truthfully can make such a statement. Of course, there were personal reasons behind that particular statement or position I took, but I soon realized after his election that Sidney Handleman was making a much more significant contribution to the people of Ontario than I ever could have at that time.

Prior to becoming a member of this Legislature, Sid served his community, his party and his church in a number of ways. Just to name a few, he held executive positions in both local and provincial Progressive Conservative associations, was president of his community association, served as a school trustee and was involved in alumni associations as well as offering his administrative services to little league baseball in eastern Ontario. Incidentally, Sid was quite an athlete and played triple A baseball in his youth.

1410

In recognition of his background as an economist, Sid was appointed to the cabinet in 1974 and remained there until 1977, when he resigned due to health reasons. Sid served in two very demanding portfolios, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

This morning I talked with former Premier Bill Davis. He spoke warmly of Sid’s dedication, hard work and ability. All members of the Legislature who had an opportunity to engage Sid in debate knew only too well of these attributes. Sid Handleman was a very principled politician, and he was always willing to fight for those principles in any forum.

Even though one might have thought he would have indulged himself in big-picture issues as a skilled economist, Sid always fought for his riding, for eastern Ontario and for the less fortunate in society. It is somewhat ironic that while I was unaware of Sid’s illness, this past Wednesday I paid tribute to him at a function at Sir Guy Carleton Secondary School in the city of Nepean, only the day before he passed away. I was telling the teaching staff a story of how a politician can make a difference.

If bureaucrats at Queen’s Park had had their way back in 1978 or 1979, Sir Guy Carleton Secondary School would still be on the drawing board. Sir Guy Carleton is a school for basic-level students, a school to give those who need a little extra help that needed assistance. Even though there was no lobbying by the parents of these students, Sid Handleman would not stand by and watch their needs ignored. I remember the meeting well, as I was present when Sid twisted the then Minister of Education, Tom Wells, to make the announcement over the objections of the Ministry of Education. Tom made the announcement and time has proven Sid Handleman right. Sid believed every child, especially the disadvantaged, should be given a fair shake. There was no better fighter for their needs than he.

In addition to all of this, Sid had a great deal of love and loyalty for his family. In 1980, Sid retired from politics to spend more time with his wife, Ruth, his son, Perry, and his daughter, Carol. Ruth Handleman has been a tremendous partner in the successful life of Sid Handleman. I want to express my deepest sympathy to her and her family on behalf of myself and our party. Sid Handleman gave much of his life to the people of Ontario and serves as an outstanding example of dedication and service for each and every one of us here in this Legislature.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to say a few words on behalf of my colleagues on Mr. Handleman’s passing away. Sid was a friend to many of us in public life, even those -- I might even add, especially those -- who did not agree with him. I knew him principally at airports, where I first met him. He was always ready for a lively discussion on the issues of the day.

I met him after he had left the political scene and just as I was about to enter it. I know that all of us will want to reflect on a life that was lived with vigour and with commitment. He earned many, many friends in many parties, not because we agreed with his point of view but because we agreed with the vigour and the sense of humour with which he expressed himself.

He was a man of commitment. He resigned from the cabinet because he did not feel he could, in conscience, continue. He was somebody who never was afraid to express his point of view as a private member in this House, something which I know all of us look upon with a sense of refreshment.

I, too, Mr. Speaker, want to make sure that you pass on our condolences and sense of loss to Ruth and to all the members of Sid’s family as we bear the news of this sad loss.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On behalf of the government I want to extend our condolences to the Handleman family on the passing of Sidney Handleman, a former member of this Legislature and a well-known resident of the national capital area.

I was listening with great interest to what the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) said about the late Sidney Handleman. I think both of them said he was a man not afraid to express himself, and that is probably the memory I will cherish most about Sid Handleman.

I remember, when I was first elected, sitting over just about where the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) now finds himself and Sidney Handleman being on this side. A more lively, feisty Tory or member of the Legislature I do not ever remember. I used to kid Sid about what his life in cabinet must have been like, particularly as we dealt with the great issue of the mid-1970s, which, as I recall, was rent review.

In fact, I was just saying to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) that I remember the night in the spring of 1977 when I think he and the late Mr. Handleman got together to give us the reason for the 1977 Ontario general election. I forget the percentage about which the quarrel took place, but I think my memory serves me correctly that the Treasurer and the late Mr. Handleman played a significant role in the triggering of that election campaign.

I knew Sid well. I can honestly say that he was someone whom I very much enjoyed doing the business of politics with. I had several conversations with him upon his retirement from the Legislature in 1980. He certainly will be missed.

As the member for Carleton said so very wisely, Mr. Handleman’s contribution was very significant apart from the world of this Legislature and politics. To his wife and to his family, I want to say that his contribution to the government and the life and times of Ontario will be long remembered and we express to them our condolences at this very sad passing.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all members of the assembly, when the official word is printed and Hansard is official, I will see that a copy is sent to the Handleman family so that your words of sympathy are forwarded.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions: the leader of the opposition.

[Applause]

Mr. B. Rae: Thank you very much. It is nice to be back.

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will no doubt recall the tragic events of last November when a young woman walking down Elizabeth Street outside the Hospital for Sick Children was killed because of debris that came from a demolition site. We now have some very disturbing information coming to us from the Scotia Plaza site and the workers there. Particularly disturbing is the fact that the Ministry of Labour was on the site on June 10 and issued a series of orders that had no compliance date attached to them.

We have heard that chains have been falling, that nuts and bolts have been falling and that hoarding has been taken away in contravention of the act. We also had the assurance from the previous Minister of Labour that never again would it be the case that ministry inspectors would go on to a site and issue compliance orders without a certain date being affixed thereto.

I would like to ask this Minister of Labour, what happened? How is it possible that when contraventions of the act are clearly cited by his own staff, there would be no dates or enforcement attached to compliance orders that were issued on June 10?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the answer to that question is a simple one. During the period when those orders were issued, a good deal of the construction industry was not operating because of a strike while workers and constructors negotiated new agreements. Under those circumstances, compliance orders were issued without a particular date because it was not reasonably possible to predict when the work that was required by the order could be completed, as a result of the fact that there were no workers there on the job to do the work.

1420

Mr. B. Rae: I can tell the minister that if he is arguing that in fact no work was taking place on the site at the time when the inspectors visited, if that is the point he is trying to make, then he is just completely, flat wrong. That is not correct. Workers were on the site, work was being done on the site and the problems that were cited by the inspectors related to work that in fact was being done at the time. The minister cannot hide behind a strike in the construction industry as his excuse; it just is not good enough.

By way of supplementary, I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us why it is, when the same company that is building Scotia Plaza is in fact now engaged on a new project called Bell Canada Enterprises, which is going to be going up almost right next door to the Scotia Plaza site, there is no health and safety committee at the Bell Canada Enterprises site, nor is there a health and safety committee on any site apart from the Scotia Plaza and the SkyDome? Why is it that a year into this government, there still is not a law in effect that requires health and safety committees on construction sites in the province?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just to clarify my response and the retort of the Leader of the Opposition, I want to make it perfectly clear to him that during the construction strike some orders were issued without a specific deadline. Since the resumption of work, additional orders have been issued and all of those have deadlines. I am told as well by my officials that all orders have been complied with.

The workers’ health and safety committee at Scotia Plaza has worked relatively effectively, and I remind my friend the Leader of the Opposition it was back on September 4 that for the first time this government required, by ministerial order, that a joint health and safety committee be set up at Scotia Plaza. We subsequently took the same action at SkyDome. Both of these are very large projects, and it was our view that they should have joint health and safety committees in place with workers’ committees as well, which could feed information into the joint committees.

I tell him as well, and I think he knows, that as we contemplate and prepare for legislative revisions to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the issue of structuring and requiring joint health and safety committees on construction sites is obviously going to be part of that package. I have told him before and I reiterate here during question period that I hope to have a bill bringing forth very substantive amendments probably in early fall.

Mr. B. Rae: It took death at the Scotia Plaza site to get a health and safety committee there. It took the fact that Don Smith was running the SkyDome site to get the government to realize that from the point of view of optics there had to be a health and safety committee. We have had a 40-foot chain dropping, we have had nuts and bolts dropping, we have inadequate lighting on many of the floors of the Scotia Plaza -- all brought to the attention of the inspectors of the ministry by the committee and nothing has been done.

At a time when construction is taking off in this province and when this government takes so much satisfaction in saying how much work in fact is going on and how successful and world class the construction industry is, I think we are entitled to ask the minister, what is world class about a situation where people die on the job because the work is unsafe, where people walking by get killed because stuff is falling down and, apart from the two that have already been mentioned, there is not a single construction site in this province that has a health and safety committee because of anything this government is doing? What is world class about that?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If through all the shouting and screaming from the other side of the floor the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that at the Bell Canada Enterprises project there ought to be a health and safety committee mandated by the minister, I will take that suggestion seriously. But he knows full well that it is not a question here of optics, either at Scotia Plaza or at the SkyDome project. At Scotia Plaza, the workers’ committee has been meeting regularly every week since it was mandated by my predecessor, and the joint health and safety committee has been making major improvements to that project. At the SkyDome as well it is not a question of optics; it is a question of management working effectively with workers to ensure that those workplaces are safe.

I just want to tell my friend the Leader of the Opposition that he will soon see a bill in this Legislature that will bring about very substantial changes in the area of construction health and safety. In the interim, if he has suggestions as to how we might proceed, I will certainly welcome them.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister seems a little touchy about the suggestion that if it is working so effectively at two sites, why not extend it everywhere else.

Mr. Speaker: Your question is to which minister?

RENT REGULATION

Mr. B. Rae: My new question is to the Minister of Housing. I am sure the minister will have read or had brought to her attention the story of the tenants on Shallmar Boulevard which is contained in today’s Toronto Star. We are told that the building was sold by Chanteclear Towers to Beaux Properties International Inc. for $2.4 million on April 30, 1987, and on May 19, as spring follows winter, the new landlord filed for a rent increase of 10.2 per cent. We now have the landlord, in 1988, asking for a further rent hike of some 30 per cent.

I would like to ask the Minister of Housing a very simple question: What is she going to do for those tenants at 11 Shallmar Boulevard to ensure that they are not facing a rent hike of some $1,650, which is precisely the figure they will be facing if this rent increase goes through?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The rent review legislation will make sure that no tenant pays an unjustified rent increase and that the concerns that tenants have about their rent increases will be met by very careful analysis of what it is the landlord is asking for, very careful analysis of his claims of expenses. No tenant in that building will face unjustified rent increases.

Mr. B. Rae: One of the problems is that tenants frequently face increases that are justified.

Since I had a fair sense of what her answer would be, I wonder if I could draw her attention to an example that has already been awarded by rent review in which tenants living at 15 Erskine Avenue are going to be facing rent increases of at least 10 per cent for each of the next five years because of the financial and economic loss provisions of the rent review legislation. That is a minimum of 10 per cent for each of the next five years.

Again, seniors, in many respects, live in these buildings on fixed incomes. Their incomes do not go up 10 per cent a year, yet that is the minimum they are going to be facing, plus any increases caused by landlords saying: “Gee, we’d like to fix up your apartment, and you’re going to end up paying for it.”

I would like to ask the minister, by way of supplementary, just what she is going to do to make sure that the 200,000 homeless who are described in her report today do not become 220,000 as a result of the kinds of increases that we are seeing approved by her government.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I share the honourable member’s concern, in particular for the situation of people on fixed income at a time when housing costs are increasing significantly.

Rent review legislation is only one element of protecting tenants in this province. It is not the only answer.

It is because of the problems of people on fixed incomes and people of low income that this government has made its commitment, which it will follow through on, of building a significant amount of nonprofit housing so that people on low and moderate incomes will have greater choices, more different places where they can live to give them the kinds of support they need, given the fact that housing prices are increasing significantly in this province.

Mr. B. Rae: On Friday, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) was quoted as admitting in the Toronto Star that in fact he agreed a speculation tax was in a sense effective in the 1970s. It did not raise any income, but it did not raise any income because it had the effect of putting a spike on the kind of speculative increases which were going on.

The report which she quoted today and presented to the House said on page 56: “The committee feels that speculative increases at an annual rate in excess of 30 per cent on residentially zoned land are unacceptable.” I did not hear her say that in her statement, but I thought I would quote it. It says, it recommends, that politicians seriously consider measures to limit speculation on housing.

Why is there nothing in government policy today which limits speculation on housing, and why in fact is the minister doing nothing to limit that speculation? It is affecting tenants. It is affecting people who want to buy. It is affecting everybody in this province. It is making a mockery of security of tenure, security of housing, having a roof over people’s heads in this province at a time when we should at least be able to provide that.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In the report of the committee on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless indeed there is a passage dealing with the cost of land. I am equally concerned about the cost of land.

The answer that we propose to give to that is to increase the supply of zoned land significantly by working with municipalities, by making sure there is a greater supply of land, which will mean that the cost of land will be more likely to be stabilized and have a significant effect on the price of housing in this province.

1430

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Premier. Several weeks ago, when the hearings on the Meech Lake accord first began, he stated that, in his opinion, the accord would not adversely affect charter rights. Since that time, the committee has heard a great deal of testimony on the issue, much of the testimony from constitutional experts and women’s groups who took the opposite point of view.

As a result of the volume of testimony to the contrary, surely the Premier must realize that this issue is far from resolved in the minds of many Ontarians. I would ask him, in the light of that, why will he not agree to refer this matter to the courts.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s point, and there has been a lot of discussion about that point. I know my honourable friend wrestled with that in the committee.

I guess the best advice I could give my honourable friend -- and I recognize that there are different legal opinions and different, shall we say, political opinions on the accord -- is to look at the views that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) put forward as the chief law officer of the crown on this particular matter. It is his view, and I am sure he can answer more specifically than I can, that there would not be a particular utility in that at the present time in the absence of a specific matter to refer and that, in fact, in the absence of a specific, shall we say, fact situation, it would not be particularly constructive; it would be theoretical at best and probably would not conclude anything.

Second, I think he has the view they are not in jeopardy, and after my honourable friend has wrestled with that and, I am sure, looked at the legal opinions of others as well, we are hopeful that he will be comfortable with the position put forward by the committee unanimously.

Mr. Harris: The Attorney General, it is true, did reject the court reference because he said it would be too difficult to draft an effective reference. The Liberal members on the committee, in my view, were ordered to take the same position. Morris Manning, one of the most eminent constitutional experts, who graciously volunteered to assist the committee, differed from the Attorney General and drafted a court reference. Could the Premier tell us what was inappropriate with Mr. Manning’s court reference?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with the terms of Mr. Manning’s court reference. With the honourable member’s permission, I will refer it to the Attorney General and he can address that question specifically, if I have the member’s indulgence in so doing.

Mr. Speaker: That has been referred to the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I had the opportunity to read Mr. Manning’s opinion, which I think is attached to the dissenting views of the honourable member and others in the committee. I disagree with him and I think the disagreement is shared by the staff who advised me in connection with this matter.

We feel very strongly that references are best equipped to deal with clear matters that are raised by, for example, legislation. If there were a bill in the House and the question were whether the bill offended a charter right, then that would be an appropriate question to refer to the court. When the question is, however, what are the charter rights in light of the accord, which is essentially the kind of question Mr. Manning wants to submit, that is an unsuitable mechanism.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Manning agrees with me, because he tried to avoid the difficulty that is presented by the problem he was asked to solve by using the language of the Bill 30 reference, which, of course, is completely inapt for the purpose for which he, at least in my respectful opinion, attempted to use it.

Mr. Harris: Perhaps I could then go back to the Attorney General and indicate that Mr. Manning expressed no such reservations when he drafted the reference. Since there is a doubt and a difference of opinion among a number of legal experts about whether it is appropriate or not, I would remind him that he, as Attorney General, in the fall of 1985 -- and he has mentioned it -- extended full funding to the separate school system by order in council and simultaneously referred Bill 30 to the courts for a ruling. At that time he said he was going ahead with the extension of funding because he was convinced it was constitutional and he was seeking the court ruling only to reassure the public and put that constitutional issue to rest.

I would ask the Attorney General, in view of the disagreement both on the appropriateness and on whether in fact charter rights are affected, why he felt it was more important in the case of Bill 30 than he does in the case of the charter rights that affect half of this population to refer it to the courts and to reassure people on Meech Lake, as he did on the Bill 30 reference.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is difficult to answer the question without repeating exactly what I have just now said, but as there is apparently a radio-television man going around doing cheap imitations of me, I want to take this chance to speak fully and answer the question frankly, so that there will be lots of material upon which these mock imitations can be drawn in the future.

Perhaps in that context I will repeat the answer I gave to the honourable member, which is simply this: It is the view of the ministry and my view that it is not appropriate to refer questions which require, in effect, an essay-type answer, “What are the charter rights in light of the accord?” It is only appropriate to refer questions that require a specific answer, “What does this particular bill mean?” or “What does this bill do in terms of a specific right?”

We have carefully canvassed that, and we frankly do not think that, even if an assurance was required of the type the honourable member seeks for the public, a court would be willing or able to give that kind of assurance in the light of the issues the accord presents and its connection with the charter presents.

HOUSING AUTHORITIES

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Some 150 municipalities are taking advantage of deregulation and directly purchasing natural gas from western producers at a substantial saving.

The Ontario Housing Corp. has had an agreement in place since February 1988 to purchase natural gas on behalf of Ontario housing authorities. Could the minister tell this House the amount of savings the Ontario Housing Corp. has passed on to the authorities due to this agreement?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I cannot give the member the exact number. I think what has happened as a result of the deal that has been struck with Alberta has meant that the cost of maintaining our buildings all over the province has in fact been contained, but I will be glad to give the honourable member the exact number as soon as I am able to find it.

Mr. Cousens: The understanding I have is that the ministry is not planning to pass on any of the savings it is going to make, which are going to be substantial. The fact of the matter is that the agreement that was struck between the Minister of Housing and the Ontario Housing Corp. for this has not involved any of the communities, she has not informed them, and she has not included them in the savings that are coming about.

In fact, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority found out about this through an article in Maclean’s magazine. When they inquired about the savings, the answer they got back from the director of housing field operations said,

“Due to the political sensitivity of the gas purchased by OHC, both as a crown corporation and as a residential consumer of gas, details of the contract were not publicized and some require confidentiality.”

Mr. Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr. Cousens: Why is the ministry depriving housing authorities of the savings they are entitled to, or will the minister make a commitment here in this House today that they will get those savings?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The honourable member will know very well that the cost of maintaining the Ontario Housing Corp. stock, of which there are 84,000 units all over the province, is significant. That cost includes the usual maintenance costs plus services to tenants. We are running no surplus in that account. It is costing us significant amounts of money. Even if you factor in whatever savings there were on the energy side, there is still a significant cost to be borne by the province, through OHC, for all the housing that we own and manage in this province. In that sense, there is nothing to pass on to the housing authorities in the way of a saving.

1440

Mr. Cousens: I just find this very surprising. We all know there are 84,000 units. We know that the energy bill is close to $30 million for those units, and some $14 million of it would go into Metropolitan Toronto. We know that through this kind of negotiation of energy savings the savings are over 23 per cent; that is over $6 million. That is not just small change. We also know that the housing authorities are in a crisis around the province.

What the government is doing, by holding on to this windfall, is depriving the local housing authorities of needed financial assistance. It is contrary to the statements being made by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) to pass through the money to those areas that are going to benefit by it. First, the Minister of Housing is being secretive and confidential about what is happening; second, she is being insensitive to the work that has to be done by the housing authorities.

Is this confidentiality and this skimming of the profits and the savings that are being made a case of mismanagement or a de facto case of insensitivity by this government to the needs of the housing authorities?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I much admire the member’s method of asking questions. Let me say once again that the local housing authorities are creatures of the Ontario Housing Corp. The Ontario Housing Corp. is funded by the province. It is costing a significant amount of money to maintain the buildings that we own and to give the tenants in this province a reasonable place to live that is well cared for, well heated and well taken care of. There is no surplus in that account. That is a significant amount of money we are spending. I am very glad to see we are able to keep those costs in some kind of check.

Mr. Jackson: Come on, it’s a double standard; you allow for a discount in the private sector, but you don’t allow for it in the public sector. It’s a double standard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind the member for Burlington South of standing order 24(b). I hope he will look it up.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. When are the minister and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) going to stop their Abbott-and-Costello act on the Temagami/Red Squirrel Road/Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Provincial Park area? How is it that the Minister of Natural Resources can be quoted as saying that this really rests with the Attorney General -- “It’s up to him” -- while at the same time the Attorney General said: “As for the road, that is a Natural Resources road. Mr. Kerrio will deal with that. I’m not in the road-building business.” Who is in charge? Who’s on first?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course, we have quite a serious situation in regard to the Temagami road.

I would think that if the member were to analyse what was written very carefully, he will find out that indeed we do both have a role to play and that in many cases they overlap each other. I am perfectly willing to share with the honourable members the circumstances that relate to my ministry, as I am sure the Attorney General would be very willing to share with the assembly where he is involved.

I do not find it odd that we should be talking about various areas where there is an overlap and where there is not real distinction. I do not find it difficult to understand that circumstance at all, as the member does.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Oh, they finally let her up.

Mr. Wildman: She’s on second.

Mrs. Grier: I am happy to be on second, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite sure to whom I should address the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Grier: All I know is it sure ain’t cricket. Surely the Minister of Natural Resources must acknowledge that he has made what is already a complex situation even more difficult to resolve by the decision to proceed with the Red Squirrel Road. Will the minister not agree today that no construction should proceed on that road until he and/or the Attorney General have resolved the land claims issue?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think that many very important determinations were made in that part of Ontario in Temagami, that we did in fact make Lady Evelyn a true wilderness park. We added waterways parks to it to complete the circuit. To decide that we were going to take the initiative to remove a major road through Lady Evelyn Park, I think we are doing things in a way that have never been considered before in that area. By July 1 I will have set up a chairman and a group that will make a model of that whole area as relates to replanting, recreation and all of the things that we do there.

I think this government has been most responsible in attempting to resolve a very serious problem. I would hope that instead of sitting over there criticizing, the members might get off their ends and help us resolve the problem.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Being the fair fellow I am, I gave the minister notice of this question earlier.

It should be noted that my colleague, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) wrote the minister about this incident three months ago, to which he has yet to receive a reply.

In February of this year, a car owned by an Ontario Hydro employee was stolen in Hamilton and recovered in Bracebridge. In the trunk of the vehicle was radioactive cobalt 60. Will the minister tell the House whether there was anything on the exterior of this vehicle to indicate that the radioactive material was in the trunk?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I wish to thank the honourable member for notifying me within the past hour of this question. Being the fine fellow that he is, I want to give him a proper answer.

My staff has informed me that my office had apparently been in touch with the office of the member for Burlington South on April 25; but just to make sure I answer the question properly, the safe handling of radioactive materials is taken seriously by Hydro and by the specific divisions that are involved.

I might point out to the honourable member that it is -- I am just trying to find the exact title of the legislation -- the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act which governs the transportation of these materials. I can assure the member that Hydro has complied with the act.

Mr. Runciman: After notice from me and three months following the receipt of a letter from the member for Burlington South, the minister does not know the answer to a very basic question.

It must be made clear whether this car was properly marked with an appropriate warning that this radioactive material was in the trunk of the car. I think in the interest of public safety it is imperative. One does not have to study this matter in great detail to realize the potential disaster that could have occurred had this material gotten into the hands of juveniles or if the vehicle were involved in a traffic accident.

Will the minister tell the House: Is it not Ontario Hydro policy to clearly mark such a vehicle? If not, should it not be?

Hon. Mr. Wong: First of all let me say that now that I am aware of the matter, I will certainly make sure that the member for Burlington South and the opposition critic will have a full and proper answer. I will check into that specific point.

I wish to put the problem into perspective. Hydro has in this case complied with all of the packaging and transport regulations. I might add that the amount of substance that we are talking about is equivalent to that contained in two household smoke detectors. I think that we must comply with the act but I think in this particular case, as I have said before, Hydro did comply.

1450

SOFT-DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr. McGuinty: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and I want to thank him for the question.

The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has recently passed a resolution to ban the collection and disposal of soft drink bottles made of PET, which is polyethylene tetrathalate. Will the minister tell the members of the Legislature what can be done to assist Ottawa-Carleton and other municipalities that want to reduce the amount of solid waste by banning PET products?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: To the member for Ottawa South, who asked a very good question, there is actually a very straightforward and simple solution to the problem; that is, it should be included in any recycling program, because by including it in a recycling program, it does not then get into landfills or incinerators. Of the four local municipalities, Gloucester, Nepean, Ottawa and Kanata, which recycle in the Ottawa-Carleton region, I think it is only Kanata that at the present time recycles the PET bottles. The recycling is 10 tons a year in that regard.

I know people are striving to find solutions, but the trouble with the solution they suggest in the resolution is that it says they would not collect PET bottles. I think the solution is in fact to collect them and recycle them. I think we are going to see a growing recycling business for all of these products, even the plastics that have proved to be the most troublesome. I think we are seeing markets quickly developing for these right across North America, and it is my view that they can be recycled. I suggest the municipalities involved might contemplate renegotiating the contract with Laidlaw to ensure the PET bottles are included in that.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Certainly we can provide information from the Ministry of the Environment to assist the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: I recall the minister saying he had a short, straightforward answer. Supplementary.

Mr. McGuinty: The region of Ottawa-Carleton’s resolution also suggests that PET soft-drink containers should have a deposit. Does the minister believe that the use of a deposit will help reduce the amount of PET going to landfills for disposal?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We had an opportunity in 1985. We looked at the problem, which was unresolved at that time, of soft-drink containers to determine what would be the best way of dealing with them. The politically easy answer and the one which is popular politically is simply to say that you put deposits on them, as though that somehow solves the problem.

In fact, it does not solve the problem of recycling a number of materials, so what we chose to do in 1985 was to use soft-drink containers to drive the wheels of recycling in this province, and it has been very effective, I want to tell the member. By putting them in the blue box, which I consider to be the best kind of recycling -- the curbside, blue box recycling -- we have been able to generate other products in that box besides soft-drink containers. They include cans that are used for something other than soft drinks. For instance, they include newspapers. Some places are even involved now in corrugated cardboard. There are a number of different products that can be included, so we think that is the preferable route to go.

I want to indicate as well that at the present time they must have at least a 40 per cent refillable ratio among those products that are even used at this time. We are promoting recycling at the municipal level. I want to assure the member, just to show him how effective it is, that we expect to have the one millionth blue box delivered to a home in this province in September of this year.

OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Labour. He will remember that two months earlier I asked him about the serious backlog of cases at the office of the worker adviser in Thunder Bay. We have now had released the standing committee on resources development reports for 1987, and the indications are that the list now goes back to January 1987. In other words, the worker adviser office in Thunder Bay is just now getting around to dealing with cases that came to it in January 1987. Workers in that office, if they come in to see the worker adviser, are being told, if they need more than just basic advice, to go away and come back in two years’ time.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Hampton: I want to ask the Minister of Labour, since these are people who are trying to fight a battle over worker’s compensation, and many of them have little or no income, what is the minister doing to provide more resources to the worker adviser offices, specifically in Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: One thing that we have done, probably the most significant thing that has been done in a number of years, is to introduce legislation that will make the workers’ compensation system fairer so that individual claimants will not have to come to an office of the worker adviser.

Just by way of example, I want to tell my friend that so many of the cases being dealt with now by the office of the worker adviser are individuals who have a permanent partial disability but whose pensions, under the current system, are simply inadequate. If he reads the legislation carefully, he will see that it provides for the section that deals with providing a supplement to those individuals to come into effect when the bill gets royal assent.

I just want to tell my friend the member for Rainy River that one of the most effective things he can do in order to deal with that backlog is to help us get that legislation passed very quickly so that we can take the arbitrariness out of the system, provide a reasonable pension for existing claimants and deal with some of the workload in those offices in that way.

Mr. Hampton: What the Minister of Labour describes seems to be a back-door solution that really does not address the issue.

If he reads through the report to the standing committee on resources development, he will see that across the province now the backlog is something like 3,383 cases: 3,383 people who have been injured on the job, and all they want is justice. They simply want a chance to have the case appealed, and they need help from a worker adviser.

All we are asking is that some money be made available for the worker adviser’s office so that these people can at least have a chance at justice. No more paperwork; just some more resources. Can we have that?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I just want to tell my friend the member for Rainy River that, with regard to his bringing of statistics to this question period, those statistics are not new to me or to anyone in this House. I am certainly aware of the kind of backlog we are experiencing in some offices of the office of the worker adviser, and within my ministry we are investigating ways in which to deal with that backlog.

I want to be quite frank with him. If I had my preference, we would deal with the backlog overnight, but that is not possible. It is simply not possible to provide the additional kinds of resources within this fiscal year that would provide enough advisers to ensure that we could deal with those cases more expeditiously.

I am not saying this particularly to the member for Rainy River, but I have heard some suggestions that from now on MPPs are not going to do any more constituency work on workers’ compensation cases. I hope that will not be the case, because we do have a backlog there and we are looking at ways in which to deal with the backlog. In the interim, I am calling upon all of us to continue the work we have done traditionally as MPPs to ensure that those cases get handled expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the next questioner, the Treasurer has a response to a question previously asked by the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel).

LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The question had to do with the conflict between the payments from Sun Life for disability and Canada pension plan. I am pleased to report that Sun Life has responded to this concern by indicating that it has reinstated full payment of Ms. St. Louis’s disability payments until her case can be fully reviewed.

In more general terms, I am advised that the practice of deducting CPP disability benefits from payments under private long-term disability insurance policies is commonplace. Such coverage is integrated with existing disability compensation programs such as workers’ compensation and the Canada pension plan. This avoids the incidence of overcompensation and helps keep insurance premiums as low as possible.

While the integration of various disability benefits seems reasonable in theory, Ms. St. Louis’s case shows that, in practice, it may operate to cause hardship to the disabled worker. This is due to the fact that several months might pass before the CPP portion of the entitlement is received. Although the CPP payment is retroactive to the date of disability, the beneficiary will not receive his or her full entitlement during this initial period.

1500

Miss Martel: I thank the Treasurer for looking at the individual case that we sent to him. I am advised, though, by the people at Sun Life that it is quite common practice, and we have now had more than one phone call concerning the same type of thing happening to other individuals.

I would like to go back to the Treasurer and ask him if he will not now take a look at the fact that this type of practice and this type of policy should not be permitted to be used by insurance companies. Insurance companies should not be allowed to offer these to employers, because it is causing all kinds of financial hardships for more than the people we have mentioned. I am sure there are a number of people in the province who are in the same boat. Will he guarantee to this House that he will look at that and make recommendations on changing the policies presently in place?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am glad the honourable member asked that supplementary. This issue is currently being reviewed and discussed between the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and Canada pension plan. I have instructed the superintendent of insurance to monitor closely the progress of these discussions and to be prepared to intervene with the industry if it appears that consumers are not being treated fairly. On this point the government currently has legislation before the House that would expand the government’s capability to act to prevent the conduct of these unfair practices.

MADAWASKA TRUST PARK

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. I am sure he is aware of the Madawaska trust park being proposed for eastern Ontario. This park would actually take in portions of the crown land in five counties and would amount to one million acres. Is the minister opposed to this park?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would not be designating it if I were opposed to it, I do not think. It is kind of an odd question, but maybe the member is going to give me a little more information along the way.

Mr. Pollock: I gave the minister the information; I told him the park was being proposed. This would actually stop hunting, mineral extraction, logging, fishing and trapping in this particular area, and that would seriously affect the economy in that area. Is the minister going to try to stop this particular park?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Not at all. Now that I understand the question, I would like to share with the honourable member the fact that when we first inherited the parks policy of the former government, there was some commitment to multiple use in all the parks across the province. I must say that that decision has been reversed. The reason for it is that we were going to protect wilderness parks and nature reserves, but in many parks, such as the one the member has described, there could very well be, on a park-to-park basis, hunting in that park.

It is not an exclusion right across the board; it is an exclusion where we should have excluded, in the case of wilderness parks and nature reserves, the multiple use concept. I think it is being very well received. I can give the member, on a one-to-one basis, considerably more information, but I am sure the people of Ontario are going to be pleased to be able to do their thing in various parks, but not right across the board. When we excluded mineral exploration in a wilderness park, and logging and some of the things the member has described, I think it is in the best interests of those people who enjoy parks to be able to enjoy a park to their liking and their choosing, that they will have a wilderness park --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Attorney General. I was shocked to learn that this magnificent summer season is one of the annual peaks in deaths and injuries from drinking and driving. My question is simply this: What is the government doing to reduce accidents which result from drinking and driving?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I can only respond for what my ministry is doing. The honourable member will know that the Ministry of the Solicitor General, which deals with the Ontario Provincial Police and the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program, is also extensively engaged in this program.

The first thing I can tell the member is that we have recognized that we have had some success at the Christmas season with our advertising and public education programs. This year, we have taken our total annual budget and have decided to apply it in a fairly intensive campaign over the summer months because, as the honourable member notes, the summer months are in fact, of all the seasons of the year, the most dangerous risk to life from those who drink and become impaired on the roadway. So we will be devoting all our advertising dollars to the summer program.

In addition, our Arrive Alive program, which is a program run by young students in high school designed in each community from which they have been chosen to alert their neighbours and friends to the risks of impaired driving, has been funded again this year and is working at a more intensive level. That will be under way as well.

That is only the tip of the iceberg of activity that I could identify for the honourable member.

Mr. Adams: I thank the minister for that. My riding of Peterborough is in the midst of the beautiful Kawartha Lakes, and at this time of year our population more than doubles. As a result of that, there is a great increase in deaths and injury on both water and land from drinking and driving. Can the minister do anything to lower this toll in tourist areas such as my riding of Peterborough?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member’s supplementary, which enables me to carry on my catalogue but which I will respond to directly, is heightened by the fact that, for example, Peterborough and district in the summer is one of the most dangerous places to be if you are concerned about the impacts of impaired driving. That is on the one hand, and is obviously a reflection of the fact that it is a cottage community as well as a thriving metropolis.

On the other hand, it is significant to know that a town like Peterborough has one of the oldest community organizations in Ontario devoted to fighting the consequences of impaired driving.

What we seek to do is to give these local organizations, which have worked very hard over a long period of time and which have produced some really good results, particularly at Christmastime, the ammunition, through programs and advertising and through Arrive Alive in their own community, to spur them on to see if we cannot begin to make the changes that we demonstrated over the past three or four years we have been able to make at Christmas time.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Health, and it is concerning speech pathology services offered to adults in the Sudbury area. The minister will know that a number of speech pathology services are being operated in the community through a number of mechanisms.

The Sudbury Algoma Hospital is offering services to preschool children, and both school boards have hired full-time therapists to deal with the elementary school system. Adults, however, can only receive therapy services at one facility, Laurentian Hospital, and only on an inpatient basis. The hospital did operate an outpatient clinic up until a year ago. At that point they were forced to cut the services out completely because they had a two-year waiting list and no more funding to provide for therapy services. Adults in the region now have no choice but to get services through private speech therapists.

I would like to ask the minister what plans she has to respond to this type of need in the city.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, the ministry is constantly reviewing, with the assistance of the district health councils, the need for services in communities around this province. We are very mindful of the needs of northern Ontario, and I am sure the member will be aware of the joint initiatives by the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Education in providing a model for service delivery in the north.

Miss Martel: The minister should be aware that Laurentian Hospital in fact submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Health in May 1987 requesting funding for two more speech therapists to operate the outpatient clinic. The hospital has yet to hear any word at all from the ministry in this regard.

I want to bring to the attention of the minister then the case of Richard Dupuis, who suffered a stroke and now needs speech therapy services. This was not available through the hospital, so the family had to contract through private operators. The cost of that was $60 an hour weekly. The family can no longer afford to pay and has been forced to halt the treatment, to the detriment of his recovery.

I would like to ask the minister when we can expect the ministry to approve the funding so that the hospital can get on with the business of responding to the needs of adults in the community.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member for Sudbury East raises a very important issue, and that is how we plan for the expansion of services in this province. We discussed in this House on a number of occasions the need to have predictability in hospital budgeting across the province so that we can identify our priorities, working with the district health councils and then, as resources are available, prioritize and target where those resources should go.

As she knows, I have made significant progress in working with the hospitals. I believe we will have in place the kind of process for good planning that will allow us to respond to the needs of the people of this province as resources become available.

1510

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs. Marland: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As he knows, the Scarborough council will be voting tonight to amend its official plan to preserve forever the recreational enjoyment of future generations in the Rouge Valley.

The minister and his Liberal government, the major land owners of the Rouge, have yet to take a position on the future of this area, which actually is rather unbelievable. There are so many competing interests for this land right now that a clear statement from the province is necessary and everyone should be able to know and feel assured about their intentions.

Will the minister tell us today what his government will do? Will it fully support the Scarborough council’s decision to protect the Rouge Valley?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think it would be presumptuous of the government to intervene before the decision is made. I know the member, as a former municipal councillor -- as I am -- would have this same point of view, or at least I suspect she would; she would look upon us as being Big Brother or Big Sister or whatever the provincial government might be called if we were to intervene in these kinds of matters before such time as we have received the input.

As for the comment the member makes about the meeting that will take place, the information which will come from that meeting will be very valuable in assisting the provincial government in regard to the particular use of the lands it owns. The municipality will indicate very strongly as a result of this meeting, as will others, what it believes should be the appropriate use of all pieces of that land. The government will want to ensure that it takes into account what the local municipality wishes to see as a use.

I can assure the member, as I have on many occasions, that I will continue to share with my colleagues the environmental desirability of preserving parts of the Rouge Valley. It depends, I guess, on who you talk to as to just how much they would want to see preserved, but there is some very unique --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. There might be a supplementary, and the minister might have more information for that.

Mrs. Marland: It is really interesting to hear this minister talk about this government not wanting to be Big Brother when you think of the Planning Act amendments. I find it just colossal that he is now talking about wanting to hide behind the skirts of the Scarborough council and wait for its decision. We are waiting for the Minister of the Environment to protect the environment, and that is the basis of my question.

The people in Scarborough have been asking for the support of this ministry on this particular issue. In fact, this is not a new issue. The provincial plan for the Rouge Valley lands goes back as far as 1970 when these lands were designated for park land at that time. It is about time that this Liberal government came to its senses to implement this plan and support the people’s will that the plan be implemented to keep open the last green door of Metro Toronto.

If it were not the decision of this Liberal government to support the will of the people of Scarborough and the Scarborough council, then what is it that the Minister of the Environment is going to permit on these lands? Is he going to permit housing, a landfill dump or --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You asked the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The assumption of the member for Mississauga South that the Minister of the Environment shall determine what is on these lands, what shall be the disposition of these lands, of course does not correspond with what the jurisdictions are within the provincial government.

Many of her colleagues who have served would know that, for instance, the ownership of land is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Government Services and that the development of parks, which have been discussed by many, and the conservation authorities are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I, as the Minister of the Environment, have considerable interest in protecting the environment and those areas which are particularly unique and which I think the member would agree with me are particularly unique.

Mrs. Marland: Have you seen it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member asks, “Have I seen it?” I have most certainly seen it on a number of occasions, and I am sure in a more extensive sense I will see it once again.

I assure the member that as the Minister of the Environment, I have expressed and will continue to express a point of view on this particular land that I think she would share with me. I know she would want us to take into account all the input from various people, including the local municipalities, the conservation authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources and others.

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. A couple of weeks ago, I asked a question about protection for people who live at retirement communities and the availability of the rent review board. At that time, the minister assured me it was available to help them. However, there are 152 householders in the Sandy Cove retirement community who advise me that it does not protect them and that rent review is not available to them. These are people who originally leased their properties between 1976 and May 1. This year, while other people in that community are looking at an increase of the usual 5.5 per cent, these people are facing 40 per cent increases. I would like to ask the minister, what is available to help or protect them?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The difficulty the tenants face is that they signed a long-term lease with the owner of the property prior to rent review and prior to the property coming under rent review. So while that long-term lease is in effect, unfortunately, they of course must abide by the contract they signed.

Mr. Owen: Is anything possible or being considered by the minister to help these people? They are not provided with any audited statement as to where the maintenance expenses are going. They have no way of fighting back. They have no way of coping with this 40 per cent increase. Will the minister consider doing something for them?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I share the frustration of the member and, I am sure, of the people involved in this, but when a long-term contract has been signed, there is no way we can intervene in that. However, as soon as that contract is finished, the tenants will of course be subject to the protections of rent review.

In this case, the tenants have ended up having to pay more than they would have liked. In other cases, a long-term lease might have protected them against unwanted increases. It is one of the things that happens with long-term leases. I am extremely sorry this is what the people there face, but we cannot intervene in a long-term contract.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

PETITIONS

ABORTION

Mr. Pope: I have individual petitions signed by over 2,000 residents of Cochrane South:

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

“The Supreme Court’s decision on January 28, 1988, regarding the abortion laws struck a powerful blow on all those who believe in the sacredness of human life. I am writing this letter to urge you to use your influence to ensure that upcoming legislation will safeguard the life of the unborn, because life begins at conception. I request that you pass an amendment to section 251 of the Charter of Rights overriding the court’s decision until the federal government has an opportunity to form a new law. As a voter, I will be paying close attention as to what is done.”

It is signed individually by over 2,000 residents of the city of Timmins.

1520

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Pope: I have another petition:

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

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

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

It is signed by approximately 80 residents of Timmins.

There is a petition as well from the corporation of the township of Black River-Matheson of similar import.

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and” -- it says “the House of Commons,” but I am sure they meant the Legislative Assembly:

“We, the undersigned, wish to petition against the proposal to pay for indexing of pensions by the employee, which is an unacceptable pay deduction.”

It is signed by a number of people in Ontario.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a second petition:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

It is signed by 41 teachers in my riding.

TOWN OF CLEARWATER

Mr. Smith: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the parliament of Ontario from approximately 800 ratepayers in the new town of Clearwater, who are protesting the 72 per cent increase in policing costs to just rural residents, and also the 5.5 per cent general increase in taxes. As I said before, it is signed by approximately 800 people from the town of Clearwater.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr. Faubert: I have a petition addressed, “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the Rouge Valley system contains an abundance of natural beauty and sites of historic importance and archaeological significance; and

“Whereas the Rouge Valley system is a unique oasis of nature found within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto; and

“Whereas the Ontario government has a continuing commitment to the environment through its generous support programs towards preserving the Rouge Valley system and the Carolinian forest and the historic and archaeological sites contained within;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, hereby petition the government of Ontario to give every consideration to the various alternatives available to them to ensure that the Rouge Valley system be preserved so that future generations may have the opportunity to enjoy them. These alternatives include a provincial park or a national heritage park.”

The petition is signed by 130 residents of Ontario. I have signed my name thereto, and I present it for active consideration and a positive response by the government.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Campbell: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

This petition is signed by a number of people from the Sudbury district and is supported by myself.

NOISE BARRIER

Mr. Mahoney: I have a petition:

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

“Whereas the sound attenuation barrier along the south side of the Queen Elizabeth Way between Mississauga Road and Erin Mills Parkway is on the current five-year construction program; and

“Whereas the construction of this sound barrier along the south side of the highway will cause a deflection and an increase in the noise level along the north side;

“We, the undersigned residents along the north side of the Queen Elizabeth Way, within an area bordered by Mississauga Road North, the North Sheridan Way and Springbank Road, wish to petition the government of Ontario to expedite review of the construction priority list and to designate that the noise attenuation barrier along the north side of the Queen Elizabeth Way between Mississauga Road North and the Erin Mills Parkway takes a top priority in the upcoming schedule.”

It is signed by 434 concerned residents, and I have also signed the petition.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Ballinger: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

It is signed by 203 persons, and I have signed it myself.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Sterling: I have a petition, signed by over 5,000 irate taxpayers in the province of Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

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

“The Ontario budget contains excessive tax increases which are a direct attack on the middle class. We object and we demand that the government repeal these taxes.

“Further, we say, ‘Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.’”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Reycraft: I have a petition addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario. It reads:

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

“Our very strong opposition to opening of retail stores for Sunday shopping.”

It is signed by 139 people from eastern Ontario.

I also have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

It is signed by approximately 100 people from the Toronto area.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: I have a petition which reads as follows:

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

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

“In memory of 12,630 Ontarians who died” prematurely “from tobacco-related diseases in 1985, we support Bill 3, the Non-Smokers’ Protection Act. We understand that this legislation is before the Legislature to protect Ontarians from tobacco smoke. We urge the members of the Legislative Assembly to support its speedy passage and not allow the tobacco lobby to delay or weaken this vital legislation. The lives of Ontarians are at stake.”

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE / SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

M. Beer du Comité special de la réforme constitutionnelle présente le rapport du Comité sur la Modification constitutionnelle de 1987 et propose l’adoption de ses recommandations.

Mr. Beer from the select committee on constitutional reform presented the committee’s report on the Constitution Amendment, 1987, and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Beer: Just very briefly, I understand that debate on the report will probably begin later this afternoon or tomorrow. I simply want to note that the committee is unanimously recommending that the Legislature ratify the Meech Lake accord and has proposed a series of recommendations for future constitutional reform.

À la suite d’une motion presentée par M. Beer, le débat est ajourné.

On motion by Mr. Beer, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WINE CONTENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 167, An Act to revise the Wine Content Act.

Motion agreed to.

1530

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wong moved first reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 169, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This legislation, which has been unanimously requested by the councils of the district and the local municipalities, will create a full two-tier planning system in Muskoka. At present, the authority to adopt official plans and amendments is assigned only to the district level. The proposed amendment will enable all local municipalities to prepare and adopt their own official plans and amendments, as is the case in most other two-tier municipalities.

AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 170, An Act to revise Several Acts related to Aggregate Resources.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today, I am introducing a bill known as the Aggregate Resources Act which will substantially improve the way aggregate resources are managed in this province. The act I am proposing will consolidate and expand the existing legislation covering aggregate extraction. It will replace the Pits and Quarries Control Act, incorporate and replace quarry permits from the Mining Act and replace the Beach Protection Act.

For the first time, all aggregate operations, whether they be on crown land, private land or under water, will be covered under a single statute. The new act puts more emphasis on environmental concerns and aggressively promotes the rehabilitation of pits and quarries located on private land. It also gives municipalities a greater hand in licensing and reviewing pit and quarry operations and will ensure they receive some financial compensation for the inconvenience, the costs of pit and quarry operations in their areas.

Moreover, this legislation will improve our ability to enforce the provisions of this bill by giving us the power to immediately suspend the licence or permit of companies that violate the law.

The act will also allow for better management of aggregate resources on crown land. Better site plans, better operating records and better rehabilitation will be required.

I believe these changes reflect and address the concerns of the municipalities and local residents, while at the same time assisting industry by providing a clearer set of guidelines. I look forward to all members’ participation in the passing of this bill.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 171, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of this bill is to exempt from taxation land rented or leased to a church or religious organization, if the rental or lease agreement makes the church or religious organization liable for the taxes.

I have another bill amending the same act.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 172, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of this bill is to extend the time for notice of appeal of a decision of the Assessment Review Board to the Ontario Municipal Board from 21 days to 60 days.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved second reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the Mining Act.

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

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes, the long-awaited opportunity for me to put my first amendments under the Mining Act has arrived, and as my parliamentary assistant sits very patiently to my immediate left, he can certainly take some credit for this, because he has provided in this, as in all matters in the Ministry of Mines, very good advice and wise counsel.

I am introducing a bill to amend the Mining Act. This bill really consists of three minor amendments which will ensure more efficient administration of the Mining Act by mining recorders across the province.

The first amendment will allow mining recorders to correct records of mining claims where administrative errors have occurred. Such discrepancies can occur for a variety of reasons, including new interpretations of the provisions of the Mining Act by the mining and lands commissioner which may vary from previous administrative practice.

As noted in the most recent report of the Provincial Auditor, the current Mining Act contains no provision for correcting records of claims technically in danger of forfeiture. This provision does exist, however, in other government legislation, such as the Land Titles Act and the Registry Act, which contain specific provisions whereby a registrar can correct such errors.

The second amendment is to allow regulations to be made to prescribe the types of documents which may be filed in recorders’ offices by electronic means. There have been instances, for instance, where individuals have been forced to use airlines to deliver original documents to our offices. Since timing is often critical to ongoing transactions regarding the title to mining claims, this amendment would allow facsimile machines to be used to facilitate business.

The third amendment is to replace provisions requiring the use of registered mail with ones allowing the use of certified mail. In a recent investigation by the Ombudsman, this change was recommended to enable receipts to be kept where the ministry sends out notices of acreage tax arrears. This will allow a better determination of whether or not the holder of mining lands actually received such notice.

This is the sum and substance of Bill 132, and I recommend it for the attention and the approval of the House.

Mr. Pouliot: I am happy to participate, however briefly, in these housekeeping changes. I will take as little time to comment on these minor changes as the minister has taken to congratulate the member who has helped him in this minor task of addressing what has really been --

Interjection.

Mr. Pouliot: Richard, je t’en prie.

-- in correcting the problems. We have had a multitude of recommendations emanating from the comments of the ministry audit, and I find it sort of disappointing that the minister has chosen to scratch only the surface of what really needs overhauling. If I were to ask the newly appointed Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway) and government House leader whether things are going well in the mining industry, he would certainly say: “Things are going well. We’re not under any pressure.” Yet, when I turn to the annual report of the Provincial Auditor I see quite a different picture.

1540

I am not saying the answers would be contradictory, because I know Mr. Archer, our Provincial Auditor, tells the truth and nothing but the truth. He says so because he is very much aware of what needs to be done to make the Mining Act better.

It is unfortunate that people who feel they have been treated rather unjustly or wrongly by the government have to address the Ombudsman of Ontario. The minister responded only in part to both the recommendation of the Ombudsman of Ontario and the recommendation of the Provincial Auditor. There has really been no initiative from the minister.

I read in the paper: “Questions linger at Hemlo area recording office.” The papers are full of these shortcomings, where mining companies are forced to settle in court what is really an uncomplicated matter. Suffice it, if a prospector believes a piece of land has some mineral potential, he can stake a claim. I believe it costs a mere $10. In order to keep the claim in good standing, he has to work the claim. Even that very basic process, which everyone in mining understands, is rendered cumbersome because of the mining recording method.

That really has not been addressed. What the minister has chosen to do is to replace registered mail by certified mail, something which was pointed out by the Ombudsman of Ontario, so that people will have at least -- whenever the mail is moving, that is -- a slip of paper in their hands, saying, “Yes, I did endeavour to do such a thing and I can prove it.” It is really no big deal.

The minister has failed to understand -- certainly he has failed to act promptly; I know he does understand; I have to give him that much credit -- about the mentality of the mining people, about the need to be flexible at one time yet to be shown the way, because rules and regulations are not always the order of the day. it is not given to the entrepreneurial spirit of our mining industry.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That is why you are such an uneasy socialist.

Mr. Pouliot: Not a closet socialist. My views as a democratic socialist are well known, although the views of the Liberal Party are better expressed when it is in opposition. That is the only time its members are true liberals.

In conclusion, we welcome the housekeeping measure. The government leads us to believe that more important changes will be coming shortly in the future which will really address the need to streamline mining procedures and to clear up what has become a cumbersome document over the years; not because it was not well-intentioned when it was first introduced, but because of the lack of follow-through from the present government, which has not been in the least vigilant, and therefore diligent, in addressing the changes that would more resemble the 1980s.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There are just a couple of things I want to say. I know the member was trying to be as generous as he could be to the Minister of Mines. I thought I should just amplify, perhaps, what he was saying in respect to the diligence and the hard work that has been taken by both the minister and the parliamentary assistant to bring forward this landmark legislation, the first legislation we have seen from this minister since his appointment last year.

They have obviously both been exhausted by their work, as one can see by their pale countenances here today, but this kind of homework is welcomed by all members of the House. I just want them to know how strongly both the critic and I feel about this.

Mr. Pope: I have some remarks to make about this legislation. First, work has been going on with respect to a new Mining Act for some time. It appears that the minister of the day has put that on the back burner and is now proceeding with amendments to the Mining Act with respect to some procedural matters. I have to say that I do not think there has been any clear signal out of the minister as to the concerns of the Provincial Auditor being addressed. I presume that will be forthcoming.

Second, I see no dealing with a potential conflict between competing interests on how the new section 59a will work in those circumstances with potential litigation obviously on the horizon in competing claims in which it appears that the ministry may intervene and clear up the status of an unpatented mining claim, or validate it because of what it considers to be administrative error, even though that administrative error -- the presence or absence of it -- may have fostered litigation between competing mining interests or may have created a lawsuit between people with overlapping or competing unpatented mining claims that they have staked at various times. So I not am sure how the mechanism to clean up the problems inherent in administrative error will operate in that context.

The second thing is that I hope the minister, in dealing with these matters and in dealing with the new Mining Act, will recognize the distinct difference in attitude and in procedures between the individual prospectors of Kirkland Lake, Timmins and Thunder Bay and the large mining exploration and development companies that operate out of the great city of Toronto and other centres across Ontario.

Clearly the individual prospectors, steeped in tradition, have different expectations of the role of the government and in the technical requirements of staking and registering claims as opposed to what large mineral exploration and development companies are prepared to accept.

Third, the whole area of land use and the role of the Minister of Mines and his officials under the Public Lands Act and under the Mining Act is something that I believe is about to cause some difficulties for this government. I presume that the minister can enlighten us on how he has co-ordinated the workings of his ministry with the workings of the Ministry of Natural Resources under the Public Lands Act.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank my friends and colleagues across the way for their support and for their comments. Let me say that both the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) are quite right in pointing out that these are fairly limited amendments. They do not deal with the whole range of issues that have been identified by a number of people under the Mining Act.

I think it is important for me to say to them and to the House that we have tried here to identify two or three areas that we think are of pressing administrative concern. But I have to say to my friend, the member for Lake Nipigon, and to the critic for the third party that we do intend, later this year, to table a green paper on mining and mineral policy that will, I hope, address a number of the more substantive questions, because it is recognized that -- and I know that particularly my friend, the member for Cochrane South can appreciate some of the work that has gone on before, some of the work in which he had a very central and active role.

I can tell my friend, the member for Cochrane South, that of course I co-ordinate my work and my activities very closely with our mutual friend, the member for Niagara Falls, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). But I can assure the honourable members that on the basis of the discussions that I have had with both my own officials and, perhaps more important, the mining community, prospectors particularly, these amendments do address a very real concern that has been identified by the Ombudsman and the Provincial Auditor, and I am very pleased that we will this afternoon, I hope, give passage at least to the second reading stage of this bill.

1550

I assure my friends opposite that it will not be long now before they have the opportunity to engage in a more substantive debate on the more substantive questions, because I expect to have a green paper on mining and mineral policy before the Legislature and the province so that the debate can be engaged.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES TERRES PUBLIQUES

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved second reading of Bill 137, An Act to amend the Public Lands Act.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The Public Lands Act has not been amended for more than 25 years. Many administrative practices are outdated. Eighty seven per cent of Ontario is provincial crown land. Effective, efficient management, protection and disposition of this vast land base requires legislation that is in keeping with the times.

Examples of badly needed amendments or additions that are included in the bill are as follows: a means of depatenting acquired property so that it can be legally opened for prospecting -- in the bill, we are going to get patent land that is taken back by the province back into the crown land designation; provision for a multipurpose work program to allow greater control over harmful activities such as dredging or filling shorelines on crown land -- many activities that would have taken many permits will now be incorporated into one permit in which we can tick off the kinds of things that are to be undertaken; a provision to clearly authorize the making of regulations for controlling and charging fees for camping on crown lands by nonresidents; a means of shifting from the Ministry of Natural Resources to the persons found to be responsible the liability of costs for clearing up litter and removing unauthorized structures, and updating of service fees. As an example, the ministry’s cost of issuing a certificate of voidance to a land owner who applies for one far exceeds the $5 fee now prescribed in the act.

Members can see that there are many areas that need to be clarified, and I am proposing that this bill will do just that.

M. Pouliot: Monsieur le Président, non qu’on m’ait demandé de remplacer notre critique des Richesses naturelles -- je sais qu’il se déplace actuellement avec peut-être un ou deux amendements -- mais ce que le ministre nous propose est loin d’être étranger aux conditions dans lesquelles on demande aux gens du Nord d’exister.

Le ministre sera sans doute au courant du fait que, depuis plusieurs années, nous cherchons, le député d’Algoma (M. Wildman) et d’autres, à améliorer les conditions de vie. Ce qui me surprend aujourd’hui, c’est que ce que le ministre nous propose en ce qui concerne le projet de loi 137, soit une goutte. Non que nous ayons demandé, en tant que citoyens du Nord de l’Ontario, un peu plus que ça; vous savez, Monsieur le Président, on s’‘est dit que si ça se fait goutte à goutte, ce sera déjà ça. Mais nous demandons quand même qu’un peu plus de substance et vraiment un peu plus de sérieux soient apportés aux sujets sur lesquels nous avons choisi de nous prononcer depuis plusieurs années.

Sans doute que mon collègue le député d’Algoma choisira d’ajouter, avec beaucoup plus de substance, des points positifs, comme il le fait toujours, sur le projet de loi 137. Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Président.

Le vice-président: Questions et commentaires sur l’énoncé du député? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the kind remarks of my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and also the yielding of the floor by my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). The reason I was not here is simply that I was informed by the House leaders that this would be dealt with later in the afternoon. At any rate, I am happy to leave the committee and return to participate in the debate.

As my friend the member for Lake Nipigon indicated, I, on behalf of our party, will be supporting the legislation, Bill 137. These amendments seem to be housekeeping measures.

Of Ontario’s total area, 87 per cent is crown land and under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources. About five per cent of this land is within Ontario’s provincial parks and is regulated under the Provincial Parks Act. The remaining, 82 per cent, or 216 million acres, is administered under the Public Lands Act. Only 14 per cent of crown land lies within organized municipalities.

In the past, the fines have been as low as $50. In this legislation, they would increase from a maximum of $500 to $5,000. Also, there are now provisions for removing illegal buildings. Under the old act a person was fined, but the structure remained. In fact, the fine was often seen as a building permit. The ministry was often left with the removal costs of the offending structure, if it could get it removed easily.

The minister will forgive me for saying that there used to be, on occasion, flash floods or very site-specific fires took place in order to remove certain structures. I am sure they were all of natural origin. Also, I think it is useful that this legislation will allow for the issuance of on-the-spot stop-work orders.

The legislation also streamlines the current act and will provide for multi-use permits, replacing the wide variety now in place. The permit will also control and stop any harmful operations that may be conducted without authority.

The costs of cleanup of unauthorized dumping or filling, as well as the fines, will now be borne by the offender rather than the public, and the ministry will be able to set fees for land use permits or for camping permits or regulating the type of activities on public land.

Frankly, I think the ministry should move as quickly as possible to have this legislation implemented. Our caucus is happy to support the legislation and hopes that it will help to bring into effect real land use planning on our crown lands across the province.

Mr. Pollock: My party is just a little concerned about section 2 of the bill, which basically gives the officer the right to come on to private property without a search warrant, that sort of thing. We certainly have some concerns about that.

I understand that, under the present Game and Fish Act, conservation officers have the authority, right at the present time, to go on private property. I have no quarrel with that, but I would like an explanation, possibly from the minister, of why he wants this particular wording in there.

Also, I understand that people do not know about some of these buildings built on crown land. Then there is an order to take them off, and of course they just walk away and leave them. I am in agreement with that kind of procedure. There is no question about that.

1600

Also, every spring we seem to have a lot of these fish huts left out; for instance on the Bay of Quinte. They should be removed long before the ice gets so thin that people fall through into the Bay of Quinte. That situation exists, I think, right across the province -- leaving these fish huts out on the ice after a particular time. Those are a few of the comments I wanted to mention.

As far as increasing the fine from $500 up to $5,000 is concerned, our party is certainly in agreement with that.

I do not think we have too many other concerns. As to the part that concerns 25 per cent of land that might go to subdivisions, what does that curtail? That will not interfere in any way, shape or form with the Planning Act, will it? Maybe the minister would like to comment on that.

The Deputy Speaker: Are you finished?

Mr. Pollock: Yes; OK.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments on the member’s statement? Minister, do you want to comment on that member’s statement?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I will respond to all of them.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Pope: Very briefly. First, I appreciate the information the minister made available to me. I did have some concerns earlier about yet another work permit, but I have received a satisfactory explanation from the minister that in fact this is a reform of the former system and we will have one work permit under a multiplicity of acts now, with a checkoff system. It will make it easier for the employees of the Ministry of Natural Resources and easier for individuals approaching it for land use or work permits to obtain them. Therefore, it is a change for the better in terms of the bureaucracy and the number of forms and papers that officials of the ministry and private citizens have to use.

I have a long-standing complaint about the number of people in this government who have the right to enter on to private land. That is nothing new. I have expressed it in many forums, including cabinet meetings and internal meetings in the Ministry of Natural Resources when I was the minister. I maintain that opposition. Too many officials of various ministries of the government have the right to come on private land.

The minister, I know, has changed the process, whereby you now need a court order to enter premises. That is a change for the better, and I acknowledge that, but it is the entry onto private land that I am concerned about. It feeds into my whole concern about the number of people from various ministries who have various rights with respect to private property. There are too many people running around claiming statutory authority, too many people entering onto your property, if you are a private land owner, just on a whim and because they think something may be wrong or to do investigations.

Actually, as well, there are too many people with the power to lay charges under various statutes in the province of Ontario or to lay information or swear out information. That is a long-standing philosophical dispute I have, but again that is nothing new for those who have discussed this with me before.

I do have a bit of a concern about disposal costs, about whether or not they are capped. Just from the point of view of Iroquois Falls -- and it is not a major problem -- a lot of times when we are talking about disposals, we are talking about fish or hunt camps for which there may have existed in the past a land use permit that is no longer in effect, or it may have been long-standing, prior to the use of land use permits as a matter of fact. I think the minister may want to address whether or not there will be a cap or the exercise of discretion with respect to the disposal costs.

The other thing I would like to say is with respect to user fees for facilities owned and operated by the crown on crown land such as boat lifts, boat locks, wharves, trails and boat-cache sites. If we are talking about sites that are now being maintained on a regular basis by the ministry, I think that is appropriate. Many of the boat-cache sites in my part of the province have not been maintained in any way by the Ministry of Natural Resources for many, many years -- including during the time I was minister, I might add -- and are in fact maintained by others. I would hate to see a user fee for the operation of facilities on crown land that are in fact maintained by other clubs under the community fisheries improvement program or the Canadian wildlife improvement program. I would hate to see fees being registered by the minister for the operation of these facilities or the maintenance of these facilities when it is being done under existing programs by clubs or individuals.

Those are my concerns. I would be the first to admit it is not the most pressing issue of the day, and there are some improvements for the better in this law.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I wish to thank the honourable members for supporting the bill. I think most of it covers areas that, as the opposition members are fully aware, have needed some changes over the last while.

The member for Lake Nipigon made some comments regarding the slight movement here. I am inclined to agree with him, but I only witness the fact that he might have been putting in a little time until his gentleman friend got here to make the kind of comments that might be made by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman).

Having said that, I still think there was something that was worth responding to there, and that is that when we move forward with these kinds of bills, we have to be quite cautious so that we can give some guarantee that we would be looking to move forward, but these are the kinds of things that seem to be reasonably well accepted on all sides. I think that would be the way I would answer the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Wildman: There’s an old hockey term about ragging the puck.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As far as the member for Algoma is concerned, of course he has made some very valid comments about the fines, building permits and the problem we had in the ministry to deal with those areas that had quite significant costs involved. While we were able to direct that such things could not continue, we did not in fact recover the costs of cleaning up or doing those things on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario.

The member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) talked about one particular issue, and I think I should clarify that one because it is one of significance that the member for Cochrane South had made mention of some time back.

In fact, that part of the bill was changed to address the issue of officers going into occupied dwellings. There is some latitude, maybe more than the member for Cochrane South is willing to accept as an intrusion on the privacy of people’s property, but the fact of the matter is that there has been that one removal of the ability of the officer to go into a home. I think that answers the question of the member for Hastings-Peterborough with regard to that.

The member for Cochrane South followed that up with land use removal ability now and work stoppages. I am pleased to say that we now can do things that are in the best interests of controlling buildings, debris and all those things -- excavating and dredging on crown land -- and that this is not the end of the kind of initiatives we are going to take but, in fact, we will continue to put forward amendments as they become appropriate.

Just in passing, I would also share with the member for Algoma that I had made the commitment that if they pass expeditiously the other couple of bills that I put, I would place in Orders and Notices today the bill that covers the aggregate resources. I would like him to know that I have done that, because I had that kind of pressure put on me.

I thank the members for their support and I would like to move forward with the bill. Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

1610

[Later]

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I did not want to interrupt the minister when he was making his statement. The point of order is that when you called for approval of Bill 137 on second reading, I said no and it was not recognized. We were not going to call for a recorded vote anyway, so it would not have affected the procedures of the House, but I just wanted to alert you to the fact that two of us did say no to that vote.

The Deputy Speaker: My apologies. I did not hear you whatsoever, believe me.

Mr. Harris: I think it would require unanimous consent to go back. I assure you it will not take more than 15 seconds. I wonder if we could do that for the record.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Hon. Mr. Conway: We are quite happy to oblige our friends in the third party.

Agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: I have very clearly indicated to members in the past that if they wish the Speaker to hear them clearly, to say it very loudly. As a matter of fact, I had an infection in the left ear last week and it is only clearing now; a strange coincidence. The fact is that I still wish to repeat my invitation to all members to please help the Speaker by stating your intentions clearly.

Now, where were we? Bill 137, was it not?

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 137, An Act to amend the Public Lands Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Kerrio has moved second reading of Bill 137. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 159, An act to provide for Municipal Taxes in Territory without Municipal Organization.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This bill deals with a very important issue relating to the townships of Marathon and Manitouwadge, which are located in the district of Thunder Bay. These two municipalities act as dormitory communities for the gold-mining development in the Hemlo area. The three mining operations at Hemlo -- Hemlo Gold Mines Inc., Noranda; Lac Minerals, and Teck-Corona -- are located in an unorganized area beyond the municipal boundaries. Prior to the development of these mining properties, the province directed that all new residential development take place within existing municipalities.

While the development of the gold mines had a positive economic effect on the area, the influx of new residents also placed substantial pressures on the two communities. Marathon and Manitouwadge have experienced population increases of 35 per cent to 50 per cent over the past two years. Municipal expenditures have increased substantially to accommodate this new growth. However, increases in the local property tax base have not kept pace because the mines do not pay municipal taxes. Although the mines are not physically located within the boundaries of the townships, they are nevertheless an integral part of these two communities.

Since annexation was not feasible for the Hemlo situation, my ministry consulted with the two townships, the three mines operating in the area and the Ontario Mining Association in developing a proposal to provide a source of ongoing revenue for the municipalities. The purpose of this bill is to put this proposal into effect.

This bill will authorize the townships to collect property taxes for municipal purposes from each mining operation. Portions of the property assessment from each mine will be allocated to Marathon and to Manitouwadge according to where the mines’ employees are living. The townships will then levy their own municipal mill rates. The taxes on the mines would be calculated, levied and collected in the same manner as the property taxes within the municipalities. Certain necessary provisions of the Municipal Act, the Municipal Tax Sales Act and the Assessment Act would apply to this new bill.

As there is considerable exploration taking place in the Hemlo area, the bill is flexible and will allow the government to include other mines as appropriate. It will also permit the government to include other municipalities that may become affected by the Hemlo mining development if the situation warrants it.

In closing, let me say that I believe this legislation will provide a satisfactory solution for the relatively unique situation that exists at Hemlo.

Before we proceed with second reading, it is necessary to indicate that I will move that Bill 159 be referred to the committee of the whole House in order that I may introduce a technical amendment due to a printing error.

Mr. Pouliot: I wish to take only a few minutes of the House’s precious time to participate in the debate. I remember, actually, that it is An act to provide for Municipal Taxes in Territory without Municipal Organization. I think it should be referred to as the Hemlo bill, because there are some 35 mining municipalities in the province of Ontario that have been asking, for a number of years, that fiscal justice be done.

As a member of the improvement district in the township of Manitouwadge, then as a council member and, later on, reeve for a number of years of the same township, I remember only too well the kind of aggravation we suffered, individually and collectively, as taxpayers and residents of northern communities.

We felt powerless. Time and time again, we went to the government and presented the following case: Why is it that in our small town of Manitouwadge where you have a company such as Noranda Mines, Geco division, base metal operation, in those days making millions and millions of dollars, that does not pay one penny of school tax or municipal tax, while some 65 miles away in the township of Marathon, a company that was at one time hand to mouth, not making nearly as much money as the mining operation 65 miles away, had to carry the major part of taxation for both purposes, elementary and secondary school taxes, and also for the fascinating world of municipal sewer and water taxes?

Time and time again, we were advised by the government that in lieu of taxes we were to receive an allowance under the auspices of resource equalization payment. Actually, it was a sham, for during its best year, the resource equalization payment never generated an appreciable portion of what true, fair assessment would. Nevertheless, we did not have a choice, so we took what we could, which was really, in relative terms, a very small amount.

Within a few years, it mattered little whether you got $5 or $35 or $100,000 with the resource equalization payment, for the government chose to equalize the bottom line. The more you got the more you lost, so the bottom line really was not changed.

With the advent of Hemlo, it became so embarrassing. Here you had a situation by virtue and reason of a blessing -- it had never happened before with a sediment formation that you did not have to chase the proverbial gold vein -- where you could use base-mining methods, bulk mining, and yet extract gold. Consequently, the Hemlo gold fields came into being; $100 per ounce was the approximate cost of extraction. Now, it is $450 or $470.

If you choose to go to the Chicago Board of Trade and exercise options on the futures market -- I am sure that, ironically, my friends to the left or those opposite can tell me about the intricacies of the stock market, about the fascinating world of commodities and futures. I know something about those markets, because I have always wanted to learn about my enemies, about the way the other side operates.

1620

I too can appreciate the $350 difference. A billion dollars has been spent at Hemlo to put those three mines into operation and we want to wish them well. Those people are the movers and shakers. They will create jobs. They will also create a chance for everyone in the region to look forward to the future with confidence.

The minister will tell me if I am going too far in terms of telling how well the mining industry has done, but with that wealth comes responsibility. Two thirds of the employees at the three mines at Hemlo selected Marathon as a place of residence. Most of the remaining one third were attracted to Manitouwadge. Sewer and water systems had to be renovated and enlarged at a cost of millions of dollars.

Members should remember that there was no assessment here. Not one cent of all that wealth is coming back to those communities. New schools had to be built and new subdivisions opened, with all the social amenities that make life possible.

The minister has said that in the past two years, the population in Marathon went up some 50 per cent, and the process is still going on. When all is said and done, the population of Marathon will have doubled. The population of Manitouwadge will have increased some 35 to 50 per cent when all the figures are in. Yet not five cents of municipal or school board taxes were to be collected from the richest gold mine in Canada, people with the ability to pay like nowhere else, where the return on investment is so quick, so massive and so consequential that it was, under any terminology or philosophy, unfair.

Everyone has said that. We have said it for years. In lieu of assessment, the present government, recognizing the principle of the argument, chose to make some temporary grants because it was still searching for a formula -- $500,000 in 1986 to the township of Manitouwadge, the same amount to the township of Marathon, and last year an additional $500,000 to the township of Marathon and $350,000 to the township of Manitouwadge, claiming, and rightly so but only to some extent, that it recognized the morality and the need to have someone pay taxes the same as everyone else; to have, in this case, the wealthiest employer pay at least a portion of the taxes.

The principle was well taken. The money was consequential, although it was about half of what assessment would generate. It is expected that the assessment of Hemlo for municipal purposes would generate twice as much, on a yearly basis, as the government has said.

I am not appalled because I know the style. I want to get at the real wealth. From the wording of Bill 159, being familiar with the amendment in the Assessment Act, I know that the real wealth is not taxable, only the surface operations at Hemlo are taxable. If you have a milling operation, really, everything is assessed and is therefore taxable. But for the wealth underground, they get away scot-free here. There are no taxes for the real wealth, only for the surface operation.

I say to the minister about White River, for him to be consistent in his approach: He is saying: “We will assess Hemlo for municipal purposes and we will do it in proportion, so that if so many employees go to live in Marathon, they will be getting a certain percentage of assessment. Then the same policy will apply for the township of Manitouwadge.” He makes a provision, and it is somewhat ambiguous, but I believe that when he says “other communities,” he is talking about White River. It has already happened. I am quoting from the compendium for the legislation, “permit the Minister of Municipal Affairs to authorize, if the need arises, other affected municipalities to collect property taxes from the Hemlo mining properties,” a very small percentage.

That need will continue to arise, but really it has arisen. It is a fact now that for some people, not that many -- the same philosophy holds true for White River as well -- they should perhaps look at one portion following the formula.

We have some 35 municipalities in Ontario that could legitimately claim that fiscal justice should be done under Bill 159, that if the government’s approach holds true, this is really not a special situation. What makes Hemlo so special? Is Hemlo different from the townships of Schreiber and Terrace Bay?

I just received a letter dated June 7, 1988. The person is writing on behalf of the township of Terrace Bay regarding access to assessment of mines located outside municipal boundaries by municipalities which house employees of those mines, and I quote: “Council believes that your plan to provide such access to the municipalities of Marathon and Manitouwadge, in the case of the Hemlo gold mines, is to be commended.”

Then they went on to make the same claim for essential services. The mine is about 20 miles away in this case, Minnova Inc. mine. It is a very high-yield or high-grade zinc mine. I think the grade is about 20 per cent of the overall proved ore reserves or the overall ore body, which in mining terminology is almost straight from underground to the furnace.

One is doing very well; they are only 20 miles away, while Hemlo is 30 miles. The same case can be made. Then you could go on and on. Just go back to the recommendations of the mining municipalities of Ontario. I believe there are some 35 mining municipalities. You really have to search long and hard not to apply the same legislation to almost every one of them. One really has to make a good case. One has to be consistent.

I do not believe for one minute that you could have an employer with a workforce of 500 people, or 600 people as in the case of Marathon, generating a profit of $8 million to $10 million, being fully assessable, having to pay for the new subdivision for somebody down the line who is making $250 million net. I have not met a person yet who says that makes sense because it does not make any sense under any rules.

I know this government has only been in power for the past three years. We sense that there is a change, that there is some movement. We also realize in our party that the mining industry needs incentives. It is not doing too badly. People need incentives when times are a little rough. Those things are not cast in stone. At the present time, the price of metal is very, very high. Mining companies are turning in record profits. They are doing very well. They are getting a three-year, tax-free period. It was only last year that they reduced the mining tax and gave them another 10 per cent break.

Consumers, people at the residential levels, also have to pay for increased recreation, increased fire protection and increased school taxes, and they are saying, “If I pay any more, it’s not that I’m going to go up the proverbial wall, but it’s less money that I can put into the economy to buy goods and services and it is really unfair.”

1630

What we are asking is that people be treated a little more like one another. This is a step in the right direction. We will not propose any amendments, but what we will do is encourage the minister to apply the same formula across the board. It is great that he has responded to the needs of the people in northern Ontario. It would be greater if the same policy were spread across the board. Quite often it is the way one is seen. We would delight in looking at it and saying, “Look, you have come that much closer to a fair and equitable tax system and you have perhaps given us a reason to be less cynical, and you make yourselves more believable.”

We want to wish those people well, but with all those millions of dollars they have an added responsibility, meaning that the more you make the more you have to leave. In most cases, they are not leaving a penny, and the pittance the minister is offering in lieu does not even begin to address the shortcomings.

It is a step in the right direction; the minister is to be commended, if I heard the minister. We encourage the minister -- I know it is easier standing here than sitting there; I am quite aware of it. But no ifs, no buts. We buy this thing, but we want to see more of it.

The Deputy Speaker: Do some members have questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Pope: I do wish to have a few words. First, I do not think there should be any doubt that this legislation is the result of a decision, and it must have been a policy decision, by cabinet to impose taxes for municipal purposes on large industrial developments that have a significant financial impact on nearby municipalities. I think that is the policy base of this bill. There should be no mistaking that this is the policy base, and therefore further action with respect to other industries in other areas of the province could happen after 1988.

We understand that the first order of business of this government is the deal with the Hemlo gold fields. I have a couple of comments about this in light of the fact that it may well apply to other municipalities at other times in the future and to other industries at other times.

In spite of the fact that there may be a feeling, or the ministry may wish to tell the people of the province, that it would only be selectively imposed on rich industries, and not imposed on marginal industries, it is going to have two consequences.

First, are industries going to believe that? Are they, before they undertake capital expenditures, before they make that capital commitment, in effect going to go to the government and seek assurance ahead of time that they will not be subject at any future time to the imposition of this selective tax? If they do not get assurance, will they put the money into capital investment in northern Ontario or not? This is something that obviously the government has decided it is prepared to play with and it will affect the investment climate and potential new investment in northern Ontario.

The second point I would like to make is that because this may be imposed at some future date on other industries, marginal or not, at the whim of the government, will obviously have an impact as well on investment decisions and expansion decisions of existing operations in the resource field in northern Ontario. What steps the government is going to take to assure other industries and other communities -- and I presume it has a list of those communities and those industries -- that they will not be the next target for the imposition of this legislation is something I would like the minister to address.

Had we had this kind of legislation 20 years ago, the city of Timmins as I know it would not exist. Texasgulf, now Kidd Creek Mines, is some 15 miles from what was the town of Timmins. As a result of that discovery in 1967 we had a one-tier consolidation of four organized municipalities and 14 territorial municipalities, or territorial townships as we call them up there, into one city of Timmins. One of the obvious benefits was to grab the assessment base of Kidd Creek Mines, both its mining plant and its smelter and mill.

Had we had this legislation 20 years ago, the community of Mattice-Val Coté would not exist, nor would Val Rita-Harty, communities that are six to 10 miles separate in northern Ontario in the riding of Cochrane North. I happen to have represented the citizens of Mattice-Val Coté in the Ontario Municipal Board hearing when, for purposes of obtaining assessment dollars from TransCanada PipeLines, an application to annex those lands and form a new municipality was made.

The government has opted not to go this traditional route of the past, of annexation and municipal restructuring, and has opted to go with the unilateral selective imposition of property taxes on resource developments in northern Ontario. That is a significant departure, and I want to know that this government and this minister have analysed the potential consequences of this significant departure. What vehicle will these industries or potential investors have of addressing this issue?

TransCanada PipeLines objected and appeared before the municipal board to oppose the incorporation of Mattice-Val Coté. Kidd Creek Mines, formerly Texasgulf, had a role to play in the government decision to incorporate the city of Timmins and in fact there were negotiations on the assessment base prior to the legislation being passed.

We know this is just a start of a generic policy of this government to impose this tax as an alternative to other traditional means and I think we have to know the parameters of the government’s policy and what it intends to do in the future, not just with this bill in 1988 but beyond that.

We understand that there are some positives to this step. We know that Hemlo perhaps could afford the imposition of this new tax. On what basis the government makes the decision of affordability is not declared and we presume the minister will tell us what that is and whether it will be changed from time to time.

We know it will represent a stable source of revenue for the municipalities which will benefit. My feeling is that one of the consequences will be an encouragement of two things: first, resource operations of higher technology and less workforce, because the tax is being levied on a workforce basis; second, more of an encouragement to resource-based industries to set up town sites in unorganized territories, I think to the detriment of the development of existing municipalities in northern Ontario.

Certainly, we do not need a town site at Detour Lake. We need a workforce that lives in Cochrane, Kapuskasing, Iroquois Falls and Timmins commuting to Detour Lake and enjoying the benefits of life in the existing municipalities. I do not want to see the clock turned back, because of a tax policy, towards the establishment of industry towns in northern Ontario.

We have the municipalities with the social and municipal services to provide a good lifestyle for the workers and their families in northern Ontario. We want to encourage those municipalities. What is the government’s position on this potential impact?

1640

We are obviously aware that there are a number of problems that this legislation creates. The collection and distribution of the taxes is going to be very complicated. How many municipalities will be involved in it depends on the number of workers from the resource industry itself and where they reside, whether it is in unorganized territory or organized territory.

We believe that the resource industries will oppose this legislation and have already indicated that to the government. They are concerned about the parameters, not of this bill but of the policy base of the bill and where it leads the government of Ontario.

As I said earlier, we also think this bill will act as a disincentive for the hiring of more workers in northern Ontario.

We know that it is a radical departure because it is a selective imposition of a tax. We also know it is precedent setting in that it extends municipal boundaries for one purpose only, and that is for assessment and taxation, without allowing for an enlargement of municipal boundaries to take care of servicing, transportation and other needs for the people who live in areas surrounding these organized municipalities who would work in these industries.

There are lots of weaknesses and problems associated with the policy decision that this government has made. We believe they are aware of those weaknesses.

We also know that the government is aware that there are many, many municipalities across northern Ontario that could be next in line, municipalities like Sault Ste. Marie, Sioux Lookout, Hearst, Kenora, Atikokan and Chapleau, which have significant resource operations nearby.

We also know that it could affect municipalities that have logging operations out in the bush or small independent sawmill operations in proximity. A list of those municipalities is numerous, some 45 in number. We also know that municipalities like Black River and Matheson that have mining operations nearby in unorganized territories could be next on the list. What are the parameters of this policy decision? What is the list of target industries and municipalities that will be next over the next few years?

We know that all of this must have been considered by the government when it made its policy decision, and we are anxious to hear from the minister exactly what this means for many municipalities and many industries in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am sure everyone understands that this particular bill deals with a unique situation. It was decreed by the previous government through a committee, I believe, that with the development of the mines, the people would live in one of three communities. They chose to live mostly in the two communities of Marathon and Manitouwadge. It is my understanding a very small number, perhaps something like six, live in White River.

I want to say that the province gave interim assistance, pending the development of a long-term formula, which was promised in this case. In 1988, the municipalities will receive a full year of revenues with respect to the Hemlo mines.

I might say also that White River could be included in the future. The bill is flexible. So far, it has little impact on White River, but if this develops in the future, then the bill is able to take care of that.

I might say also that the three mines, which are located side by side, need the municipalities to provide homes for the workers, they have done that, and I believe that this is a very fair bill.

Section I of Bill 159 limits the application of the bill to the Hemlo area only. Section 2 sets out the criteria before the bill can be applied elsewhere.

I suppose that, in some ways, members might find some faults with the bill. I believe it serves the purpose for which it was intended, and that is to deal with a unique situation. I know there are those who have concerns about other areas of the north, and there are ongoing discussions in that regard. I personally have had discussions with some of the mayors in the municipalities across the north. But this bill deals with a unique situation, and I feel it is going to deal with the fact that those workers must live in certain communities. It is addressing that issue.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT

Consideration of Bill 159, An Act to provide for Municipal Taxes in Territory without Municipal Organization.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments or questions or amendments to Bill 159, and if so, to which sections? Minister, do you have any amendments?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: To which sections are you going to have amendments?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Subsection 3(2).

The Deputy Chairman: Is that the only one?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: Do I have the agreement of the whole committee that the minister may move down and occupy another seat in the front row?

Agreed to.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Section 3:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Eakins moves that subsection 3(2) of the bill be amended by striking out the definition of “AFDB” and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

“‘AFDB’ means the assessment equalization factor for the taxable commercial assessment of land of a designated business in a municipal taxing area expressed as a fraction of 100.”

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The purpose of the minor amendment is to correct a technical problem in the bill which is a result of an error in printing. The amendment will replace the definition contained in subsection 3(2) with the correct version.

The Deputy Chairman: Would anyone wish to comment on that or ask a question with respect to that?

Mr. Pouliot: I would like to get some clarification. I take it to mean that factor 100 is the formula whereby you can distribute one commercial value as opposed to another one, and you throw in the denominator of so many people residing in one community to the next. If you understand that kind of explanation, we are OK because that is the way I take the minister’s amendment to read.

Mr. Breaugh: We are simply asking the minister to explain the amendment he has proposed. Could we have that courtesy?

While we are waiting, I would be happy to have the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), the government House leader or anybody who is theoretically running the show explain what the amendment is that has been put forward this afternoon. Can anybody tell us what it means? I guess the answer is no.

1650

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The two paragraphs were printed the same, and the amendment is simply removing one of the paragraphs. I have the explanation here. It is simply the formula. The equation equals, one, different factors.

Mr. Breaugh: Could I get that explanation in one of our official languages now? I do not sense we have a good grasp of what we are trying to do today. There is another minister entering the premises. Is there anybody who really knows what this amendment means?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I wonder if I might have someone from the ministry just come forward.

The Deputy Chairman: Do I have the unanimous consent of the House to have the staff come to the front? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The first factor is the assessment factor of the mines, and the second factor is for the municipalities.

Mr. Breaugh: Could someone try to get this a little more relevant and tell us what the amendment is? What does it mean? I think it would be interesting if we knew that. I would be happy to have the minister’s entire staff arrive, if we could get an explanation.

Well, the table is here; this is a good sign. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) is here; this is a bad sign.

There are two of them. That should do it.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The first, the AFDB, is to convert the local assessment for the unorganized territories for local assessment and the second, the AFDM, is the formula for municipalities.

The way it was printed here both were the same, and of course that was an error.

Mr. Pouliot: Maybe the minister can indicate to me -- I am a little confused here. I am quoting the taxable commercial assessment. In a municipality you have three kinds of assessment, residential, commercial and industrial. Will the minister explain to me, if he intends to conduct the assessment under commercial for Hemlo, how does he for Noranda Mines, Geco, which is already assessed using industrial assessment and real commercial assessment?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I just want to say it is my understanding that all the assessments are commercial and have to be converted.

Mr. Breaugh: There really is good reason why amendments are supposedly handed to the opposition critics well in advance of being debated on the floor. It would give all of us the opportunity, with our researchers, to pick out the nuances. To tell the truth, I have not heard an answer to a pretty straightforward question of, what does this amendment mean?

I think the government would be in good shape if it adopted a policy that no one got to move amendments of this nature. We were not told that such an amendment was necessary during the course of the second-reading debate, or would be brought forward. We would not be in the position of embarrassing the minister this afternoon if we had. We on the opposition side are supposed to know what is meant by an amendment before we vote for or against it.

I have still not heard that explanation. I wonder if the minister and the government House leader would prefer to halt the proceedings on this bill until we get some kind of explanation and move on to the next piece of legislation. It seems to me that although this is not a province-wide or a huge problem, for those communities it is a serious problem. It seems to me, from my understanding of the amendment, that this is the critical one which will determine exactly how many tax dollars go to the municipality.

I think we have an obligation to understand that a little better than any of us on this side do. We have just seen the amendment about five minutes ago. Obviously, the minister and his staff have been unable, in about 10 minutes’ time, to provide us with much in the way of an explanation. It seems to me that good sense would have us rise and report and proceed to the next bill.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I want to clarify that what it means is local assessment in the unorganized territories must be converted to local assessment in the municipalities. This amendment will do that and that is the purpose of it. Clearly, the two paragraphs were printed the same and the purpose of the amendment is to correct that.

Mr. Pouliot: Again, will the minister broadly summarize and try to help me? We can do this together. Explain the process expressed under “as a fraction of 100.” I am somewhat familiar -- very familiar in fact -- with industrial, commercial and residential assessment at the small-town level. In fact, this bill affects the township in which I have spent the last 23 years, and more than 10 of them on the council, from the days of the improvement district and then the municipalities. I have never encountered an expression like this: “...in a municipal taxing area expressed as a fraction of 100.” What is that?

1700

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have listened very intently to this debate. I think it might be wise to do as the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has suggested. We have a lot of business to attend to. I do not think there is an unbridgeable gap here by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr. Breaugh: There is a gap.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Certainly there does appear to be a bit of a gap. What I am going to suggest is consistent with the advice of the member for Oshawa, that we have this committee rise and report, proceed with a couple of other bills which are standing by on the tarmac and that we return to Bill 159 once the minister, perhaps the Minister of Revenue and others have a chance to consult with our friends in the opposition to allay any suspicions, fears or concerns they might have.

Having done that, I would not be at all disappointed if someone moved that the committee rise and report; I so do.

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

MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 22, An Act to regulate Motor Vehicle Repairs.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am delighted, having sat on the tarmac for some period of time this afternoon, to be okayed for takeoff.

I am pleased to introduce for second reading what I think is an important piece of consumer protection legislation, namely, the Motor Vehicle Repair Act.

During debate on the bill, I am going to be introducing a number of amendments to the first-reading bill. These amendments will be discussed as we proceed with clause-by-clause review of the legislation.

The many measures included in the bill are intended to incorporate honesty and fairness into one of the largest sources of consumer complaints, one which I think is understandable to all members of this assembly.

All too often, we hear from consumers who have been hit with repair bills which exceeded, unhappily, their wildest expectations or who have been stung by unnecessary or by poor-quality repairs. What we need is legislation that takes the surprise element out of repair bills, legislation that puts an end to the sloppy and unethical practices of some who have injured the good name of the many reputable repair outlets in this province.

I believe the act now before us for second reading helps to accomplish these objectives.

To eliminate surprises, we are placing emphasis on disclosure. Under the act, outlets will be required to post signs stating repair rates and methods of calculating charges. Written estimates, including any related fees, must be provided on the consumer’s request, and invoices are going to have to be itemized.

To back these disclosure requirements, the bill limits actual costs to no more than 10 per cent of the estimate and allows repair outlets to charge only for authorized work.

To deal with the problem of unnecessary repairs, the act requires outlets to return removed parts unless advised upon authorization of the work that the customer does not require their return.

To encourage improvement of the quality of work, the bill calls for mandatory warranties on repairs for new and reconditioned parts and associated labour. This requirement will not apply, obviously, and we will be moving an amendment in committee to this effect, when the customer supplies the parts or indeed where the parts are misused or abused.

Should the vehicle become unsafe or inoperable while the warranty is in force, consumers will be able to recover original charges. The original repairer will be given the first opportunity to rectify the problem only if it is practical for the consumer.

As records of warranty work are sometimes required by the consumer, the legislation requires that invoices be provided for warranty work unless there is no charge to the consumer.

An additional benefit to consumers will be the way the bill helps keep down the cost of auto insurance by prohibiting repair outlets from charging higher rates to insurance companies than individuals.

This is a very comprehensive bill covering a specific transaction. From disclosure of repair rates to warranty protection, it will help ensure fairness to the consumer at every stage of the transaction.

In closing, I believe it is legislation that will be welcomed by the many, many thousands of motorists in this province.

Mr. Philip: This bill is long overdue. It is a rewritten version of a bill that had been introduced by the minister’s predecessor. It is interesting that Quebec introduced a bill quite similar to this, and it has been operative since November 1980. I guess one has to ask the government why it has taken so long to bring forward this kind of legislation.

If one looks at what is happening in the bill, I find it interesting, because basically what is put into the statute is what I think some reputable repair dealers do for the most part anyway, with the exception of posting or putting on the bill the names and phone numbers where additional mediation can be obtained. I know that my own service station does not do any repair work without first checking with the customer. It just makes common sense to operate this way. Indeed, it is good business.

However, as the minister has pointed out, a number of us, as MPPs, have received numerous complaints about some discrepancies, if you want, in the way repair work has been done. Indeed, there is my own experience from many years ago, where I had to demand and threaten legal action in order to get the waiver of a bill from a service station operator who did work without the authorization of either myself or my wife.

We will be moving two amendments to the bill, one of which I understand the minister has accepted and will be supporting, and the other of which he is less accepting of.

I have read through the amendments the minister is proposing, which are numerous indeed. For the most part, I think they bring the bill even closer to the Quebec legislation, and I think that is even more acceptable to us. There are a few of the amendments I have some questions about, and perhaps the minister may satisfy me when I ask those questions in committee of the whole House.

In conclusion, we will be supporting the bill. I thank the minister for bringing it forward, albeit a lot later than one would have expected.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: We can support the intent of the legislation. Indeed, the amendments have even cleared up some of the problems we have with it.

I would like to raise a couple of matters or concerns that I have. Maybe it is more a personal concern than a party position. That is possibly because I have some knowledge of the repair business, as my father was in that business for 40-some years.

I am a bit concerned that when we dwell so heavily on the fact that estimates have to be so exacting, are we not maybe creating another problem: that an individual repairman or mechanic, rather than put himself in a position where he could be losing money, will estimate high and overall will end up creating more of a problem for the customers than otherwise?

Most repair shops are run by good, honest people. We have unscrupulous repair people just the same as we have unscrupulous politicians. Each has to be controlled, but sometimes it is extremely difficult to know how to legislate against it.

1710

In rural Ontario we do not have the same problem, per se, as in the cities, because people get to know the people they should deal with and the ones they should not.

I have a little concern about making it so difficult for a repair shop to be able to do business. We could drive up the prices.

Another concern I have that I think the minister has addressed in his amendments is the time lag between a customer’s being notified that the estimate will be so much and the time that he gets back to say to go ahead with the job. If you have ripped the car apart and it is sitting all over the shop, and you then have to put it back together and move it out to allow another vehicle in because the individual may take a week or a month or six months to make up his mind, you have created a pretty hard situation in which be able to achieve a fair and reasonable cost factor.

I think possibly the minister has addressed this in his amendments, and we can certainly deal with it when we get into committee of the whole House. I suggest hopefully that he not remove the 10 per cent leeway in subsection 4(2), as proposed by the opposition party, because I do feel that we have to have leeway to allow some variance in case there is a major problem. Certainly 10 per cent would not be an exorbitant price if a repair shop ran into some difficult problems.

I think it would be acceptable, as far as our party is concerned, if we moved into committee of the whole and dealt with that clause-by-clause. We could have a more meaningful dialogue at that time, dealing with the specific clauses.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any honourable member wish to comment upon the remarks made by the member for Wellington? If not, would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate? Seeing none, will the minister close the debate?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will be very brief. I join my friend the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) in saying that I think we may have a more useful discussion on some of the specific issues as we move into committee. At that time, I will get into some greater detail on subsection 4(2), when my friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) places his amendment.

I want to indicate only that I am grateful for the support of the two critics who are here. I share the view of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who has been thrown into the breach at the last minute, that it would have been very nice and useful had the bill gone forward before now. Such very forward-looking legislation should always move as quickly as possible, but I am grateful to have the opportunity now to get the bill passed and in place so that those who use motor vehicle repairs may benefit.

I see my friend the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) wants it passed today, probably because he has a car to take in before the end of the week.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If you saw my ’73 Buick, you’d understand why.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: So that my friend the member for Scarborough West and others can have the greater measure of consumer protection that is afforded, I will conclude these remarks and move second reading. Perhaps we can complete committee of the whole today.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR ACT

Consideration of Bill 22, An Act to regulate Motor Vehicle Repairs.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have staff here at the desk.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, of course, you may.

Section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Wrye moves that the definition of “customer” in section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out “a person” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof “an individual.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This amendment is to indicate that it is really individuals we are trying to assist in this situation and not businesses, which are really in a lot better position to handle such problems with motor vehicle repairs than are ordinary consumers.

As well, except in a very limited number of cases, these kinds of business-to-business consumer protection vehicles have not been put in place over the years. The legislative review project, which is to report before we rise for the summer, I believe, will be addressing this issue, and I think it would be more appropriate to move when we move general consumer protection legislation, the general changes to our consumer protection laws in this area, if that is deemed to be appropriate.

This is an amendment which I think really gets at the problem that we sought to go after in bringing in this legislation: that is, the problem of the ordinary consumer.

Mr. Philip: My concern with this amendment is that, while one can recognize that it basically removes the fleet owners and people like that, there are a number of businesses that may well be incorporated or registered and they may be businesses of one limousine. That consumer may be every bit as much at the mercy of the unscrupulous service station or repair company that may be very much larger than the individual business entrepreneur, such as the limousine owner, the taxi owner or, indeed, the small plumbing business that has its one van and maybe two employees. I am wondering if the minister is not concerned that by his amendment he may in fact be hurting a lot of little guys who will not have any recourse.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The issue here is that in terms of consumer protection, as I indicated, within our consumer protection laws we have traditionally, for the most part -- there are some exceptions within the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, I am advised -- but for the most part we have not provided consumer protection in these kinds of business transactions.

I acknowledge the point my friend makes in terms of small businesses. He is not incorrect. The amendment is, I suppose, to provide and continue to provide, I say to my friend the member for Etobicoke, some consistency with the legislation now in place. It may well be that as we move forward with more general generic consumer protection legislation, we will wish to address this problem at a future time.

1720

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Wrye moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(4) Despite subsection (3), a repairer may charge an estimate fee if the repairer is unable to obtain, without unreasonable delay, authorization to proceed with the work or repairs and the vehicle is reassembled before it is worked on or repaired so that it can be moved to free repair space.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My friend the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) alluded to this in his remarks during second reading debate. One of the concerns -- and there were a number after the bill was put out -- that a number of small businessmen in the repair industry brought to us, which we felt was quite a reasonable concern, is that repairs cannot really be expected to tie up repair facilities indefinitely, sometimes to tie up equipment and certainly staff while they wait for a consumer decision. So if reassembly is required prior to doing the work because of delay in the consumer decision, an estimate fee is justified and the amendment recognizes that.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Just on subsection 3(2) in relation to subsection 3(4). Subsection 3(2) reads, “A fee for an estimate shall be deemed to include the cost of diagnostic time and the cost of reassembling the vehicle and the cost of parts that will be damaged and must be replaced when reassembling if the work or repairs are not authorized by the customer.” Is “the cost of parts that will be damaged and must be replaced” in relation to taking, say, the motor apart and the mechanic damaging a part, or is it in relation to the parts that were damaged before the mechanic examined that vehicle?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr. Philip: I think the minister may have wanted to answer that question first.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am advised that it is the cost of the parts that will be damaged in doing the diagnostic work. On some occasions, I am advised, to get a diagnostic decision, some parts will be damaged. Clearly it must be understood by both the repairer and, indeed, the consumer that for the repairer to be able to provide an estimate, to take parts of the car apart, some parts will be damaged, and it is thus fair for the repairer to recover those costs.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: When we get down to the section dealing with the 10 per cent of estimates, this is one reason I felt we needed that allowance, because sometimes to find out if repairs are necessary, and to know the cost of the repairs, one has to literally break a seal or something to get into the car; then one finds that there is a problem. If they are allowed that 10 per cent leeway, then it would help to cover it. I accept the minister’s explanation and I certainly support subsection 3(4).

Mr. Philip: I guess every piece of legislation has to be a set of balances and counterbalances. I think this is a reasonable amendment that handles some of the concerns of the operators of the service stations. It would be unreasonable to put in a specific amount of time or something like that, because the circumstances surrounding it have to be judged. We will accept the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that subsection 4(2) of the bill be amended by striking out “by more than 10 per cent” at the end thereof.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of this is my concern that if we have a specific percentage in there, it will, to some people, simply be an add-on fee; they will do an estimate and then add on that extra 10 per cent automatically as being, if you want, their cushion. For that reason, I think it is reasonable. At a time when we do have telephone communications that are, at least until this week, operating fairly well most of the time, this is unnecessary. Therefore, we have moved to delete the 10 per cent margin for error, leverage or whatever else somebody might think it is.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member indicated that the government was prepared to support one of the two amendments to be proposed by the official opposition. This is not the one. Members can wait for it; it is in section 9. It is a good amendment.

The concern we have is exactly the same as the honourable member’s, and I suppose we simply reach a different conclusion. It is our view that if we were to allow no leeway -- I refer the member back to section 2, which talks about written estimates -- then we would simply be into a situation where a repairer would, for example, have an estimate of around $500 and would say: “I get absolutely stuck at $500, so I had better bump it up by half a hundred or by a hundred to make sure that my costs are protected.”

If we do not give the repairer some small leeway and he gets a small surprise in fixing the brakes or in replacing the shocks, or takes a little longer for whatever reason, then he has a problem, then he is in a situation where he is going to lose money. We think that if we do not give that small amount of leeway, a repairer will simply choose to provide a written estimate that will be higher on the way in, and the cost to consumers will thus rise.

We looked at a number of other figures and, quite frankly, some repairers believe that 10 per cent is inadequate. After carefully reviewing the 10 per cent, the House will note that we have chosen to leave it at that figure, which we think a reasonable compromise that protects repairers in the situation I have described, but also protects consumers from a situation which happens all too often now, where the estimate of a few hundred dollars is given and the surprise comes in and the bill is $300 or $400 higher. We think that is unreasonable. Thus, we have limited it to 10 per cent.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that sub-clause 6(c)(iii) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(iii) whether any commissions are payable.”

Mr. Wrye further moves that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) Clause 6(1)(e) does not apply to a repairer who puts on all repair orders and invoices to go to consumers the telephone number of the regional office of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to which complaints may be directed.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The first of these two changes to section 6 is really a housekeeping change. The present subclause 6(c)(iii) reads “commissions payable.” The intent of this is to simply say whether commissions are payable, not exactly what they are. The wording would probably have asked to have that spelled out.

1730

The more substantive change is the change to subsection 6(2) of the section. That has been requested by the industry and indeed by some consumer groups, I understand. It seems not unreasonable.

As the bill now reads under this section, clause 6(e) asks repairers to post signs giving the telephone number of the regional office of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to which complaints may be directed. In a sense, subsection 6(2) provides an exception or an exemption, and that is provided only in those cases where the information is given on all repair orders and invoices. It will be up to the repairer to decide whether to post the notice in a conspicuous place, as is called for by the bill, or whether to provide, I presume, for a stamp, and stamp all such orders and invoices with this information. Either way, it seems to me the consumer will win.

Mr. Philip: I think the amendments are extremely reasonable and in fact make an awful lot of sense. Certainly, we will support them.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The minister is going to have a telephone number of the regional office where complaints may be directed. What is he going to do with them then? Would it not make sense to have some way that the public could be advised of the bad apples in the repair business, something in the nature of the Better Business Bureau, a listing type of registry so that they would know in advance of the people who create problems? The minister is going to have complaints against people. Surely, he must intend to do something about the complaints.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I presume it is an effort to add a greater degree of instant consumer protection. The number is right there and they know who they can call to get their problem dealt with. There is no doubt, I suppose -- I had not really thought of this -- that if there is a volume of complaints coming into the regional office in your area from service station X, perhaps a pattern will emerge eventually and that may be useful to us.

It seems to me that may be incidental to the fact that really what on its face we are trying to do is to provide information for consumers either posted on a board or on the invoice so that the consumers know who to get in touch with in case they are unhappy with the outcome of their repair work.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The minister does have penalties he can levy in the latter part of the bill, but I wonder if at some point in time, if patterns do arise and if station X in a certain area is creating a lot of problems, if people have the opportunity to phone the ministry, they in turn could be advised that it has had complaints about this individual. At that point, maybe the customer would have an opportunity to make the determination if he indeed should deal with that particular individual.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not sure exactly what my friend is saying. It certainly would be our hope that if a concern arises in the completion of this transaction, as in any other, the customer and the repairer will attempt to get together and rectify the problem in the first instance.

We do not want to be the court of first resort, in a sense, but this will provide for those who have concerns. They are quite numerous now and we expect the numbers will continue to rise. In effect, we have in section 6 an information vehicle that is provided for all consumers as to whom to get in touch with for redress.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 7(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) Every repairer shall offer to return to the customer all parts removed from the vehicle in the course of work or repairs unless advised when the work or repairs are authorized that the customer does not require their return.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This really flips around what we had in the bill originally. Subsection 7(1) of the original bill contemplated a decision as to whether the parts would be returned at the completion of the work. This changes it around and the decision point is when the customer authorizes the work.

As I view it, what would happen is the customer may, on his or her own, simply say, “I do not require the return of the parts.” If that does not happen, then as the amendment now reads, the repairer will be in a position to say: “I am prepared to return your shock absorbers. Do you want them back?” The customer at that point will make a decision. We think it is better to do it at the beginning rather than at the end. Then no misunderstandings will arise.

Mr. Philip: The way the original subsection 7(1) was written made no sense. It makes an awful lot more sense to put it at the beginning, as the minister has said. Many service station operators do this as a matter of course already, but it is reasonable to put it in the statute as a requirement so we will support it.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 8(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(2) Shop supplies that are charged to a customer and not included in normal operating costs shall be itemized on the invoice.”

Mr. Wrye further moves that subsection 8(3) of the bill be amended by inserting after “subsection (1)” in the first line “excluding clauses 1(g), (h) and (i).”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The essential part of this change is to eliminate the arbitrary charging for shop supplies as a percentage of parts and labour costs. The section does not now allow them to be charged. We now will allow shop supplies, but they must be properly invoiced and itemized.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(1a) The warranty on parts used in a motorcycle or motor-assisted bicycle is 30 days or 1,500 kilometres, whichever comes first, and not as set out in subsection (1).”

Mr. Wrye further moves that subsection 9(2) of the bill be amended by striking out “subsection (1)” in the third and fourth lines and inserting in lieu thereof “this section.”

Mr. Wrye further moves that subsection 9(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(3) Where work or repairs are made under subsection (2), the person entitled to a warranty under this section is entitled, in addition to any other rights or recourse available at law, to recover from the repairer the original cost of the work or repairs and reasonable towing charges.”

1740

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The change essentially provides, in the first instance, a different kind of warranty for motorcycles. This is in keeping, I think, with what the industry norm is in terms of the amount of time in which such parts should reasonably last in all cases without any breakdown. We have recognized a shorter period of time.

Subsection 9(2) is simply housekeeping.

The third section -- repairers responsible for the original work, not the cost of the subsequent work -- simply limits the liability, as it were, of repairers.

Mr. Philip: I wonder if the minister can assure members of the House that when we have our local friendly meeting with the local chapter of the Hell’s Angels or any other group, they will not be terribly displeased and feel that somehow they are being discriminated against with this.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The annual meeting of the Vagabonds.

Mr. Breaugh: Bill Wrye is the name.

Mr. Philip: I assume there may be some advantages to having a voice vote when it comes to matters like this.

On a more serious note, I wonder if the minister has consulted with any of the consumer groups, motorcycle clubs, etc., before he decided to introduce what appears to be a certain amount of discrimination between the warranties on motorbikes and those on other forms of vehicles.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I recognize the honourable member’s concern. I do not have any chapters of that aforementioned motorcycle group in my riding. I think they are in the riding of the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke).

The answer to the honourable member’s serious point is yes, we have consulted with other consumer groups and they are prepared to live with this. I suppose they would like the longer period. I am advised that the warranty on new bikes is also quite different from that which the member and I would get on new cars. This is a reflection of the differential between the two types of motorized machines.

Mr. Chairman: Ready for the vote? May I recall that my request to hear the members say “aye” or “nay” in a clear fashion seems to have fallen on deaf ears? I would appreciate if all of you who reply to a vote call say so clearly. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Since we are doing so well on section 9, I have another amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(4) A customer who subjects any part to misuse or abuse is not entitled to the benefit of the warranty on that part.

“(5) No repairer shall refuse to reimburse a customer because of the operation of subsection (4) unless the repairer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the part under warranty was subjected to misuse or abuse.

“(6) A customer who seeks to recover costs under this section shall return, upon the request and at the expense of the original repairer, the defective parts to the original repairer unless, in the circumstances, it is not reasonably possible for the customer to do so.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Subsections 4 and 5 are consistent with similar consumer warranties and, indeed, the common law in terms of areas of misuse and abuse. Subsection 5 provides the customer with protection, i.e., the repairer must have reasonable and probable grounds for invoking the misuse/abuse rule and he cannot do so arbitrarily; he can try, but he would not be successful. The new subsection 6 avoids unnecessary or unreasonable cost to both the repairer and the customer, but it does give the repairer the option to examine the failed part by insisting upon its return on reasonable grounds as long as the repairer is willing to pay for it.

Mr. Philip: The amendments make a lot of sense. It will discourage the garage owner simply saying capriciously that the vehicle was misused as a defence against the charge about his repair.

If the transmission goes and I happen to be in New Brunswick, it does not seem to make very much sense to bring back the whole transmission just to prove that the thing actually blew 1,500 miles down the road, so we will support it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that section 9 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(7) An original repairer who is required to make a payment under this section is entitled to recover from the supplier of a defective part any amount paid to the customer under subsection (3).”

Mr. Philip: The amendment is self-evident. It simply allows the garage owner to recover what he has had to pay out as a result of a part that is defective from the manufacturer.

I understand that the minister will accept it, and therefore I will not have to speak at great length in order to try to convince him.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) has done great work this afternoon and has been so supportive of the government amendments that I am pleased to announce we will support his amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 13:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that clause 13(a) of the bill be amended by inserting after “application of” in the second line “this act or.”

Mr. Wrye further moves that clause 13(d) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(d) exempting any class of vehicle, repairer, customer, part or type of repair from the application of this act or any provision of this act and attaching conditions to any exemption.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Of the two changes to section 13, the first really eliminates superfluous wording and refers to the whole rather than any part of the act; it can be the whole act. The other matter, clause (d), simply provides flexibility for the government in defining further the application of the act.

Mr. Philip: What the minister says is true.

Motion agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I think that, with agreement, we will move back into committee of the whole on Bill 159.

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed?

Agreed to.

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 159, An Act to provide for Municipal Taxes in Territory without Municipal Organization.

Mr. Chairman: We had carried sections 1 and 2 and, if I remember correctly, the minister had an amendment to section 3. Am I not correct?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I just want to point out that there was some confusion. The members of the official opposition stated they did not get the amendments. It has been confirmed that the amendments were delivered to their House leader, to their office. If they did not get them, I am sorry, I cannot help that; but it has been confirmed that they did receive them.

Mr. Breaugh: No.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Someone did receive them.

1750

Mr. Breaugh: I do not mean to prolong things this afternoon, but I am the critic and I did not get them. The local member did not get them. My House leader did not get them. For the minister to say that somebody got them is an insult to us as members.

If the minister wants to move amendments like these and he wants to explain them to the members on the opposition side, he does have some telephones; he could pick them up and call us. He could at least give us a reasonable explanation when we ask him to explain himself in here. I do not think we are being too obnoxious when we ask to see an amendment before we discuss it, particularly when the minister does not know what is happening in it.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It is my understanding that the amendments were delivered to the honourable member’s office. If not, I will certainly apologize at the appropriate time. But it is my understanding that they were.

The amendment here is simply to effect two paragraphs. The assessment factor for the designated business is the same as the assessment factor for the designated municipality. In order for the formula to work, the definition has to be changed for the designated business. They are simply factors that are needed to convert the local assessment in the unorganized territory to the local assessment in the municipalities, so that in the end we are making the assessment on each of the mines comparable to the assessment in each municipality.

Mr. Breaugh: Of course, one of the things which is very awkward is when an amendment arrives this way, so I will have to put it on the record this afternoon.

Are both municipalities in agreement with the use of this formula?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I understand they are.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to comment and ask questions?

Mr. Pouliot: I have one final question for the minister. He has mentioned that both municipalities were consulted and that once the assessment has been determined the formula will take effect. Yet in his compendium he mentions that the legislation will permit the Minister of Municipal Affairs to authorize, if the need arises, other affected municipalities. I think we are talking about White River. The minister has mentioned that there are six families who work at Hemlo residing in White River.

Has White River been consulted? If so, is it in agreement with the formula?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: White River is not involved at this time. As I mentioned in the bill, it is flexible enough that if White River is involved, then the formula will apply. White River is not involved at this time. It is simply the two townships of Marathon and Manitouwadge.

Mr. Pouliot: I just want to get this on the record. As much as I dislike the formula grant in lieu of taxes, because people are inevitably shortchanged, I think in this case it would certainly help to lessen the pain and to restore justice, which should have been part of the bill. But I am satisfied with the amendment and with the legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

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

EXECUTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Offer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, second reading of Bill 6, An Act to amend the Execution Act.

Mr. Offer: This bill will remove a problem which is of concern to those buying a home or property. It will bring the Execution Act into line with the Land Titles Act by making clear that writs of execution filed with the sheriff become effective only as of 9:30 the morning after they are received by the sheriff. This means that when a purchaser’s lawyer is ensuring there is clear title to property, he need check only once on the date the transaction is to close and not up to the last minute before the closing.

Mr. Sterling: This change in the Execution Amendment Act makes eminent good sense. Just for the purposes of explaining what a writ of execution is, it is basically a writ that is taken out to enforce a judgement. If a court gives a judgement, then this is the way of binding a person’s land to make certain that judgement is paid before a person sells off that piece of land. In essence, that is what it does. It changes the timing as to when that writ of execution, which binds the land, has to be registered and makes it easier to convey land and safer for purchasers of land to get a free and clear title.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ACT / LOI SUR LA VENTE INTERNATIONALE DE MARCHANDISES

Mr. Offer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, second reading of Bill 90, An Act respecting the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

M. Offer propose, au nom de l’hon. M. Scott, la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 90, Loi concernant la Convention des Nations Unies sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises.

Mr. Offer: The government of Canada has recommended the provinces implement the Vienna sales convention, and with this bill Ontario does so.

As the Attorney General told the House when the bill was introduced, this convention sets an international standard to govern the sale of goods by a supplier in one country to a purchaser in another.

A number of countries, including the United States, have already acceded to this convention. The government of Canada has indicated it will also accede if there is significant provincial support. This bill will become law in Ontario only after the Canadian government has acceded.

The standards set out in the convention have been endorsed by the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and the Canadian Exporters’ Association. These standards are already being used in some transactions, and we expect they will become the norm in international sales, although parties to an agreement will be able to agree upon some other form of law to govern the contract if they so choose.

Mr. Hampton: I do not think it comes as a surprise to anyone that this sort of legal development is long overdue. In fact, the acceptance of the international law in terms of the sale of goods will likely lead to international commerce and international contracts that in fact are drawn up and are understandable and are more certain, without the aid of a battery of lawyers and without having to worry about keeping a battery of lawyers in place to ensure that the law you thought the contract was drawn under is indeed the law the contract was drawn under.

Mr. Sterling: This might put me out of business.

Mr. Hampton: The honourable spokesman for the third party indicates that this might put him out of business. I want him to know that I feel really bad about that. The fact of the matter is that it will simplify the procedures in many cases and make procedures much more certain. We, on this side of the House, are very much in favour of that sort of development, and as I said, this kind of legal development is long overdue.

Mr. Sterling: The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, of course, will support such a move to increase and improve relations with other countries and to make international trade freer in this time. We are indeed happy to see the government of Ontario finally do something in relation to encouraging international trade. Perhaps, in afterthought, it even will begin to rethink its position on other trade issues, like the free trade agreement.

Mr. Offer: Just to reiterate the purpose and the impact of this particular legislation, it will make the law governing international sales more modern, clearer and more in accordance with the practices and expectations of people in business. For that reason, I am pleased that we have the full support of the Legislature with respect to the passage of this particular legislation.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi passera à l’étape de troisième lecture.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Given that we are now slightly past the normal adjournment hour, I would just like to inform members of the business of the House tomorrow. This, of course, is subject to the ongoing deliberation of the House leaders’ panel, but having completed all of this good work this afternoon, we will proceed tomorrow, after routine proceedings, to committee of the whole House to complete the consideration of Bill 100, after which we will take up the adjourned debate on the report of the select committee on constitutional reform, after which we will deal with government notice of motion 6 standing in the name of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) regarding the Meech Lake accord and other business such as the House leaders agree upon.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

June 27, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ROLLER HOCKEY

TAX INCREASES

POOR CHILDREN

DIALYSIS UNITS

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

CELEBRATION 30

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

ELECTRICAL POWER

WINE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MULTICULTURALISM AND AGEING

RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

ELECTRICAL POWER

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

WINE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ELECTRICAL POWER

TRANSLATION OF REPORT

SIDNEY HANDLEMAN

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

RENT REGULATION

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

HOUSING AUTHORITIES

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

SOFT-DRINK CONTAINERS

OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER

LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE

MADAWASKA TRUST PARK

DRINKING AND DRIVING

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

ROUGE VALLEY

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

PETITIONS

ABORTION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PENSION BENEFITS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

TOWN OF CLEARWATER

ROUGE VALLEY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

NOISE BARRIER

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CONTROL OF SMOKING

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE / SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WINE CONTENT AMENDMENT ACT

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES TERRES PUBLIQUES

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT

MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR ACT

MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR ACT

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT (CONTINUED)

EXECUTION AMENDMENT ACT

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ACT / LOI SUR LA VENTE INTERNATIONALE DE MARCHANDISES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE