Hansard Transcript 1988-Nov-15 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the chief election officer, and laid upon the table, a certificate of a by-election in the electoral district of Welland-Thorold.

Clerk of the House:

Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

Queen’s Park

Toronto, Ontario.

Dear Mr. DesRosiers:

This is to certify that, in view of a writ of election dated the 23rd day of September, 1988, issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, and addressed to Helen Durley, returning officer for the electoral district of Welland-Thorold, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Welland-Thorold in the Legislative Assembly of this province, in the room of Mel Swart, Esq., who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Welland-Thorold, has resigned his seat, Peter Kormos has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, which is now lodged of record in my office.

(Signed) Warren R. Bailie, chief election officer; Toronto, November 11, 1988.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Peter Kormos, member-elect for the electoral district of Welland-Thorold, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.

Mr. Speaker: Let the honourable member take his seat.

Peter Kormos, Esq., member-elect for the electoral district of Welland-Thorold, having taken the oath and subscribed the roll, took his seat.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The day following municipal elections, I think it is incumbent upon us to congratulate all those who were victorious yesterday and commiserate with those who, unfortunately, were not victorious.

I would also like to say that, from our caucus’s perspective, there are three people I would like to single out. Helen Kennedy from the office of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot); Evelyn Paterson, constituency assistant to the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), and Sandra Bussin, a constituent of the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), members from our bargaining units, have all been elected, and we are delighted to see that.

Also, I would like to say how delighted we, as a caucus, are to have a majority of New Democrats back on the board of education in the city of Toronto to finally reverse some of those terrible trends that were starting to take place there.

The people of Toronto have spoken very strongly about the need for a livable city, a city where speculation is not welcome, I say to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), where overdevelopment is seen as a bad thing. We now will have a reform council there to undo some of the damage that has been done in the last term.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Cousens: With the new Metro council, new regional councils and new municipal councils, the big question is, what will be different three years from now? What changes will be made? Will the traffic chaos in Metro be better or worse?

This morning, I saw Metropolitan Toronto and greater Metro from the CHFI-FM airplane with Darryl Dahmer. Few cities are as beautiful. This city, however, is more attractive from up there than from behind the steering wheel of a car. As the Progressive Conservative critic for Metro and greater Metro issues, I wanted to see the traffic at first hand.

I now have more questions than answers. Who is going to take the leadership role in solving the traffic crisis: the new Metro council, the local regional councils, or is the province going to do its job? What is going to be done first: GO trains, more subways or more roads? When is commuter transit going to become a priority?

Twenty-seven per cent of the population is using public transit. That means we have to increase that far more to get more than three quarters of the people who are just driving their cars or vehicles. How can we encourage more commuters to use public transit? When will the province begin to build the Sheppard subway?

What can we do about drivers who slow up traffic? What can we do about drivers who do not maintain their vehicles and stall traffic? What can be done about road maintenance so we do not just close off one road when another one needs to be opened?

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Mr. Cousens: We have a priority in this province to get the traffic moving in Metro Toronto. Let’s begin to do it.

ONTARIO MEDAL FOR POLICE BRAVERY

Mr. Adams: The Ontario Medal for Police Bravery is one of the most prestigious honours awarded by the province. This year three constables received the medal for their heroic efforts. Two of the recipients serve on the Peterborough Police Force.

At great risk to his own personal safety, Constable Tim Farquharson saved the life of a young boy who was trapped by fire. Fighting intense heat and smoke, he located the boy and carried him to safety. In a similar emergency, Constable Jim Wright rescued a woman from her burning home. He broke down the door, fought his way through thick black smoke and carried the unconscious victim to safety.

The valiant efforts of these officers are worthy of our greatest respect and admiration. It was my pleasure to congratulate them in person at the investiture ceremony last evening. I am sure all members of the House join me in recognizing their outstanding service to the people of Peterborough and of Ontario. They represent all that is best in our police forces.

I am sure that constables Wright and Farquharson would be pleased for me to use the time remaining to mention Drug Awareness Week. The Peterborough police are part of a widespread community net involved in this drug awareness program. They, their proud chief -- Kevin McAlpine -- the Peterborough Police Commission and the men and women of the Peterborough Police Force join me in saying to the people Of Ontario, “Believe in yourselves; be drug-free.”

1340

INTERNATIONAL WRITERS IN PRISON DAY

Mr. Philip: Today is International Writers in Prison Day. Jan Bauer and Susan Crean have pointed out in today’s Globe and Mail that, as of last July, 305 journalists and writers were in some way imprisoned or awaiting trial.

While we can take some satisfaction today that the numbers are decreasing as a result of a more enlightened policy in the Soviet Union, there are still 20 writers or journalists experiencing confinement there. Furthermore, the atrocities continue in places like South Africa and Latin America. So far this year, 49 writers have been released, but another 33 cases of imprisonment or disappearances have been reported. We must continue in a democratic society to reaffirm the freedom of the press and also to expose those instances of human rights abuses in other jurisdictions.

The 13th report of the standing committee on the Ombudsman is still awaiting debate and endorsement in this House. This report, initiated by a resolution introduced by the late Jim Renwick, provides concrete proposals on how we as legislators can work to save lives and reduce tortures in countries less democratic than our own. I hope that on this special day we can reaffirm that the 13th report of the Ombudsman’s committee will not continue to gather dust on our shelves.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Harris: The Premier (Mr. Peterson), following the advice of his technology council, wants to turn the province into Sweden, and so I am perplexed that the Premier would support the policies of John Turner who, as noted in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, wants to turn Canada into Argentina.

“Juan” Turner is peddling the same old snake oil of phoney populism and protectionism that kept Juan Perón in office and Argentina at the bottom of the economic heap. “Juan” Turner is peddling a prescription for economic stagnation, higher inflation and the Hudson’s Bay peso. He would have us believe that protectionism is a substitute for productivity and that the best way of meeting the global competitive challenge is to run from it.

The real danger facing this country is not that the free trade agreement will make us an economic colony but that rejection of the agreement will make us an economic backwater. The free trade agreement is the acid test of this government’s commitment to industrial restructuring and international competitiveness.

In opposing the agreement and endorsing “Juan” Turner’s policy of growth through protectionism, the Ontario Liberal government has demonstrated the hollowness of its rhetoric and its total failure to understand the opportunities that the free trade agreement offers this province, its producers, its consumers and its workers.

CANADIAN WARPLANE HERITAGE MUSEUM

Ms. Collins: On something more factual, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform this House of the historical conservation efforts of the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum, located in my riding at the Hamilton Airport in Mount Hope.

Operated by a charitable, nonprofit corporation, this museum was established in 1973. Its aim is to preserve and maintain in flying condition the aircraft flown by Canadians in military service in the Second World War and in Korea. This museum has assembled an outstanding collection of over 40 aircraft and hundreds of historical aviation artefacts.

Included in this collection is a Lancaster Mark 10 bomber, which played a significant role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. There are only two airworthy examples remaining in the entire world.

The Lancaster bomber at Mount Hope was restored after nine years of painstaking, mostly volunteer labour. It is dedicated to the memory of Victoria Cross recipient Andrew Mynarski, who lost his life attempting to save the tail gunner in a crippled Lancaster during the last world war. The first official flight of the restored bomber took place on September 24 of this year at the Hamilton Airport in front of 25,000 enthusiastic spectators.

I am sure that all members of this House join me in congratulating the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum for this magnificent achievement and for its ongoing efforts to preserve a living link with an invaluable part of our nation’s history.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Ms. Bryden: The municipal elections across the province have brought some new faces to city halls and school boards, but they have also demonstrated the defects in the new provincial legislation affecting both municipal and school trustee electors that we put through with some haste this year.

The lack of an adequate tax rebate policy for political contributions at the local level made many contests a David and Goliath situation for challengers to incumbents. I understand that only one municipality and one school board took advantage of the local option to institute a rebate policy, mainly, I think, because the rebates had to come out of municipal taxes, whereas at the federal and provincial levels they come out of broader tax sources. The electors are therefore denied the same treatment of election contributions at the local level as at the federal and provincial level.

I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) should look into the changes that are needed in the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Act affecting elections long before the next election and perhaps bring in some recommendations within the next year.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to make a few remarks on behalf of the government about our new colleague.

Agreed to.

MEMBER FOR WELLAND-THOROLD

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank my colleague the leader of the third party. I had somehow expected the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) perhaps to rise in his place and begin this brief --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On behalf of the government, I want to extend to the new member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Kormos) our heartiest congratulations on his victory on what we know is for him, his family and friends, a very special and happy day.

Certainly I have had the opportunity in the recent past to meet and chat with the new member. He certainly seems to be a very lively and a very interesting fellow. I am very much looking forward to working with him in the coming weeks and months and years of this parliament.

I have noted that much has been said about the honourable member in terms of the very lively spirit he brings to his responsibilities. All of us know -- and I believe his predecessor is with us under the press gallery-certainly we would all have to say that the new member for Welland-Thorold truly does have very big boots to fill. Those of us on this side of the Speaker’s chair have long waited for someone both to put the boots to the New Democratic Party and, we hear, perhaps even to put the boots on the leader of the NDP.

Mr. Brandt: I welcome this opportunity to join with the government House leader to offer congratulations and the very best wishes to the new member for Welland-Thorold, who is taking his seat among his new colleagues today in this very venerable House.

I would like to say to the member that it is, in fact, as he will find out shortly, a rather select group, with a degree of collegiality that does surface from time to time, in spite of our political differences. The fact is that we do have 130 of us in this House to represent well over nine million people in Ontario.

I recognize the very heavy responsibility that rests on everyone’s shoulders in that respect and I know that the member will bear his fair share of the load in connection with not only his own riding but the interests of all of the people of Ontario on a broader spectrum.

Let me offer my congratulations to him and very best wishes on a successful career, whatever length his career might be in this place. Some of us serve for longer periods of time; some of us serve for shorter periods of time. I wish the member good health in whatever length of time he happens to choose for his own career.

I would like to paraphrase the government House leader, if I might, by saying that he has a large pair of noncowboy boots to fill in terms of his new responsibilities. But let me just say, as a member who has been here for about eight years now, that I join with the kind of happiness that he must feel today at taking his seat in this House. I am sure he will find the work very, very interesting, and I know that his colleagues on all sides of the House will be very helpful in making him feel comfortable as he joins among us to solve the many problems of Ontario that we face as a result of some of the mistakes being made across the aisle.

Mr. B. Rae: For obvious reasons, I was waiting for the government House leader to accept the responsibility that comes with having lost yet another by-election and accept the presence in our place of a new member.

I do want to say to Mr. Swart that we are delighted to see him here again today. He is welcome every day and any day in this place. I know that thought is shared by all of us here.

1350

I also want to say to my newly elected colleague the member for Welland-Thorold -- Just how I told the Speaker that I had the honour. I did not say as well how relieved I was to see the member here. I think members here know me well enough to realize that was my primary feeling on election night, and I might say that this thought is shared by all the members of our caucus, every single member.

I just want to say to the member for Welland-Thorold how delighted we are to have him here and to know that the qualities which led to his election despite a very difficult campaign are qualities which will stand him in good stead in this somewhat crazy place.

An hon. member: Somewhat?

Mr. B. Rae: Somewhat? I just want to wish him the very best and to say that he will, I am sure, very quickly -- I would suspect even from today -- learn how difficult it is to get answers from the government, but also what joy there is in the good fight, which the member has already fought on behalf of the people of Welland-Thorold, and I know he will be continuing that fight for many, many, many years to come.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold may wish to respond.

Mr. Kormos: I would be pleased, Mr. Speaker. I am so very thankful to the honourable members and to my leader for their kind comments. I look forward to the same goodwill being expressed in the months and years to come. I anticipate it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure all members would want to set a good example today for our new member.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery a member of the German National Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mrs. Leni Fischer. Please join me in welcoming Mrs. Fischer.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to ask unanimous consent of the House to make some comments about the passing of a servant of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

ANDREW RICHARDSON

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is not often, as I understand it, that we do note the passing of servants of the Legislature, but for those of us who have been here for some years, the passing of Andy Richardson, a clerk of this House, on the weekend was a very sad event. Andy was a very courageous man who fought cancer very hard over the last number of years. As his obituary in the paper says, he was “a lion to the end.” He was also a very flamboyant clerk, who set a standard of flamboyancy that has been hard to measure up to, as I am sure the members of the table will attest.

He was a great friend whom many of us got to know well on committee and travelling over the years. Speaking personally, while he was in Sunnybrook Medical Centre fighting cancer at the beginning of the onslaught of the disease, I was admitted with my heart problems; and although he was suffering a great deal, he came down and visited me in my room and I was very grateful for this. I think it speaks to the kind of bond that can develop between servants of the House and those of us who are chosen to represent the people.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On behalf of my party, I too would like to extend our sincerest condolences to Andy’s wife and his family. In the obituary it says of Andy Richardson, “Retired Queen’s Park Legislature. Proud like a lion to the end, Andrew met with dignity his final challenge, at his home.” That was Andy: a lion to be proud of.

I had the opportunity to meet him for the first time 13 years ago, when I was elected to this Legislature. I was very fortunate to be appointed by the powers that be to serve on the standing committee on resources development, and Andrew was the clerk of that resources committee. He taught me everything I know about committee work, especially travelling committees, and for that I owe him a lot.

Andy was one of the finer clerks of the House. Many of the clerks today have followed his example, I am very pleased to say. I do think Andy was, as the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) mentioned, not only a servant of the House, but also a servant of the people and a good friend of the members of this Legislature. On behalf of our party, I extend to his family our very sincere condolences.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to join my colleagues the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) and the member for Scarborough West in paying our respects to the late Andy Richardson, who I remember very well in many of the same ways which have been noted by the previous speakers. I will always remember Andy for his wonderful Irish charm, that verve and style. He was just an absolutely delightful guy with whom to work. I can think of a number of occasions when, like the member for Wellington, I was on a committee travelling, as well as here in the Legislature, with Andy. He was extremely patient, always helpful, almost always entertaining.

What I will always remember about Andy as one of the servants of this assembly is that he was a great friend, a very loyal servant of the assembly, and just a great guy to be with, either at work or after work, where he could tell a story perhaps better than anyone around here. To his family, I want on behalf of the government to extend our condolences on this, the occasion of his passing.

Mr. Speaker: As soon as the official record of the House, Hansard, is printed, I will of course send a copy to the Richardson family so that your words of sympathy are conveyed to them.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PATIENTS ON LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR’S WARRANTS

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I wish to inform the House that today I am tabling the report on risk management assessment for patients on warrants of the Lieutenant Governor, an inquiry I requested in May.

As members will recall, this investigation was initiated following an incident in London involving two patients from St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. At that time, I directed our psychiatric hospitals branch to commission an independent assessment of risk management systems for patients on warrants of the Lieutenant Governor in provincial psychiatric hospitals.

The assessment was conducted by ENCON Insurance Managers Inc. They were asked to assess the policies and procedures in place to manage patients on loosened warrants; to provide us with a complete picture of current systems, including strengths and weaknesses; and to make recommendations for any improvement.

My ministry has now received the report and staff has had an opportunity to study its 11 recommendations.

I support the general principles outlined in the report. We will be taking immediate action to implement the report’s last six recommendations, which deal with policies and procedures to strengthen the existing system. Included are recommendations for system-wide procedures for the release of information on LGW patients to the police, employers and halfway houses, and a clear system for authorizing levels of privilege for patients.

I have directed our psychiatric hospitals branch to take immediate action to establish these procedures and to ensure that psychiatric hospital staff is provided with educational sessions on the new procedures.

In addition, I have requested ministry staff to begin immediately, with four other ministries, to plan a coordinated approach to the management of forensic patients, including LGWs, in reference to the first five recommendations.

This action will be taken in conjunction with the ministries of the Attorney General, Solicitor General, Community and Social Services and Correctional Services. Steps are already under way to establish a working group and the first meeting will take place shortly.

As I previously stated, the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review, established under the federal Criminal Code, is responsible for reviewing cases of patients on warrants. The system of managing individuals under the Lieutenant Governor’s warrant has been in place for many years and falls within federal jurisdiction. Patients on warrant have been found by the courts to be either unfit to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. They have entered the psychiatric system via the legal process.

1400

While the conditions of warrants are defined by the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review, administrators of psychiatric hospitals have some discretionary authority in determining the level of privileges granted to patients on warrants. It is in these discretionary areas that our risk management system will be strengthened.

Our goal is to ensure that we have the best possible monitoring system in place in our psychiatric hospitals.

Further, I want to assure the House and the people of Ontario that as we develop these systems to better co-ordinate the warrant system, public safety will be our foremost consideration. Our goal is to ensue public safety while providing appropriate treatment programs for patients.

EPILEPSY AWARENESS MONTH

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I would like to take this opportunity to reinforce the importance of November as Epilepsy Awareness Month.

As the Minister responsible for disabled persons, I share the concern as expressed earlier this month by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). Unless there is greater public awareness of the real facts about epilepsy, far too many Ontarians will continue to face unjust discrimination. The member for Nickel Belt and I have a particularly acute sense of this, since both of us have epilepsy ourselves.

Epilepsy is a medical condition which anyone can develop at any time. Epilepsy Ontario estimates that about one in every 100 people has some form of epilepsy. These days, about 50 per cent of persons with epilepsy have the condition totally under control with medication and another 30 per cent achieve good results through medication, although all are not entirely free of seizures.

Despite these encouraging statistics, however, fear, superstition and outmoded attitudes still tend to create attitudinal barriers for persons who have epilepsy. Families, friends and employers often still do not realize that someone with epilepsy can live exactly the way anyone else does.

Through the Office for Disabled Persons, financial assistance has been provided to Epilepsy Ontario by several community action fund grants. A grant for $8,000 paid for the production of general information pamphlets in five languages for community outreach, and about $27,000 to Epilepsy Ontario is paying for the updating and extensive distribution of an educational pamphlet.

At the same time, however, we need increased public co-operation, and I urge every member today to try, whenever possible, to spread the word that epilepsy is just a medical condition and nothing more.

RESPONSES

EPILEPSY AWARENESS MONTH

Mr. Laughren: I want to commend the minister for his comments on November being Epilepsy Awareness Month, although I do think it would have been more appropriate to have had some consultation with me before he made his statement.

I must say that I agree with him in his assessment of epilepsy as a disorder. It is often said by people who have experienced this particular disorder that the reaction of other people to people who have epilepsy is greater than the effects of the disorder itself, and I think that truly is a fact.

I would have been happier if the minister had stood in his place and indicated that he intended to fund the launching of epilepsy chapters across Ontario. I happen to be on the executive, and I m proud to be on the executive, of the board of Epilepsy Sudbury. We are struggling to get off the ground, if you will, as an organization, almost totally to educate the community, not so much to provide services to epileptics, but rather to educate the population as to just what kind of disorder epilepsy is and how it can be treated in a very public way and talked about in a very public way.

For that, I commend the minister for his statement and drawing to the attention of the people of Ontario that November is Epilepsy Awareness Month.

PATIENTS ON LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR’S WARRANTS

Mr. Reville: I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Health in respect of risk management systems. While I welcome the tone the minister takes in this regard, I find it amazing that the ENCON Insurance Managers should have discovered that our systems for dealing with information about the 400 people who are on warrants of the Lieutenant Governor are so poor that in fact the 10 provincial psychiatric hospitals appear to have developed almost no systems to deal with some of their clients.

It is amazing to me to find out that the minister is suggesting setting up one of these interministerial task forces which will begin to plan a coordinated approach. It could very much end up like the Fram report which was four or five years in the making. One would expect that a more lofty goal than ensuring the best possible monitoring system would be to ensure that we have the best possible treatment in place in the province, which of course is not at all the case.

In 1985, the government tabled the Hucker report which had some very far-reaching suggestions to make about the facility at Oak Ridge at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre. Most of those recommendations have not been implemented and I think the government is to be criticized very strongly for the lack of urgency with which it is approaching this very difficult juncture of the justice system and the health care system.

Mrs. Cunningham: I would like to speak to the risk management system report that was tabled in the House today and I look forward to further looking at the report in detail. I am very pleased with the report. I thank the minister for coming forth with it just a month after our most recent question.

I guess my urging today would be that although the minister is taking immediate action on the first six recommendations, I would hope that as soon as possible she would work very quickly with her small working group on the last five recommendations.

I underline the minister’s goal and I share my confidence in it, and that is, not only are we concerned about public safety, we are just as concerned about treatment programs for the patients in the hospitals.

Mr. Runciman: I do not believe the risk management report adequately answers some of the concerns that were raised about the London issue. I know when we talked about this initially in the House, the minister had an internal study conducted by the administration at the hospital and they gave themselves a clean bill of health. Then she established this committee which has not really addressed the London situation, so we really do not know what happened in terms of a breakdown in the system in London and really caused that terrible result. The minister has not addressed that. No heads are rolling as a result and we have this report which she suggests she is going to take some action on.

There is a comment in here in response to maximum security and I quote, “There has been a determined attempt by the ministry to reduce the number of patients in maximum security.” That is indeed accurate. They have been shoving these people into medium security facilities that the report quite clearly indicates are not adequate to handle this kind of an individual. The staff are not trained. They are underpaid in comparison to those at Penetanguishene and they have to address that particular concern and supply, construct, whatever they have to do, so that we have additional maximum security forensic facilities in this province.

They also talk about the shortage of forensic psychiatrists and the minister has not commented on that particular recommendation, but knowing members who serve on review boards I want to say that this is a particular concern. They do not have the kind of expertise to draw on that is really necessary and they are the people who are making the decisions to release these individuals into our communities. They do not have the kind of professional expertise at their beck and call that they require. I hope the minister addresses that rather soon.

We are talking about public safety here. Recommendation 7: “That a system-wide procedure be developed for release of information to employers or operators.” That is fine. What about employees as well? We have had instances in my own community where young teenage girls are working with individuals who have committed serious sexual crimes. These individuals are working with them and are not made aware of the person’s record, their parents are not aware and there is no obligation upon the employer to inform them. In fact, the employer is restricted from doing so.

Those kinds of questions have to be addressed as well. We are talking about public safety and the minister up to this point has not dealt with it adequately.

1410

EPILEPSY AWARENESS MONTH

Mrs. Marland: The gravity of the medical condition known as epilepsy is well demonstrated by the fact that Epilepsy Awareness Month is organized on a national basis.

In our Progressive Conservative caucus, we certainly join with epilepsy associations around this province and with the thousands of Ontarians who suffer this disorder in marking Epilepsy Awareness Month. It is very true that we have to do a better job of educating the public to recognize not only epilepsy, but also the fact that those who suffer from it can live perfectly normal lives.

The sadness about any of these conditions, however, as the minister commented, is based on fear, superstition and outmoded attitudes that still tend to create attitudinal barriers for persons who have epilepsy. It is never the disability associated with a condition that is the greatest hardship for those people who have those conditions, but rather the perception of the public, particularly future employers. We see this with all disabilities, and we hope we can all play a role in educating the public to the future benefit of those people.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions today for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The child care mess has now reached the point where not only do we have literally thousands of people who are on waiting lists, but we understand there is also a continuing battle over the very nature of the so-called federal plan, which has the support of the provincial government.

I wonder if the minister can tell us why, even at this late stage, he would not simply indicate to the federal government that Ontario has no intention of participating in a plan that will restrict the number of child care spaces, that Ontario wants to continue with the Canada assistance plan and that this is the way for Ontario to move to ensure that all those families that need it in this province will have a guarantee of access to child care today.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable leader well knows, the existing federal legislation is now defunct and we have no way of knowing which government is going to be in charge in Ottawa and whether legislation looking like that will be brought back or not, so we just have no way of responding to that.

However, let me go back to the previous legislation, which I assume the honourable leader was referring to. We had indicated from Ontario’s perspective that there were some very obvious advantages to us under this new legislation compared to the process under CAP.

One was that we would get 50 per cent cost-sharing instead of 38 per cent cost-sharing as we are presently getting under CAP. The second one was that it allowed us to be more flexible in the kinds of services we wanted to deliver. The third one was that over the seven-year period of the plan, Ontario would actually get in total dollars more money than it would under CAP. So these were the advantages.

We also, however, drew to the attention of the federal government -- this recent media exposé of these concerns was shared by Ontario; our senior staff were involved in that process -- some of the difficulties --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the minister may wait for a further supplementary.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister cannot have it both ways. The fact of the matter is that in this province it is the government of Ontario that is now restricting access to child care spaces under the Canada assistance plan. It is the government of Ontario that is restricting that access, not the government of Canada; nobody else but the minister.

Is the minister saying he shares the view of the report contained in the Globe and Mail today that the new federal plan has an “approach to funding that is restrictive; rigid parameters are set; the federal government is intruding into provincial jurisdiction; there is no protection against inflation; there is no assurance costs will he fully shared after 1995”?

If that in fact is the view of the government of Ontario, surely the question obviously is, why does the minister not simply say that this plan will not work, that the government of Ontario will continue to fund under the Canada assistance plan and that the wealthiest province in Confederation will agree to its assured share in making sure that every child who needs a space in Ontario gets a space, which is not the case today?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: When any provincial jurisdiction in Canada triples the mount of money it spends on day care, doubles the number of subsidized spaces for day care and increases by 25 per cent the licensed spaces for day care, I hardly think it is proper to say it is restricting access to day care in that province. We have done more than any other province in Canada.

Second, I had already indicated to the honourable member, because I understood his original question to refer to our acceptance or lack of acceptance of the federal plan, that I had been in personal consultation with the federal minister, the Honourable Jake Epp, at least at that time, and indicated the conditions that would be necessary for Ontario to buy into that plan. It did include a greater degree of flexibility with respect to the cash flow of dollars than what that particular report in the Globe and Mail refers to.

We have clearly said that if those conditions are not met for Ontario, we will have to re-examine our position as to whether or not we are prepared to sign it, but at the present time there is nothing to sign.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister will know full well that the problem in this province today is that somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 people across the province are on a waiting list and this province has refused to meet that growing demand in terms of that waiting list. Those facts are absolutely undeniable. We can bring families and parents and kids down here every day of the week if that is what it will take to convince the minister that there is a problem, a need that is far in excess of what this government has been prepared to do.

Whatever form the government may take on November 21, Ontario has an obligation to meet the needs of the citizens of Ontario. My simple question to the minister is, why not simply say that it is no go with respect to any federal plan that restricts access to space, that Ontario will meet its needs under the Canada assistance plan and that any future legislation has to allow Ontario to meet all of the needs of every single person now on the waiting list?

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. B. Rae: Every kid who is waiting for a space deserves a space in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: Why can the minister not meet that criterion?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is correct when he says there are waiting lists for day care, but he would be equally correct if he said there are waiting lists for services to the elderly, waiting lists for services to the disabled and waiting lists with respect to family violence. There are waiting lists in all of the services we offer. My responsibility as the Minister for Community and Social Services is to see to it that the total number of dollars and resources allocated are spread over all those services, not to any one of them.

I think the honourable Leader of the Opposition also has to reconsider his comments when he is the very same leader who says to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) of this province, “You’ve whacked the people of the province with tax increases;” says to the Treasurer, “You’re driving this province into debt with your big deficit;” and says to the Treasurer, “Spend more money on health, spend more money on education, spend more money on the environment and spend more money on roads.” Let’s be a little reasonable.

1420

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to go back to the minister. He has now admitted that there are waiting lists and delays for everything for which he is responsible. I am glad that after all this time in office the minister has finally woken up to his failure and the government’s failure to deal with those waiting lists. That is the issue.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to deal now with another abject failure of this government, and that is the incredible delays, the extraordinary delays, that are in place at the Social Assistance Review Board.

It is estimated that the turnaround time for cases at the Social Assistance Review Board, the time it takes for the board to make up its mind, varies somewhere between six months and a year.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Ross McClellan for chairman. Your old House leader is running it. He’s doing a good job.

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) may feel that a delay of a year for somebody on welfare is acceptable, but for us justice delayed is justice denied, whether one is in the court system or the welfare system, and we do not accept that for a moment.

I would like to ask the minister if he can just tell us clearly and categorically why it is that people who are appealing benefits that have been denied them, who have been granted benefits by the Social Assistance Review Board -- the board is asked by his own ministry to review those cases and those cases are taken to the Divisional Court by his own ministry. Can the minister tell us why those people should be denied benefits while they wait for justice to be done in their cases?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I point out to the honourable leader that the complete restructuring of the Social Assistance Review Board under this government has been done in a way that very closely parallels that which was suggested or recommended by his former critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I think the honourable member will recognize that fact.

We now have 18 full-time people on that board. We now have two- and three-person hearings. We now have a chairman of that board who is recognized, I believe, even by members of the New Democratic caucus, as being very efficient and very sensitive to the needs of the people that board serves.

Speaking to the specific comment the honourable leader made, the board itself has the prerogative to see to it that while the process is under way, individuals who need assistance in fact get that interim assistance.

Mr. B. Rae: I do not think a six- or eight-month waiting period, which is now the turnaround time for an appeal to the board, is acceptable, and I hope the minister would agree with me that it is not acceptable.

If he wants evidence of how long it takes, I was talking to a member of the board who says he signed a decision yesterday that was dated April 25. That is precisely the problem that is taking place at the board today. I am not talking about before or any other time; I am talking about what is happening at the board right now.

I wonder if the minister can explain why it is that between April 1 and October 31 of this year, one third of the appeals of Social Assistance Review Board decisions going to Divisional Court were taken at the behest of the ministry of Community and Social Services. If the minister is really interested in expanding the system and making sure it is more generous, if he wants to anticipate everything Mr. Thomson has said about the turnaround time, which should be 15 days, can he say why he is now responsible for one third of the appeals at SARB that are going to the Divisional Court?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I will most certainly concur with the honourable member that a six-month waiting list is not acceptable. I would share with the honourable member a recent discussion with the chairman of the board, that she is working very strenuously to get that down to a much shorter period of time. The chairman of the board has indicated to me that it is her goal to get that down to a month or slightly more than a month.

The Leader of the Opposition will recognize that with the significant number of new members on the board and the clear indication that those board members have to be better trained and have to have better resources available to them, there is some difficulty in this turnaround. That is what is happening right now. That will not continue.

With respect to the appeals, let me share with the honourable member that when I became minister, the number of decisions of the Social Assistance Review Board that went in favour of the recipient was in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent. Eighty-five per cent of the decisions were against the recipient. The percentage of decisions going in favour of the recipient today is between 60 per cent and 70 per cent. That is a very significant turnaround, but as part of that process decisions are being made that in the judgement of the ministry are not in line with the legislation backing up those decisions. When that happens, the ministry has an obligation and a duty to --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It was on October 28, 1983, that I first raised the issue of these five- and six-month waiting lists. At that time, we had a regressive board and a regressive minister. It would appear now that the board is more progressive in its decisions, but the ministry is just as regressive as it has ever been.

I have five cases here coming out of my office and the legal centre in my riding. The average is five-and-a-half months, over 150 days, for a decision, which the laws of this government say should be done within 40 days -- by the law, by the regulation. These are the weakest, poorest people in our society who are having to wait longer for decisions by this board than for any other decision by any board in the province.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is that acceptable to the minister and what is he doing now, five years later and three years into his mandate, to change it?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member for Scarborough West will well recall that part of his recommendation was that we have full-time instead of part-time members, that they be well trained, that we have a new chairman, that there be legal assistance available to the board and that there be other support services available to the board.

All of those things have been done; every single one of those recommendations. I will admit for the second time in this question period that the period of time the member referred to is not appropriate, is not acceptable and does not meet the regulations, but the honourable member surely will recognize that in order to do all of those things -- and we are not going back three-and-a-half years of my position as minister; we are only going back a year and a half when we made those significant changes to this board. The last six full-time people have only been brought on the board within the last three or four months; that is the longer time.

In all fairness to the chairman, the members and the backup staff, who are doing a formidable job and a very significant job, I think they will turn that around, but they need a little time to do it.

YOUNG OFFENDER

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services as well and it relates to the information that was released today in regard to the young offender who was convicted of killing the Irwin family in Scarborough and who is now apparently out on unescorted day passes.

We agree with the minister that the need for rehabilitation and assistance of a youth like this, who requires this kind of an entry back into society, is perhaps necessary and may well work on behalf of the youth to assist him in getting reacclimatized to the society he wants to re-enter. At the same time, we do raise a very serious question with respect to the position being taken by the police, where they indicate that they have no knowledge whatever of the day passes that have been given to this particular youth since he has been allowed relief from the Syl Apps Youth Centre.

Can the minister indicate to us and to the members of this House why the police were not informed in this particular instance as to the circumstances surrounding the youth in question?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There were two elements in the honourable member’s question. Let me deal with both of them.

The first one deals with a comment that the honourable member himself made in an open letter to me, and I presume to whomever else was interested in it, as to what procedures we have in place to assist the young person to reintegrate himself -- I believe that was the word the member used -- back into society rather than just waiting till the final release point, dropping him off and then doing nothing about it.

1430

There is a protocol in place and the honourable leader touched on some of those points. The first one is a period of escorted day passes to a place of employment. That period has gone through. The second stage is unescorted but supervised day passes to a place of employment, supervised with respect to time. That means that the time the young person leaves the Syl Apps Youth Centre and the time it takes for him to get to the place of employment are very carefully monitored. If he or she, as the case may be, is five or 10 minutes late, then there is action taken immediately. While it is unescorted, it is not unsupervised.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The third one, of course, is the actual release. With respect to the police --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the length and the quality of the answer, but there are other members who wish to ask questions some time during this hour. Supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: My supplementary will give the minister an opportunity to expand on his answer with respect to the role of the police in this particular instance.

This is a very serious case, as the minister is well aware. There were three individuals in the Irwin family who were killed, as the minister is also well aware. The safety of the public, as well as the rehabilitation of the individual in question, who is now being released from the Syl Apps centre, are of paramount concern, I think, to the public at large.

Will the minister indicate specifically in response to my question what role the police have in regard to this youth, in order to answer the legitimate concerns being raised by the public? Will the minister indicate if in other cases this particular situation we are dealing with here has been handled in any different fashion or any fashion other than the way in which this youth is being handled?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let me begin by saying that the Halton Regional Police Force has been most supportive. The protocol I described before, or was attempting to finish describing, also includes a requirement that the local police force be notified when these day passes are being issued to a young offender who has a record similar to that of the young man we are talking about.

There was a definite lapse at Syl Apps. Therefore I, as minister, accept responsibility for that, the police not being notified in this situation. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that in previous cases the Halton police force has been notified in these kinds of situations. This was a definite lapse in this one case. I am not aware -- and I asked, for the honourable member’s information -- I am not aware that this type of lapse has occurred previously, at least not during my term as minister, but I cannot guarantee that absolutely.

I want to say that the police have been very co-operative, and the protocol is that they would be notified right away. Going back to my previous answer, when I talk about supervision, part of the supervision is that if in fact the young person is five or 10 minutes late getting to the other location, then the police are notified immediately. The police in the past have always been extremely co-operative, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the Halton police force publicly for its co-operation and to say I regret the lapse in this situation.

Mr. Brandt: It is interesting that the minister should make those comments, because although he may say that the Halton police have been co-operative in this particular case, the reality is that their response to him is that they are frustrated by the lack of information as it relates to this case and have publicly indicated so to the minister and, I believe, to the public at large.

Will the minister assure this House that he is providing all the information that is normally the case with respect to circumstances of this kind to the Halton police force and that the public interest with respect to safety is paramount in the minister’s mind, as well as that of the local police force? Is all of this information being provided to them in an adequate fashion now? I want to be absolutely certain that is the case, because this is a very serious matter.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Brandt: There has been some suggestion of mishandling in the past.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I believe that in my previous answer I indicated that was part of the procedural protocol in dealing with matters of this kind. In this particular case there was a lapse, yes. The individual staff person who was responsible for that lapse has certainly been made aware of the fact that it ought not to have happened and should not happen again.

The administrative director of the Syl Apps Youth Centre has invited representatives of the police to come in and meet with her personally -- I believe the meeting is tomorrow morning; it may have been later today -- to see to it that the local police have all the information which is available.

One of the small difficulties we have in situations like this is the requirement under the young offenders legislation not to make the young offender’s name known publicly. We are trying to work out, and continue to try to work out, protocols with local police forces, because we do require and we do appreciate their co-operation to get around that particular matter in the legislation. We believe we have the process to do that.

In this particular situation, in response to the direct question of the honourable member, yes, the Halton police force has been invited into Syl Apps to receive all the information we have with respect to this particular young offender.

ONTARIO FARM-START

Mr. Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last month I asked the minister about the failure of his five-year Ontario Farm-Start program. He would not consider an extension of the program. He would not give any assurance that he would even review the financial needs of the farming community.

I am going to give him a second chance to redeem himself. Will he review the Farm-Start program, admit that his forecasts were wrong and provide enough funding to the Farm-Start program to help all eligible young farmers start up, as he originally intended this program to do?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We continually review our programs. We are reviewing all our programs right now and establishing priorities for those programs that will fit in with the next budget that comes down next spring.

The honourable member knows this was a $90-million program based on the past history of new entrants into agriculture. We planned to help about 2,300 farmers come into farming for the first time.

The program, by the way, runs over seven years. It is not just a five-year program; this program runs over seven years. A $38,000 grant goes to each farmer whose application is accepted. It runs over a period of seven years, but the fact of the matter is that after the program was announced, within about the first six or seven months we received 3,300 applications. That shows the success of this program. We expected 2,300.

Mr. Villeneuve: In the minister’s own brochure it says starting on January 1, a $90-million program lasting five years. That says it all: a seven-year program but supposedly lasting five years. What do I tell some of the young farmers who were planning to go into farming using Farm-Start? Some of them are still at the University of Guelph. Some were actually making very concrete plans to purchase a farm. All of a sudden the window closed on them. Is this his final answer? The minister will not help them?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The honourable member did not understand when I said we continually review our programs. He can tell those young farmers, who maybe have not even sent in an application yet for all I know, that there is an establishment period to this program, and in all likelihood farmers who participated in the three-year establishment program whereby they do not have to buy their farm until the end of the third year may well decide at the end of that time that they do not want to continue with the program; in which case, those other farmers who are on the waiting list will be moved up to fill that position. We are doing very well with the program, thank you very much.

1440

Mr. Villeneuve: I am very disappointed at the nonanswer. Three years down the road, if someone else does not fulfil the minister’s requirements he is going to maybe help them? That is a great commitment. In Ontario, farmers receive the lowest level of provincial assistance anywhere in this country. In 1985 the Liberals promised to help them through adverse financial times as long as it was necessary.

I have to assume that farming no longer needs my help. The minister has cut the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program back by 60 per cent; he has cut off Farm-Start. What are we going to tell agriculture regarding what the minister is doing for them?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We certainly do not need to be ashamed about what we, as a Liberal government, have done for the farmers of this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I just want you to hear what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture had to say:

“While many challenges remain, we believe the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the cabinet have effectively addressed some of the outstanding concerns of farmers. We want to take this opportunity to express the organization’s appreciation for this government’s significant contribution in areas such as: free trade agreement ...tax equity ...agricultural credit ...land stewardship ...farm safety.”

It goes on and on, and they end up saying --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: They end up by saying: “These are only the highlights of a ministry and a government which has shown a willingness to tackle the tough problems. We welcome the results to date and we want to see that willingness continued.”

How does the member like that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: If I could have the attention of the members for a moment before I recognize the next member for a question, I would ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery, from the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia: the Minister of Lands and Forests and chairman of the seniors secretariat, the Honourable Jack Maclsaac; the Minister of Community Services and Minister of Consumer Affairs, the Honourable Tom McInnis; and the member for the riding of Dartmouth North, Sandra Jolly.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Kormos: I have a question of the Solicitor General and it is with respect to the Colter inquiry, which is, we know, the Colter inquiry into the Niagara Regional Police Force, which commenced hearing evidence, finally, yesterday, November 14, notwithstanding that it had been called for a year ago, in November 1987, and that was after some significant pressure being applied.

The inquiry addresses not only local concerns but also more broadly reaching province-wide issues, and its findings will undoubtedly have impact on policing and police forces across the province. The Niagara Regional Board of Police Commissioners is facing costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and this is a financial burden which the regional taxpayer cannot carry, simply cannot pay.

The question is, why will the government not commit itself to accepting its responsibility for payment of the region’s legal costs?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: On behalf of all the members in the House, first I would like to welcome the member from Welland-Thorold. He comes at an interesting time for his area, and we welcome him here.

The member will be glad to know that we do indeed consider the importance of the work of the commission as it relates to the Welland-Thorold area in the Niagara area in a general sense, and it was at the request of the police commission there that this inquiry was set into motion.

Indeed, the province will be bearing substantial costs, probably in the millions of dollars, with regard to looking into this matter, but accepts its responsibility to do that on behalf of the members of this area and trusts that there will be good results from it. The province is in no way shirking its responsibilities in this area. Rather, we will indeed provide a good and fair commission and hope that the results will provide a perception of fairer policing in the Niagara Peninsula.

Mr. Kormos: On October 20, 1988, the chairman, Denise Taylor, wrote to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) requesting this financial assistance. That letter did not receive a response. The chairman wrote again on November 10, 1988, similarly requesting assistance. There has been no response to date. Will the Solicitor General at least agree to sit down and meet with the chairman of the police commission with a view to discussing the matter of funding vis-à-vis the region’s costs?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am always willing to sit down and discuss the matter with anybody. However, the matter has been very fully discussed. I have discussed it with the Premier. We recognize that in this area, as in other areas, there is a particular responsibility by the area and the police commission in that area to accept their share of the responsibility. Indeed, this was a Niagara region problem. We are assisting in it, as requested. We are accepting, on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario, a large burden of the costs in this.

However, the area directly involved obviously must assume some of the costs. This is reasonable and proper. We will continue to carry our share but consider that the area of Niagara, which is where this problem has arisen and which is where the benefits will be felt, must accept some of the responsibility also.

GARBAGE PAIL KIDS STICKERS

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This is not a new issue for him. He has been contacted by a number of concerned parents with respect to something called Garbage Pail Kids stickers. Many parents, of course, are concerned. They depict horror and cruelty, and parents consider them to be psychologically harmful to the children. I wonder if the minister could advise us what action he has taken to address the concerns of many parents across this province.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: In response to the honourable member, he is correct that there have been a number of letters I have received. Certainly a lot of parents are concerned about these stickers. I am advised that my officials, as I remember, looked into this matter and there is no appropriate action one can take as a consumer minister. There is certainly a concern on the part of a number of parents, as I pointed out, but while they are concerned, it appears they would have to take action to ensure that their children not buy these stickers, which I gather are not very acceptable.

Mr. Runciman: Life is one dodge after another: cars, taxes and responsibilities. The minister is obviously trying to dodge responsibility here. He talks about being concerned, but his only response to parents has been to suggest that they write to gum manufacturers and hope they will change their policy with respect to these products. I am wondering if the minister can take some action to match his rhetoric in this respect.

He said he has talked to his officials. Why has he not asked them about the possibility of initiating restrictive legislation in this respect? At the very least, rather than fobbing this off to concerned parents, why is he, as a minister of the crown, not sitting down with these gum manufacturers to make sure that action is taken?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Certainly these have extraprovincial implications. I am sure the honourable member would know that. The honourable member acknowledges that we have written back to the parents indicating that action will have to be taken on their part. I guess there comes a point at which a judgement has to be made about whether a government can appropriately become involved in this issue and all others, or whether certainly we should ask corporations to show the kind of corporate responsibility that both the honourable member and I wish that they would show.

Certainly, I share my honourable friend’s concern. Through this exchange in the House today, I want to indicate, as well, the concern that I have.

1450

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Last week I received a letter from the Grenville-Carleton Conservation and Sportsmen’s Club. The letter alleges that the town of Merrickville has been dumping sewage into the Rideau River for a number of months. The club also claims that the towns of Smiths Falls and Kemptville are dumping raw sewage directly into the river.

Given the keen interest of the Ottawa-Carleton MPPs in the quality of our rivers, may I ask the minister whether his ministry is aware of these allegations. If so, what has been its response and its action?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to thank the member for bringing these concerns to my attention. He indicated to me today that he would be doing so.

Mr. Brandt: You mean he advised you in advance?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If only the opposition from the New Democratic Party and the Conservatives would do the same, the quality of answers would be enhanced and the answers shorter.

I have asked my ministry staff to look into these matters as a result of receiving this communication. I understand that the sewage treatment plants in Merrickville, Kemptville and Smiths Falls do occasionally have overflows to the Rideau River during heavy rainfall events. As we know, many municipalities in the province do. That is why we have a program to increase the capacity of those sewage treatment plants on an ongoing basis.

Merrickville is requesting assistance for a needs study on sewer rehabilitation. The members are aware of the LifeLines program. That is a program that will address that.

My ministry has imposed a development freeze on Kemptville until it upgrades its sewage treatment plant. The municipality has been notified that it is in violation of ministry effluent discharge criteria for the existing plant. The town, in fact, has identified a course of action to correct this.

Smiths Falls is planning to upgrade its sewage treatment plant and is in the process of separating some of its sewers in the old part of the town. As well, the town is conducting a needs study on its sewer system.

Mr. Daigeler: Given the seriousness of this matter, and I think all the members of this House are interested in the protection of our environment, I do hope that the ministry will aggressively continue to look at this matter and provide the necessary funding that will hopefully eliminate these overflows.

As a supplementary, I would like to ask the minister about the situation of the Rideau River in the Ottawa area generally. As he probably knows, there are several beaches that have been closed for many years. I would like to ask the minister how his ministry is working with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to solve these problems in which there is great interest in my area.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There are some encouraging signs in Ottawa-Carleton. Despite the protestations of at least one of the members down there, there are some encouraging signs of some activity that is taking place in Ottawa-Carleton to address this.

Until recently, my ministry has been encouraging the region to support and implement the recommendations of the Rideau River storm water management study which was completed in 1983. All new developments in the Rideau River system are required to provide storm water management facilities. That is a positive change because there are over 20 treatment facilities in the region.

In June 1988, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton set up a committee on beach pollution. The mission of the committee is to have the pollution eliminated from the beaches in a very short period of time. The ministry staff are acting as ongoing resource persons to the committee. The first committee meeting was held, in fact, just last month. The local staff will assist the committee in securing funding for studies and remedial projects.

The municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program, of course, will address preventing upstream municipal industrial pollution. In other words, we have the staff resources devoted to this, we have the financial resources devoted to this and we have the will to undertake these.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: I have a question to the Minister of Health. In the Liberal budget squeeze on the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, the minister has forced the closure of the laboratory outpatient services. Those services must now be sought at private clinics that will charge their services to the Ontario health insurance plan. This transfer of services is merely cosmetic, to reduce the Cambridge Memorial Hospital budget. However, it is a move that promises no savings to the taxpayer or the government and constitutes a reduction of the level of service. Will the minister reject the proposal to cut the laboratory outpatient services included in the Cambridge Memorial Hospital recovery plan and will the minister direct the board of Cambridge Memorial Hospital to immediately reinstate these services?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to acknowledge a letter I have received from the member opposite and his acknowledgement as well that in fact there are a number of hospitals across the province that the ministry has been working with, to help them achieve a recovery plan so that they can manage within the resources available to them. We acknowledge that it is extremely important that we all work together, that hospitals not work and plan or start programs independently of government and that in fact we be as fiscally responsible as we possibly can in delivering these services which are so important to our communities. I want to tell him that the Cambridge board has been working cooperatively with the Ontario Hospital Association and the ministry to develop a recovery plan that will ensure that essential services are maintained in that community.

Mr. Farnan: The Cambridge hospital submitted the recovery plan in mid-August and the minister has yet to give it an answer whether or not that plan is acceptable. The people of Cambridge have not been told what is in the recovery plan. Both the minister and her ministry are keeping the people of Cambridge in ignorance and making cuts in our community without informing the community.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Farnan: I have received numerous calls and letters, from patients and doctors, that detail the disruption of care and the reduction of service caused as a result of these cuts. I have organized a public hearing in Cambridge on December 12, 1988, to allow the citizens of Cambridge and the medical professionals to express their views on the forced closure of the laboratory and cuts in patient services. I am inviting the minister as well as the opposition critics.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Farnan: Will the minister today give an assurance to the people of Cambridge that she or the Deputy Minister of Health will accept my invitation and take advantage of the opportunity to hear at first hand the reaction of the Cambridge community to this reduction in service?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important for the member to agree with me that in fact delivery of health services in this province is not a partisan issue, that in fact every region of this province --

Mr. Farnan: Tell the people of Cambridge whether or not you are going to the meeting. You have not answered my question. Why don’t you answer about the plan? Is it acceptable?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Cambridge take his seat? I would remind the member for Cambridge of standing order 24(b): no member shall interrupt another member. Minister.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important for the member opposite to acknowledge that in fact the budget of the Cambridge hospital has increased every year, that we are working co-operatively with the hospital, with the assistance of the Ontario Hospital Association.

1500

Mr. Farnan: The Liberals are taking services away from Cambridge.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member is not interested in a response. New question, the member for Simcoe West.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr. McCague: To the Minister of Health: On August 31 of last year, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised to extend the assistive devices program to include those requiring hearing aids, by the end of this year. Would the minister, given that there are only six weeks left, tell us when she is going to fulfil this election promise?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, I am proud to say that our government has expanded the assistive devices program to cover a number of assistive devices for residents in this province. In fact, the program is experiencing some growing pains. I have been meeting with the Assistive Devices Advisory Committee and am hopeful that we will be able to continue to make the kind of progress in the future that we have in the past three years.

Mr. McCague: Pardon?

That is of little consolation to the people who, because the Premier made a promise to have the program in place by the end of 1988, are waiting to purchase their hearing aids until the program is introduced. Would the minister, given that I have given her a direct question and a direct supplementary, tell us when she is going to extend this program to include hearing aids.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am very aware of this particular issue. I know there are a number of people who have been giving information. Anyone who is specifically interested in the plans and proposals should communicate directly with the ministry.

As I have said, the program is experiencing some growing pains because of our desire to expand this. I have been advised by the advisory committee that what we should be doing is making sure that, as we implement this, we perhaps go a little slower and do it right, rather than go a little faster and do it wrong. We want to make sure that people have the assistive devices that they need in a timely manner. We also want to make sure that we implement this program in such a way that we are not only responding to the quality assurance needs, but also to the needs of the ministry and of the government to ensure that we do so in a fiscally responsible manner.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Treasurer and it is a question which I have asked in this House before. It deals with the continuing decline in the world oil price and it appears to be mainly caused by overproduction by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. This decline has been going on now for some time. It is not new, and yet the consumers at the pumps do not seem to see any reflection of this decline.

My question to the minister is: Can his ministry alone, or with his federal counterparts, try to determine whether this continuing can be reflected at the pumps for the basis and benefit of the consumers of this province?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I thank the honourable member for giving notice of the question, and I want to tell him and the members of the House that year over year, the decline in crude prices has been about 15.5 per cent. The honourable members may examine for themselves what the decline, if any, has been in the price, where they buy their gasoline regularly. At Earl’s Shell Service the price this morning was about 43 cents a litre. It does not quite reflect, on behalf of Shell Canada oil company in this instance, a 15 per cent decline from a year ago, but it appears that competition works in the market here.

Mr. Owen: I know that the Treasurer has proven time and again that he is one who respects learning from lessons of the past. In the late 1970s, we saw that the oil prices started to skyrocket, and we then found out that we were wanting to try to encourage and support the oil producers of this country. Up until that time, we were trying to take the best deal for the benefit of the consumers.

What I want to do is to get some assurance from the Treasurer that we will endeavour to try to benefit from the past and, as the prices are going down, that we will not forget the western producers of this country.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Actually, the former government had something called the national energy program, which was designed to protect the producers and the consumers. If we had a national energy policy, there might have been some additional stability, both in the price at the wellhead and here.

The thing that has distorted these prices more than anything else is that at the same time as this government was leaving the hated ad valorem tax, the government of Canada, since the Conservatives were elected to Ottawa, has increased the federal sales tax by more than 400 per cent. This naturally has an effect on the price of gasoline right across Canada, but particularly here in this consuming province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I would remind the members that there are other members who would like to ask questions.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

Mr. Allen: I want to return with the Minister of Community and Social Services to the case of Sharleen Girouard of Ottawa, whom he will recall was cut off from family benefits, lost her drug card, and now she and her husband face drug costs almost to the extent of their monthly income. He will know that the Social Assistance Review Board has now given a decision in that case and they have refused to reinstate either the benefits or the drug card.

The Girouards are trying to survive on one meal a day. The doctor says that Sharleen’s health is significantly deteriorating. They are piling up debt at the rate of more than $200 a month. Emergency welfare runs out at the end of this month and the alternative of assistive devices still leaves them with 25 per cent costs, which still puts them more than $200 in debt over a month’s costs.

Will the minister consider in this case resorting to an order in council under section 28 of the act in order to provide the Girouards with their physical and medical needs so that Sharleen may begin to get a handle on her health and her life once more?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would remind the honourable member that at the present time there is a supplementary benefit being provided for this family from the local municipal welfare service. To the best of my knowledge, that is paying all but $200 of their costs. It was deemed by the local municipality that the $200 would fit in with their income program.

I am not aware of the fact -- but I will certainly double check it -- that the supplementary benefit is going to end. My best information at this point in time is that it will continue as long as the Girouard family needs it.

Mr. Allen: The recognized facts of the matter, both in Ottawa and elsewhere, appear to be that they are in fact piling up more than $200 a month in debt on the basis of an income of $1,028 per month against drug costs of $900 and a benefit of $600, which leaves them in that deficit situation.

The minister has it within his power to act in this situation by order in council. They are at the extent of the benefits possible to them. Is the minister, in his silence and his refusal to act on this, saying to the Girouards -- because these are the only two recourses they have -- that either they break up their marriage, in which case she goes back on the benefits and gets the drug card; or on the other hand Mr. Girouard goes off his income, goes on to family benefits himself, in which case their benefits plus the drug costs would meet their needs? Which of those courses is the minister recommending?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would point out to the honourable member that even if an order in council was requested, the limit of funding through an order in council would not be greater than the amount of funding that is now being provided through the supplementary benefits program of the local municipality, because the same income restrictions and limitations would be taken into consideration. The only time an order in council is permitted is if there is no other source of income, and in this particular case there is an ongoing other source of income.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have finished with that question and response.

1510

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development -- the fast-moving Minister of Skills Development, I might add.

The major findings in a report put forth by the office of the Minister of Skills Development in June stated that in a total of 159 occupations, employers are finding it difficult to recruit the skilled workers they require, especially in the construction trades. In May of this year, the minister held a joint conference with the Ministry of Housing, called Future Building ‘88, to encourage Ontario’s bright and hopeful young builders of a prosperous future. What specifically has happened since this conference to promote apprenticeship programs in the construction industry and how many programs has the minister targeted for the building trades?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the member knows, we in the government work very collectively in trying to address the problems of the shortage of skilled labour in this province. We collectively worked with the Ministry of Housing in bringing about the Future Building conference, which was a tremendous success in bringing women, especially, into the construction industry.

What have we done so far? While we are trying collectively with our apprenticeship program and our skills training program, we have again found that the federal government, which should work co-operatively with us, has cut back on some of our funds and we, of course, fill that gap.

To develop a training culture, I need the support of my good colleague here, the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), and I need the support of the opposition party to have everyone trained so we can address the shortages in the construction industry.

PETITIONS

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Ms. Poole: I would like to table a petition with the House, which has been signed by a number of Ontario residents, concerning the Church of Scientology and freedom of religion. Pursuant to the standing orders, I have affixed my signature to the petition.

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliaments of Canada and Ontario as follows:

“We, the parents and taxpayers in the community of Harriston, Ontario, and the surrounding area, would like to see the Lord’s Prayer and scriptural readings reinstated as part of our education system.”

This is signed by 288 concerned citizens from Harriston and area. I have signed this petition and support it.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Villeneuve: I also have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

“We believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, be entitled to equal care and services according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“We urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable, with regard to funding and regulation and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.

“We support Mary Snelgrove, Ena Symons and the Ontario Nursing Home Association, in their legal challenge and their efforts to gain fair and equal treatment for nursing home residents.”

This is signed by 25 concerned citizens in Glengarry county, in the villages of Alexandria, Dalkeith, Glen Robertson and North Lancaster. I agree with this petition.

Mr. Speaker: Did you sign it?

Mr. Villeneuve: It is not signed by myself.

Mr. Speaker: You should sign it.

Mr. Villeneuve: I will sign it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL BOARD PAYMENTS ADJUSTMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved first reading of Bill 186, An Act to provide for the Allocation of Certain Payments or Grants in Lieu of Taxes made by Canada to Municipalities in respect of Lands that are Exempt from Taxation.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The bill provides for the allocation of moneys received from Canada, in the form of a payment or grant in lieu of taxes for school purposes by prescribed municipalities where a Canadian Forces base is located, to the school boards that have jurisdiction in those prescribed municipalities.

Pupils who live on a Canadian Forces base in a prescribed municipality will be entitled to attend a school operated by a school board that has jurisdiction in the municipality where the base is located, without the parent or guardian or the Department of National Defence being required to pay a tuition fee.

The bill is effective from January 1, 1988, so that payments made by Canada in 1988 can be allocated for school board purposes for this year. Payments that were made in 1986 and 1987 are to be adjusted in 1988 between the municipalities and the government of Canada.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 66, An Act respecting Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I rise to introduce for second reading the Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations Act. This new legislation will streamline and update existing legislation affecting Ontario’s agricultural societies, our horticultural societies and provincially based agricultural associations.

The proposed legislation would combine and replace three existing acts. These are the Agricultural Societies Act, the Horticultural Societies Act and the Agricultural Associations Act. It seems particularly appropriate to update this legislation during my ministry’s centennial year, since many of these rural organizations predate the establishment of a provincial Department of Agriculture.

For example, the first agricultural society was established at Niagara-on-the-Lake in 1791 and a Toronto agricultural society followed in 1806. There are now 235 such organizations in Ontario responsible for organizing annual fairs and exhibitions throughout the province. Local horticultural societies were established later in the 1800s, with the provincial organizations formed in 1906.

Almost every community in this province has a horticultural society. There are now 260 such organizations encouraging an interest in gardening and in beautification of urban areas. One of the earliest province-wide agricultural associations was the Fruit Growers’ Association of Upper Canada, established in 1859. There are now more than 40 such associations, ranging from the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association to the Federated Women’s Institutes of Ontario.

1520

Except for minor amendments, the legislation incorporating these organizations is much the same as it was when passed during the first decade of this century. The legislation before the House will remove outdated, redundant and restricted sections of the existing acts. It will designate corporate status for the affected organizations, define more clearly objectives for agricultural societies and allow for financial assistance programs to be maintained through the regulations.

It goes almost without saying that the more than 500 organizations incorporated under this legislation contribute a great deal to the quality of life in both our rural and urban communities and play a key role in promoting agriculture in our province.

These changes have been made in full consultation with many individual organizations and with the Ontario Association of Agricultural Societies and the Ontario Horticultural Association.

I am sure the honourable members will agree that this legislation meets the present and future needs of Ontario’s agricultural and horticultural societies and our provincial agricultural associations. I ask that this House approve second reading of the Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations Act.

Mr. Wildman: I rise in support of Bill 66, An Act respecting Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations.

The Deputy Speaker: Order please. Are you asking questions and making statements on the minister’s statement?

Mr. Wildman: Yes. I will be speaking later, but I also want to specifically ask a question. The minister indicated that this act was prepared with full consultation with the organizations affected. I just want to point out to him that when I received this bill way back when, after it was introduced for first reading, I contacted the horticultural organizations and the fair organizations in my constituency and that was the first they had heard about it.

That may have been the fault of their provincial organizations -- I am not sure -- but it certainly was not the case that the local organizations were made aware of what the ministry was proposing. In most cases, they had no objections to the streamlining of their constitutions and the way they operate, but I would like to find out exactly what kind of consultation took place and with whom the minister consulted.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: My staff had consultations with all three organizations under the former acts, and they all agreed quite unanimously that all be incorporated under the one act for administration purposes and for every other there was quite extensive consultation with the various organizations. If we happened to miss an organization in the honourable member’s riding, I regret that very much, but there was, as I say, quite extensive consultation.

Mr. Wildman: I apologize for the quality of my voice. I will have to speak in more dulcet tones than normal.

I do say that I am, as I indicated before, in support of the proposal. I listened with interest to the exchange between the minister and my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) during question period. I noted that the minister read rather selectively from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture brief, in that he quoted the congratulatory remarks of the federation executive about the government’s position on things like the free trade agreement, land stewardship, farm safety and so on. But the minister did not go on to point out that in the brief there are a number of areas the Ontario Federation of Agriculture found wanting in the government’s approach to agriculture in the province.

I must say that this bill is not one of them. The objections, though, that the federation had to the process around here, I think, could be described as frustration over the lack of progress in the passage of legislation related to the farm community, Bill 66 being one of them.

The Ontario federation has been attempting to get government action on a number of bills. The government, up until now, has seemed to take the position that these bills were not a priority, and that rather bills such as the workers’ compensation amendments, which are very important, were of greater priority; the government wanted to deal with those bills.

The problem with the example I use is that we believe the workers’ compensation bill to be a very high priority, one we are very concerned about, and we do not agree with most of the changes. I think we made it very clear to the government that the debate on those bills, particularly the workers’ compensation bill, or for that matter Sunday shopping changes, were going to take a long time. If the government’s position was that those bills had to be dealt with before all of the other bills on the order paper, including these agricultural bills, then it was going to be a long time before we would be able to deal with them.

I am glad that after our discussions -- the OFA with the cabinet and the OFA with the two opposition parties -- the government House leader and the two opposition House leaders were able to reach an agreement where we would be able to put aside those other very controversial and very important pieces of legislation to deal with these bills, which are important to the agricultural community.

Some of the legislation we will be dealing with this afternoon is less controversial than some of the other legislation. I would certainly agree that this is not one of the more controversial ones. I would say again, though, that when I contacted the agricultural societies and the horticultural organizations in my constituency, the horticultural organizations in particular were unaware of these changes. That may not be the fault of the minister or his ministry; it may, in fact, be a problem in communication within the horticultural organizations. That may be the case.

The agricultural societies, on the other hand, were aware that there were going to be changes, but they had not seen the legislation. I would like to raise, on second reading, some questions about part III of the bill, which deals with agricultural societies.

All of us in this House from rural Ontario will recognize that agricultural societies play one particular role in making nonfarm people aware of life on the farm: the new technologies, new developments in agriculture, and the importance of rural community life for people who perhaps may come from the city.

In section 26 of the bill, it states:

“An agricultural society may be incorporated if,

“(a) the articles of incorporation are signed by at least 60 persons who reside within 40 kilometres of the place designated as the headquarters of a society; and

“(b) at least 20 of the incorporators are engaged in an agricultural occupation.”

I am not trying to be picayune here, but I do not quite understand what the minister means by “agricultural occupations.” Obviously, someone who is engaged in producing farm produce is involved in an agricultural occupation. But is someone who supplies equipment, or seed or fertilizer, for instance, to the farm community involved in an agricultural occupation? In other words, how is this defined? What does it mean? Perhaps it does not really matter.

To be honest, some of the boards of the agricultural societies in my area have people on them who a layman might suggest are not very closely involved with agriculture, although they are interested in agriculture; teachers, for instance. I do not know whether, if one teaches in an agricultural community, that is an agricultural occupation, but I would like to have that defined.

1530

I am concerned about section 27 as well, which states:

“If the headquarters of a proposed agricultural society is within 40 kilometres of the headquarters of an existing society, the minister shall notify the existing society and if it objects to the proposed society, the minister may refuse to incorporate the proposed society.”

This is perhaps a little bit touchy. Without going into details, I will suggest that in my area there have been a couple of very well established agricultural societies, both of which have in recent years celebrated their centenaries, and there is also a new agricultural society, which is very active; it was formed about 10 years ago and is within 20 or 25 kilometres of the headquarters of one of the other two.

One of the societies has experienced some difficulties in recent years in attracting participants, exhibitors and also people who come to see the exhibits. It might be suggested that may be the result of the formation of the new and very active society not too distant in a community which I will admit is not a main agricultural centre.

I will say as well, though, that the three agricultural societies in my constituency are quite unique in each of their own ways. The Iron Bridge Agricultural Society has a fair every year. It is quite a small fair, but there is a very active group of people who put on the fair every year. It mainly has exhibits that relate to the farm household, as opposed to livestock, and also to farm crops.

The Central Algoma Agricultural Society puts on a fair every year that has a wide range of activities and exhibits, from household exhibits and baking to crops and livestock, both dairy and beef cattle, sheep and goats. As well, they also have a very extensive horse show,

The North Shore Agricultural Society, headquartered in my own municipality, has been very active and very successful and has been attempting to attract a lot of people from the city to come to see farm exhibits of all sorts. They have also been very active in attracting exhibitors from southern Ontario, whether they be government agencies such as the Ontario Science Centre, the museum of technology from Ottawa and so on. They have been very successful and very helpful to the farm community in advertising the way of life and the importance of new technology and new developments in agriculture.

One of the sections of the bill talks about grants to the agricultural societies and says the minister can make regulations related to grants. One of the main problems the agricultural societies have been experiencing in my area has been the difficulty of attracting good judges from southern Ontario. Since we are in the north and it is a long distance to travel, we have difficulty attracting experienced people, whether they be livestock judges or otherwise, who are different ones each year and have a different perspective.

I would like to know what the minister has in mind, if anything, to help the societies, particularly in eastern and northern Ontario, to attract judges and to help pay their expenses and our honorarium to improve the quality of judging and the variety of performers. I would also be interested in knowing what assistance might be made available to help attract performers to these areas for the entertainment shows that are put on as well.

I will say, though, that the volunteers from the Echo Bay-Bar River-Laird area in the North Shore society or the Bruce Mines area, Thessalon and so on, for the central Algoma area and the Iron Bridge area for the Iron Bridge Agricultural Society deserve a great deal of credit.

Just as a matter of interest, in closing, I would like to refer to section 41 of the bill, where it suggests this under regulations:

“41. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

“(a) providing the terms and conditions upon which an agricultural society may hold races or trials of speed for horses and the amount of the prizes awarded therefor.”

That is of particular interest to me since a few years ago I attended the Central Algoma Exhibition. They put on a horse race and perhaps some of the riders were not too experienced. One of the horses got away and charged into the crowd and stepped on my foot. One of the reasons it stepped on my foot was that I was trying to protect a child who was beside me from the horse and I was paying more attention to the child than myself in getting out of the way of the horse.

I will not mention who was riding the horse. The fact that the individual was a well-known member of another political party I think is irrelevant to the fact that he charged into me. At any rate, they have not had any horse races at that fair since.

I would hope that whatever regulations are set out do not just deal with trying to control and ensure there is not, say, gambling taking place without the proper regulation but also ensure proper safety for the participants as well as the spectators, because we were lucky that nobody was injured, including myself, particularly; I just had a sore foot for a few days.

At any rate, we support the bill. We congratulate the volunteers who work in our agricultural and horticultural societies across the province and we congratulate the minister for finally getting this matter before the House for second reading.

M. Villeneuve : Il me fait plaisir de participer au débat sur le projet de loi 66, An Act respecting Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations.

I am going to comment a little also on our agricultural societies, the ones that sponsor the vast majority, if not all, of the agricultural fairs throughout rural Ontario that bring the city, the town and the country together. I think quite often agriculture gets a bit of a profile from having some of our city and village cousins visit our agricultural fairs.

The big problem, as I am sure the minister is aware, is liability. Liability has many, many agricultural societies very, very nervous. I think the minister must bear in mind the cost of liability coverage for injuries and damage that occurs. In particular, we could cite several instances where this has been of major concern and remains a major concern to agricultural societies and to their members, individually and collectively.

1540

In the riding that I very proudly represent, we have several very seasoned agricultural societies. I will mention the one in my home town of Maxville, the Ontario Chianina Association, which will be celebrating its centennial in 1989. Certainly another one in the immediate vicinity, one that has celebrated its 175th anniversary, is the Williamstown Fair at Williamstown, which I very proudly represented until the last election; after redistribution, my colleague from Cornwall, who is in the Legislature today, now represents the area.

Certainly we have a number of other agricultural societies, very high-profile, long-standing agricultural societies, in the ridings of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and Leeds-Grenville, and I think they are making very high-profile contributions towards smoothing out the process of having city and town understand what goes on down on the farm. It is a lot more sophisticated than it used to be.

In the act -- it is an housekeeping act, and certainly our party fully supports it -- I would like the minister to do whatever he can to assist our agricultural societies in the area of liability. I think we have to address that on an individual basis because I can recall several agricultural fairs that have been postponed, and indeed may never revive, because of the possibility of litigation and a situation where the cost to cover their liability requirements, they feel, is exorbitant.

I know the ministry in its wisdom has seen fit to cut back some of the funding to agricultural societies, and I think we should take a second look at the contributions of these agricultural societies, in sponsoring our farm fairs throughout the province of Ontario, towards harmonizing city, town and country.

Monsieur le Président, il me fait plaisir d’avoir participé brièvement au débat. Notre parti appuie le projet de loi 66 tel qu’il a été présenté par le ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (M. Riddell).

Le Vice-Président : Merci. Est-ce qu’il y a des députés qui ont des questions et des commentaires ?

Mr. McGuigan: I wish to commend the minister for bringing forth this amalgamation of bills. I just want to comment on one aspect. Some years ago -- as a matter of fact it was during the 1981 election -- there was a great controversy raging in my riding with one of the agricultural societies, namely, the society at Dresden, over jurisdiction, whether it should be the horsemen, who were very much involved because they hold races there, or whether it should be the farmers, the agricultural-horticultural people.

I was getting calls from both sides of the issue and decided during the election to go and attend their annual meeting, spend the day there and learn the issues involved. What had happened was the society had hired a so-called expert to run the races. This expert brought in a lot of modem facilities and proceeded to lose a lot of money. The society was very much concerned about whether it was going to go broke or not, following that course of action. Eventually the experts were let go and local people took over; today you have a flourishing horse aspect of the society run by local people.

But there was a good deal of questioning as to whether it was appropriate to have horse racing as part of an agricultural society. I noticed that question has been settled under part III, clause 28(f), where it says those things can be done when “conducting or promoting horse races when authorized to do so by a bylaw of the society.”

That is one area where this act has come up to date. I simply mention it because it was a matter of great controversy in my riding in the town of Dresden. Dresden is no longer part of the riding today, but I certainly remember that episode and I wish to commend the minister for taking care of that oversight within the old act.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I want to thank all the honourable members for their remarks and their support of this bill.

Going back to the remarks of the opposition Agriculture and Food critic, I want to emphasize once again that there was considerable consultation with the Ontario Horticultural Association and the Ontario Association of Agricultural Societies, more or less the parent organizations of all the local associations and societies throughout the province.

The member was a little critical about the delay in getting these bills through the House. I guess there were a number of reasons for this, and I guess maybe the opposition members have to assume some of the responsibility for the delays. It seems to me that at the time I introduced these bills, they were prolonging the activities of the House by participating in rather prolonged debates on the retail store hours, holding up work that I felt should be done in the House. But we could not get at it because of the various tactics used by the opposition members to prolong debates on such matters as the retail store hours.

The very fact that we are doing five agricultural bills today and tomorrow I think speaks of this government’s commitment to the agricultural industry. I do not know of any other minister who has had a chance to deal with five of his bills hand-running, as I am able to do today and tomorrow.

As far as the government’s commitment to agriculture is concerned, I think maybe the honourable member was getting a little off track when he was talking about this government’s commitment to agriculture. But I just want to say that the agricultural budget since I became minister has increased by 73 per cent, and if you talk about the direct transfers to farmers, we have increased the budget by about 100 per cent. We certainly do not take a back seat to any former government from the standpoint of our commitment to agriculture and the food industry.

Some of the other comments that were made had to do with section 26 and how we arrive at an agricultural occupation under subsection 26(b), “at least 20 of the incorporators are engaged in an agricultural occupation.”

Anybody who makes his livelihood out of agriculture, such as seed dealers and florists, is included. As a teacher in secondary school teaching agriculture, I was pretty active in agricultural societies within my own riding. As I say, anyone who makes his livelihood out of a profession that has anything to do with agriculture would certainly be considered as one of the incorporators engaged in an agricultural occupation.

Some reference was made to the 40 kilometres: “If the headquarters of a proposed agricultural society is within 40 kilometres of the headquarters of an existing society, the minister shall notify the existing society and if it objects to the proposed society, the minister may refuse to incorporate the proposed society.”

This just encourages the various groups that wish to organize to at least get together and talk about it. If they see that their objectives are the same, if they see that they are reaching out to the same people, striving for the same goals, then maybe one organization rather than two would probably end up doing a far better job and providing a far better service to the community. As far as I am concerned, we have never turned down an application for a society. I think I am speaking on behalf of my staff, who say that, in their memory, they have never known this ministry or its minister of the day to turn down an application.

1550

There were also comments from the official opposition critic regarding grants. I would say that our grants continue as they did in the past. There has been no reduction in grants, from the standpoint of this government, but as in many other cases, what we are seeing is the federal government pulling away its commitment to the agriculture and food community in many areas. We certainly do not intend to do that. We will be continuing with the commitment we have made to the agricultural organizations.

I will say to the opposition critic that grants are payable for two thirds of the expenses of judges. So if it is a case of pulling in a judge from southern Ontario to judge in northern Ontario, two thirds of his expenses will be paid.

As far as paying for performers to go up there is concerned, I think northern Ontario has just as good performers as they have in southern Ontario and I do not think northern Ontario needs performers to come up from southern Ontario to put on a show. They have all kinds of talent in the north, as they have in the east, and they certainly do not need to rely on southern Ontario people to provide the kind of entertainment they have at some of these fairs and events.

The critic for the Conservative Party asked about liability insurance. We did go through a time when it was difficult to get insurance, and in some cases it meant we could no longer have horses at plowing matches and things like this. The member will know that the Ontario government stepped in and helped to establish the Ontario liability insurance association. It is a pool the agricultural societies can rely on. I would say about two thirds of agricultural fair policies were covered by the Ontario liability insurance association pool last year.

Some of these societies have accepted coverage from individual insurance companies this year. It is my understanding that insurance companies are now more or less clamouring to get the business with these agricultural societies, because it is a very competitive business, as the member well knows. I do not think any of the agricultural societies or organizations will have difficulty getting insurance to carry on their fairs this year. I understand that if societies are unable to find liability coverage on the open market again this year, they will be offered coverage through the liability pool at approximately the same cost as in 1986. We do not really see that as being a problem.

I have already commented on the honourable member’s remarks about cutting back funding to agricultural societies. We have not cut back funding to agricultural societies. As a matter of fact, it is stipulated in regulations now that $930,000 will be going out to agricultural societies and $275,000 will be going out to horticultural societies. That gives the member some idea of our commitment by way of funding these most important organizations. There is no question, and I agree with my honourable friends, they do provide an excellent service to rural Ontario and to our rural Ontario communities.

With those remarks, I want to again thank my critics and colleagues for their support of this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

GRAIN ELEVATOR STORAGE AMENDMENTACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Grain Elevator Storage Act.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am tabling the bill to amend the Grain Elevator Storage Act for second reading. The act provides for the licensing and regulation of grain elevators which store grain for owners.

Currently, the safety of the financial interests of the grain owners is ensured through the licensing and inspections of elevators conducted by inspectors who are appointed under the act. The elevator operators must maintain grain inventories which are at least equal to the commitment for storage which they make to the grain owners. The amendment will permit the elevator operator to market the grain he has in storage, provided the operator has posted an easily redeemable financial security with the chief inspector. These shortfall permits, as they are called, will give operators opportunities to take advantage of rapidly changing markets.

The inspector will also take samples of grain to confirm that the type and grade of grain in the elevator matches the grain described in the storage receipts and the weigh tickets.

In the proposed amendment, section 10a, the chief inspector could immediately suspend or refuse to renew a licence if he believed the interests of the owners of the stored product were at risk, pending a formal hearing as provided for in the act.

Currently, an operator must issue a storage receipt to an owner of farm produce within 30 days of the receipt of the first load of grain. This requirement is hard to satisfy because many producers harvest and deliver their crops over a period that is longer than 30 days. The amendment will extend the deadline for the issue of a storage receipt to 45 days.

Instead of issuing one licence for each branch of an elevator company, the chief inspector will be able to issue one licence to elevator operators with several branches.

The operators will only have to carry insurance on the product that is being stored for the grain owners. Subsection 19(4) would be amended to state that the insurance would only be on farm produce. The purpose of this amendment to the legislation is to improve the marketing of Ontario grain. This will be accomplished by authorizing grain elevator operators to market the stored product with the authority of the chief inspector.

Mr. Wildman: Again, I rise on behalf of my party in support of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Grain Elevator Storage Act. Basically, the bill allows for proper regulation, inspection and licensing of grain storage facilities and the marketing of grain. For these reasons, we are in support of the legislation. It is hardly controversial.

I am, however, interested in the suggestion in the bill that the inspector can enter premises for the purpose of taking samples. I wonder what provision there is if on some occasions there are objections to the inspector carrying out his duties. I may have missed it in the bill, but I would like to hear from the minister what provision there is to assist the inspector to carry out his duties and at the same time to allow for the proper protection of the facilities from what some people might consider overzealous carrying out of duties, if that might be a problem.

1600

I think the suggestion that a group of elevators, rather than each individual elevator, be allowed to be licensed is a good one and will make for greater efficiency.

Also, the provisions for the chief inspector to close down operations of an operator who is in default on commitments or not financially responsible is a way of protecting the interests of the owners of farm produce that is stored in the elevator. As the minister indicated, the chief inspector currently does not have that authority and this bill will provide him with that. Obviously, there have been unfortunate situations in the past where producers have been harmed because of financial problems the storage companies have encountered.

I would be interested if the minister could expand on the problems related to the issuance of storage receipts, as we are extending in this bill the deadline to 45 days from 30 days. Is there any particular reason that figure was chosen and is there evidence that that will be sufficient, as there is a difficulty now in meeting the obligation in a month?

Again, the insurance provisions are useful as protection for the producers and the amendment will clarify the insurance which is required under the legislation. As well, the marketing of grain with the financial security will allow for a more regular approach to the marketing of grain.

Again, we find this is a noncontroversial piece of legislation and we are in general support. I hope the minister can give us that clarification.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a few brief comments on Bill 139, the Grain Elevator Storage Amendment Act. Certainly, some upgrading and some additional protection was needed and I think this is a fairly straightforward bill.

The licensing and administrative amendments are proposed to increase the efficiency and update the Grain Elevator Storage Act. Also, the shortfall permits are intended to enhance the ability of the grain industry to take maximum advantage of the marketplace. Certainly, none of us could argue with that.

My concern is that we are at present completing a harvest in Ontario which has been reasonably good in the eastern section. However, the grain volume and yield in central and western Ontario in certain areas was certainly something less than what had been anticipated. The prices are considerably higher that they have been over the last five years and that is something to be thankful for.

However, I think this minister, along with a number of his colleagues in cabinet, must look at alternative uses for grain. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) often talks about some of the problems of automobile emissions and acid rain. I certainly know that using a methanol-ethanol combination would greatly reduce the gasoline emissions and would put us in an area that would be comparable to the California standards.

It is pretty easy for the Minister of the Environment in this province to complain. However, I believe we have to get our own house in order; and processing grain into alcohol, for use as a fuel octane additive, would greatly enhance the environment and provide a ready market for both the production of alcohol and for the by-product, a high-protein concentrate feed for livestock, for which there is very ready demand, not only here in Ontario, but also in Canada and in Europe.

Yes, we will be supporting Bill 139, the Grain Elevator Storage Amendment Act, but I respectfully ask the minister to seriously consider alternative uses for our Ontario-grown grain, to clean up our environment and provide us with a stronger market, which I am sure will be needed at this time next year.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there any comments or questions with respect to the member’s statement? If not, would the minister care to close out the debate with his reply?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Once again, I want to thank my opposition critics for their support of this legislation.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Well, it is rather important that we do get this piece of legislation passed, because the day is coming when the elevator operators will want to start to move some of the crop they have in storage.

The official opposition critic was asking what would happen if an elevator operator refused entry to one of the inspectors to check the grain inventories. The inspector can certainly get a warrant. It is the court’s decision to offer authority to enter and the court has to allow a warrant. So there would be no difficulty for an inspector to get in to check the grain inventories.

The member was wondering how we arrived at 45 days. We feel that in a period of 45 days the farmer would have had sufficient time, under normal circumstances, to get his crop harvested. That is why we extended it from 30 days to 45 days.

To comment on the remarks of the critic for the Conservative Party, I want him to know we are looking at alternative uses of grain. I agree with the member, if we have a surplus of a product grown on the farm that we cannot use for food purposes, but we could use for other purposes, I think we should be exploring those purposes.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: He is right. I do not disagree with the member. I just want him to know that we definitely will be considering alternative uses from here on in.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

1610

FARM PRODUCTS CONTAINERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 140, An Act to revise the Farm Products Containers Act.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I rise to table the Farm Products Containers Act for second reading. Since the previous legislation named only fruit, vegetable and honey producers, other producer associations have not been able to participate. Several associations, such as the Ontario Maple Syrup Producers’ Association and Flowers Canada, have approached the ministry to request changes to the act so they could raise funds for research and promotion.

Under the proposed amendments, the provisions of the act will be extended to any association representing producers of farm products. Producers will, of course, be consulted before any proposal for a funding scheme is implemented. The new act provides a mechanism for agricultural associations to generate revenue for their activities through a producer licence fee added to the sale price of product containers.

The associations will also have the authority to audit the container sellers as well as individual producers to ensure they are receiving the licence fees that should be accruing to them. Containers purchased outside Ontario will now also have a licence fee that will be collected by the associations. To ensure the compliance of the container sellers and producers, the fines that are levied under the act will be raised substantially from their present levels.

These proposed amendments to the Farm Products Containers Act comply with the policy of my ministry to encourage the self-sufficiency of industry associations.

Mr. Wildman: I again arise on behalf of the New Democratic Party in support of the bill to amend the Farm Products Containers Act. If I can keep my voice, I will put forward our views.

The Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association has indicated it is in support of the legislation. Obviously, they are hoping that with it they will be able to collect a producer levy and, in this way, have a major new funding mechanism for the association which they can use to continue their work on behalf of the producers and growers. Obviously, this is something the industry wishes. We have no problems with it at all; we are very much in favour of it.

Also, as the legislation broadens the possibility of farm products and associations, by regulation, coming under this kind of provision, it adds flexibility to other producer groups. For that reason, we would be in support as well.

I am interested particularly in the provisions with regard to the inspections and the audits. I noted that there is a difference between this piece of legislation and the previous one we just debated. As the minister indicated in his response to my query, Bill 139 provided for warrants if there were some problem on entry to obtain information, yet Bill 140 as presented does not. I refer specifically to section 6. It states under subsection 6(1):

“An inspector or auditor, as applicable, may enter and have access to any premises for the purpose of examining the records mentioned in subsection 4(1) or 5(1).”

Section 4(1) is: “The records of the associations that relate to the purchase or sale of containers may be audited by an inspector.”

Section 5(1) is: “The records of producers and sellers of containers that relate to the purchase or sale of containers may be audited by an auditor appointed by the association.” So it states that an auditor or an inspector may enter and have access.

It then further goes on in subsection 6(2) to state, “An inspector or auditor may remove the records in order to make copies but shall immediately return them.”

If you look at subsection 6(6), the bill states: “A copy of a record purporting to be certified by an inspector or auditor to be a copy made under subsection (2) is admissible in evidence in a judicial proceeding and has the same evidentiary value as the original document without proof of the signature of the inspector or auditor or of his or her being in fact the inspector or auditor.”

What this says is that an inspector or auditor can make copies, return the originals, and that that copy subsequently might be used and is admissible as evidence in court. However, subsection 6(3) states, “Subsection (1) is not authority to enter a private residence without the consent of the occupier.”

I have never claimed to be a lawyer or to have legal training --

Mr. McGuigan: Look at subsection 6(7) again.

Mr. Wildman: That is just what I want to come to. Before I look at subsection 6(7), let’s look at subsection 6(4). It says, “The authority under subsection (1) shall be exercised only at reasonable times.” That makes sense. But then subsection 6(7) says, “No person shall hinder or obstruct an inspector or auditor in the course of his or her duties or furnish the inspector or auditor with false information or refuse to furnish him or her with information.”

My reading of that group of subsections means that an inspector can have access to and can enter anything but private premises and can enter private premises only if he has the permission of the occupier. It seems to me that the minister is defeating his own purpose. If part of the duty of the inspector or auditor is not to enter private premises without consent of the occupier, then if someone refuses access, he or she is not, as far as I am concerned, violating subsection 6(7), because part of the inspector’s duty is to not enter without the permission of the occupier.

It seems to me that what the minister should do is to add the provision that if there is a problem, the inspector or the auditor should then be able to go to a justice of the peace and obtain a warrant if the justice of the peace believed that were warranted, and thus be able to gain access and obtain the information the legislation intends for him or her to be able to obtain.

Unless I can be convinced that this is not necessary, even though it was necessary in Bill 139, I will be moving an amendment to provide for that.

Mr. McGuigan: I think the act is quite full, in that under subsection 6(7) it says, “No person shall hinder or obstruct an inspector or auditor in the course of his or her duties or furnish the inspector or auditor with false information or refuse to furnish him or her with information.”

It strikes me that the word “refuse” brings in the possibility of fines of $5,000 for a first offence and $10,000 for a second offence. I do not know what the minister’s position on entering private homes would be, but I think we have a tradition in this country that it is only under very unusual circumstances that we violate the sanctity of a person’s home. I believe that is a long-standing tradition, although the minister may have other comments on that.

1620

Mr. Wildman: I certainly agree with my colleague the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) that it would have to be a very unusual circumstance, and I think the provision under the normal workings of the court and the law is that it is not easy to gain a warrant; that there has to be considerable evidence provided to the justice of the peace to persuade that individual to agree to give a warrant for an entry when entry is being refused onto private premises.

All of us recognize the sanctity of one’s private home and would not want to give inspectors, auditors or any official free access against the wishes of the owner. However, there may be situations, as was recognized under Bill 139, where it is not unreasonable for the inspector or auditor to wish to gain access in order to carry out his or her duties and that access may be refused. I think it is reasonable then to provide for the application for a warrant in order to gain access.

As I indicated to the minister already, unless it can be shown that it is not necessary, I will be moving an amendment to make it possible.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to comment briefly on Bill 140 amending the Farm Products Containers Act.

I have correspondence here from Michael Mazer, the assistant executive secretary to the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association. They are in full agreement with the amendments which will correct some inequities that have been occurring, particularly on imported products. Currently the producers are required to pay licence fees on container purchases from sellers within Ontario and not on purchases from out-of-province sellers. The bill will effectively require producers to submit licence fees on out-of-province purchases by paying them directly to the association rather than through the seller, as they do for in-province purchases.

I understand that this act is the major funding mechanism for the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association. I can appreciate why it is their hope that Bill 140, which would amend the Farm Products Containers Act, would indeed be passed rather quickly.

Reference is also made to the honey producers of Ontario, and I have recently had fairly extensive discussions with one of the major honey producers in my constituency. They are very concerned at the support they are receiving presently from Ontario. I was astounded to be made aware of the fact that, I think, all other provinces are providing considerably higher financial assistance to that particular industry.

Certainly it is not the time and place to be discussing this, but it is mentioned in section 1 that it applies to honey, fruit and vegetable producers. I would like to make the minister aware of the fact that there is considerable discussion out there with the honey producers of this province, and we will be making representation on their behalf for the ministry and the minister to have a look at the method of supporting that industry, which, although not extensive in Ontario, is very important, particularly to some of our small grain producers; the pollination process is most important. As the minister knows, with some of the chemicals being applied right now, they have gone through some very difficult times.

Our party will be supporting Bill 140, the Farm Products Containers Act, and I look forward to participating further in other debates, as I mentioned previously.

Mr. Wildman: I want to underline the comments of my friend from the united counties with regard to the economic situation facing the honey producers. I know that it may not be central to the principle of this bill, but we should use any chance we have to raise this problem.

Mr. McGuigan: I want to comment briefly on this bill, because I have had a long association with the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association. In fact, I was president in 1974 and took part in discussions working towards the forerunner of this bill. There are two comments I want to make.

When you set up a system of giving enabling legislation for any organization to raise funds, there always is a question of how to raise those funds fairly so that each part of the industry and each person in the industry is treated on an equitable basis. It has been found over the years that the container toll, as it is known, has been a very fair system because all of these products require about the same percentage of their total cost to be put into containers. You will find very little argument among producers as to the fairness of an apple producer versus a peach producer versus a honey producer. That has always been a matter of harmony.

The one thing that has caused a disharmony has been the odd producer of containers who refused to deduct the allocation and therefore had an edge in the market by selling his product a little more cheaply. Also, a few people would go to the United States to buy their containers and thereby avoid the levy on containers. Those areas are covered very well in these amendments.

We are very happy to see the producers of flowers, honey and so on included in this act. These organizations have always been very close to the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association, but now this affords them full membership in the group of people who use these moneys to further their industry. I commend the minister for bringing forward this act.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions on the statement by the member for Essex-Kent? Are there any other participants in the debate? Would the minister care to close the debate with his reply?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Once again, I want to thank my colleagues for their comments and their support of this bill. I think there was just one concern expressed that pertained to the bill -- not that there were not other concerns expressed -- and that was the right to enter private premises. I want to thank the critic for the official opposition for sending me a copy of the amendment he was prepared to propose if this goes to committee. I want to say to the member that the proposed amendment would permit individuals who are not peace officers, government inspectors or provincial offences officers to obtain warrants to search private premises. This would certainly set a precedent that would not be acceptable to the judicial system, and we should be careful before we infringe on individual rights.

Let me re-emphasize that in giving search powers we must be careful that we do not infringe the Charter of Rights. We also have a legal opinion from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that raises concerns where a nongovemment employee or a peace officer can get a warrant. I would ask my honourable friend to consider carefully the amendment he wants to propose if this goes to committee, because it could well infringe on individual rights under the Charter of Rights and would be setting, we think, a rather dangerous precedent.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

1630

House in committee of the whole.

FARM PRODUCTS CONTAINERS ACT

Consideration of Bill 140, An Act to revise the Farm Products Containers Act.

Mr. Chairman: Comments, questions? If so, to which sections, please?

Mr. Wildman: I have an amendment that I have provided to the table to subsection 6(3).

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that subsection 6(3) of the bill be amended by adding at the end “except under the authority of a warrant issued under section 142 of the Provincial Offences Act.”

Mr. Wildman: I listened carefully to the minister’s remarks about the opinion of the Attorney General and the concern he has for this as a precedent. I will just point out that in a sense this is not a precedent, in that we just last week debated Bill 175 on second reading and one of the provisions of that bill provided for inspectors to be able to apply for a warrant. I remind the minister that was a government bill.

I do not know what the opinion of the Attorney General was on that piece of legislation brought forward by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), but he obviously did not have the objections he has put forward in regard to this bill, because that bill sets out in great detail, much more detail than my amendment, how an inspector who is inspecting any organization that may be transferring water can, if he is denied access, apply for and obtain a warrant. Under that piece of legislation, I am certain the individual who might be applying for the warrant is a peace officer.

All I am saying is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, to use a good agricultural term. It seems to me that if we are going to allow for this kind of procedure in a bill that is designed to protect our water resources, there should not be any problem with also allowing it or using the same approach in a bill that is designed to protect farmers and their organizations.

For those reasons, I think this enhances rather than takes away from the effectiveness of the bill. I am surprised and a little concerned that the minister and the government have reacted the way they have, because in my view this is a friendly amendment. As I have indicated, our party is in support of the legislation. We just want to make it more effective.

Certainly, I am concerned about the Charter of Rights argument. Neither the Minister of Agriculture and Food nor I are trained in the law. As I have said on other occasions, I think my decision not to attend law school was one of the best I ever made. However, I ended up in this place. Perhaps it might have helped to have some legal training.

I think if we can do it in one bill, we can do it in another. I suspect this did not happen, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, you would assure me, that the Minister of Natural Resources would not introduce a bill without consulting the legal people in the Ministry of the Attorney General. I am sure he did consult them.

If he did consult them and they agreed with the legislation as it was printed and drafted, then it is beyond me why they would object to this amendment, which is basically designed to give these inspectors the same powers the Minister of Natural Resources wanted to give his inspectors. Then again, perhaps it is the case that the Minister of Natural Resources was in such a rush to introduce that so-called anti-free-trade legislation that he did not properly consult with the Ministry of the Attorney General and did not get proper legal advice.

I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food would not believe that of his colleague the member for Niagara Falls. I am sure everything the Minister of Natural Resources does is thought out and cleared ahead of time and is checked with all the appropriate authorities.

My question basically is, why would the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Attorney General agree to this kind of legislation in Bill 175, but object to it in Bill 140?

Mr. McCague: Maybe the minister could help me with a problem, as I see it, with this legislation. The question I would like to ask the minister is, would it not be that with the premises referred to here, in many cases the place where the records were kept, would also be the private residence? I am a little confused about the distinction between “an inspector...may” on the one hand, but on the other hand he cannot enter a private residence without the consent of the occupier. It seems to me that will require there be a warrant in order to enter the premises.

If I recall correctly, and the minister could answer this question for me, similar sections to section 6 are in other legislation, particularly in legislation we could interpret as being agricultural legislation. Maybe the minister could explain to me the two points I have raised.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: First, to respond to the official opposition critic, I simply want to reiterate the points I made before his amendment was proposed to the committee. I do not know whether my honourable friend appreciates the fact that the associations involved appoint their own auditors. I trust he is aware of that.

I also understand that the inspectors in Bill 175 are government inspectors, just as they are in our bill. I also understand, and here again I have to rely on the legal advice I am given, that inspectors are usually provincial offences officers. Just to reiterate, the proposed amendment would permit individuals who are not government inspectors or provincial offences officers to obtain warrants to search private premises. I do not think anyone would want that situation to prevail. This would set a precedent that would not be acceptable to the judicial system and we should be careful before we infringe upon individual rights.

1640

Therefore, I really think, and I hope my honourable friends will agree, that this proposed amendment should be rejected. I do not think for one minute the New Democratic Party would want us to do anything that was going to infringe on people’s rights under the Charter of Rights. I have to tell the honourable member that if we think any legislation we will be introducing into the House could be challenged in the constitutional courts, we pass it by the Attorney General to get a comment from the Attorney General. In this case, we got a legal opinion from the Attorney General. There are concerns raised where a nongovernment employee or a provincial offences officer can get a warrant.

To respond to the member for --

Mr. McCague: Simcoe West.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I know you are in around the Alliston area, George.

Mr. McCague: You were around the last while, too, looking for votes.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I do not know. I cannot say whether there are other pieces of legislation. I was hoping that my sidekicks there under the gallery would slip a note up to me as to whether they are aware that this is in any other legislation, but they have not sent it to me, so I have to get back to the member on that.

Mr. McCague: There was a note came to the minister, but it did not mention this point, I guess.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: If you keep talking long enough, it may come yet.

Mr. McCague: I am more particularly interested in the answer to the question of how the inspectors get into a private residence if that, in fact, is where the records are kept. I am not at this point supporting the amendment by the New Democratic Party, but I am trying to get an answer out of the minister as to what happens if the records are kept in the private residence. If you cannot get in without consent of the occupier, if the occupier says no, then I presume the only way you can get in is by warrant. I am trying to be helpful, not obstructionist, in the point I am raising with the minister.

Mr. Wildman: Just a comment before the minister replies to the member for Simcoe West. Again, I am trying to be helpful here, too. I am not trying to stop the purpose of the bill. I am trying to make it possible for an inspector to gain access if not just he, but a justice of the peace, believes that access denied is still warranted, and thus be able to obtain a warrant to enter.

What happens if the organization keeps its records in a private residence and for some reason that is denied? How do they get in then? I accept the minister’s criticisms with regard to the auditors since, as he points out, the auditors are appointed by the private organizations, but the inspectors are government inspectors. Certainly, they are not peace officers, but as I have indicated in other pieces of legislation, we have a precedent for government inspectors being able to obtain a warrant.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: First, let me say from my long experience in dealing with elevator operators and other business people that it is my experience that very few of those people keep their records in their private residence; they keep them in their place of business. But supposing they do keep them in a private residence, then government inspectors can get warrants to enter private residences, providing the government inspector is a provincial offences officer. An auditor cannot gain entry to a private residence.

Mr. McGuigan: I realize members opposite are trying to improve the act, but I suggest it really is not needed because in most cases we are dealing with relatively small amounts of money. This is a toll that is placed upon the wholesale price of the product. I think the figure is one per cent. It can vary, but I think the present figure is one per cent, so you are dealing with relatively small amounts of money.

As the minister says, a company that kept its records in private homes would probably be a smaller company and you would be dealing with relatively small amounts of money, and fines that ran from $5,000 to $10,000, it seems to me, would adequately cover the situation.

In the larger sense, when you compare it to, say, the Grain Elevator Storage Act, where you would be looking actually at a case of fraud where someone who had grain in storage sold that grain unknown to the owner of the grain, and pocketed the money, there you are certainly really getting into a criminal act. In those cases, more appropriate methods are necessary and greater powers are necessary.

I do not know in this case whether you would call it a fraud or not when a person withheld the toll. I think that would be a matter of judgement, but certainly I would not place it in the same category as someone who had taken a farmer’s crop, his whole year’s income, and sold that and pocketed the amount.

The old Gilbert and Sullivan operetta said, “Let the punishment fit the crime,” and I think perhaps members might bear that in mind.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to participate? If not, are we ready for the vote? 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 nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

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

1650

FARM IMPLEMENTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 78, An Act respecting the Sale of Farm Implements.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I rise to introduce for second reading the proposed Farm Implements Act.

Farming in this province continues to be a capital-intensive industry requiring considerable investment in farm machinery. Ontario farmers spend some $250 million annually for the purchase of farm implements and repair parts. The proposed act has been developed in response to long-standing requests made by farmers and the retail equipment sector to provide a formal process for the resolution of problems arising from the sale, service, warranty operation, maintenance and safety of farm implements and repair parts. It will replace the voluntary certification program, which was based on the farm machinery code. Support for this voluntary program, which was introduced in 1980, has diminished in recent years and no longer adequately ensures an acceptable level of program delivery.

The new act calls for a registration system for dealers and distributors, standardized sales contracts, establishment of minimum warranties and required availability of emergency repair parts. Also included in the act are provisions to return equipment that fails to perform to manufacturers’ specifications, a supervision of safety standards and provision for buyback agreements between distributors and dealers.

The proposed Farm Implements Act would be administered by a board consisting of members who are actively engaged in one of the following endeavours: farming, manufacturing, distributing, retailing or farm implement repairs in Ontario. The Ontario Farm Implements Board would be authorized to mediate disputes between farmers and the equipment industry. The board would also be empowered to adopt safety standards or minimum requirements that would be implemented when equipment is sold by dealers. These would include the requirement of safety and operating instruction and supporting documentation. The board would also develop, administer and operate safety programs relating to equipment.

I urge the members of the House to standardize the practices of Ontario’s retail and wholesale farm machinery sector and provide consumer protection for our farmers by approving second reading of the Farm Implements Act. Later today I plan to introduce some technical amendments and a substantive change to the bill as a result of further consultation with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers’ Association.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions on the statement by the Minister of Agriculture and Food? Are there any other participants in the debate?

Mr. Wildman: It might be helpful if the minister gave us some idea of what his substantive change is. I have received the copies of it, but is it included in the amendment he has already provided to us?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Yes.

Mr. Wildman: All right, fine.

The Acting Speaker: Now are there any other participants in the debate?

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate with a bit of déjà vu. This has been a long, ongoing process, one that has involved representatives of the Ontario Farm Machinery Board, one of whom we have in the gallery with us today, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture -- I guess he wears two hats -- the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers’ Association and farm groups.

This is a very important piece of legislation and one I have been an advocate of for some time, as the minister is aware. I want to congratulate the participants in the ministry, in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and in the farm machinery board and the dealers who have worked to try to come up with a consensus to deal with a very important set of problems that faces the farm community.

All of us realize that a piece of machinery never seems to break down except when it is most needed, whether you are talking about the harvest season or seeding. The problem many dealers and farmers have had in the past is that it is sometimes very difficult to obtain replacement parts or to have warranties properly fulfilled and to get these things done as quickly as possible so that the machinery is available to do the work required at the time and season. This matter is a particular problem in my part of the province, but it is a problem all over rural Ontario. I suppose it may be a somewhat greater problem in the areas of the north, where we do not have as many farmers or as many dealerships, but it can be a difficulty for all rural communities.

It is because of the particular problems of my constituents that I began studying this area of concern a number of years ago and first introduced a private member’s bill in the House patterned after legislation in western Canada. The Bill 78 we have before us today is also patterned after legislation in western Canada. My bill drew particularly from the legislation in Manitoba. This bill has incorporated some aspects of my bill but is also built upon the legislation in Alberta.

The consensus was not easily arrived at. As the minister said, the voluntary system has been somewhat discredited over the years. The board has worked hard to try to resolve disputes between farmers and dealers or farmers and manufacturing companies over the years, in some cases with success, in others with less success. It is perceived that there is a need for legislation that would set up a compulsory system which would require dealers, distributors and manufacturing firms to comply with certain regulations that would make it possible for the farm community to get the kind of service it requires.

Obviously, there are many times when disputes arise between a purchaser or a dealer and distributor, and there is a need to resolve those disputes in some way. This bill provides for the setting up of mediation and for a hearing. I wonder, though, if the provisions set out in the bill in some cases go far enough. For instance, in subsection 5(11) on page 5 of the bill it states, “The board may work with manufacturers to encourage standardization of the design and operation of controls of the farm implements manufactured for sale in Ontario.”

I know we have a tradition in the House of drafting legislation using the word “may.” There is also a tradition, I guess, of the opposition getting up in debate and saying: “Why do you say ‘may’? Why not say ‘shall’?” I ask this question in regard to this subsection.

1700

Further on in the bill it sets out the provisions of a sale agreement requiring that the date of delivery be stated to the purchaser; that the names and addresses of the purchaser, dealer and distributor be involved; that “the warranties provided under this act and any additional or extended warranties” be made clear.

It also sets out the requirement: “If the serial or model number of the implement is not available when the sale agreement is entered into, the dealer shall provide the information to the purchaser on or before the delivery of the farm implement to the purchaser.”

The sections that deal with warranties are of particular interest to me because they are very similar to certain sections of my private member’s bill. Obviously, the warranty should require that if the implement does not perform to the manufacturer’s specifications and do the work it is intended to do, there be ways of remedying the situation, particularly in the case of a tractor if it breaks down and does not operate as it is supposed to within the first 1,000 hours of operation. Also, the provision is for combines and less than 500 hours of operation, and in all other cases, one year.

It seems to me that it is necessary that we warrant farm machinery for these very reasonable periods of time. Surely a machine should be able to operate, whether it is a tractor or combine or some other implement, at least for one year. When one considers the kinds of warranties now being provided on automobiles -- and I will admit that farm machinery may go through a lot greater wear and tear than the average automobile -- the tremendous cost of farm machinery today and the kind of investment a farmer has to lay out in order to purchase a tractor or a combine warrants provision to ensure that if that machine breaks down or if that implement does not perform as it is supposed to, there is some redress for the purchaser.

Obviously, if you are going to set out these requirements for a number of hours, you have to have some way of checking and metering the hours. This bill provides for that.

Section 15 of the bill says, “On the sale of a new farm implement there is an implied warranty that a sufficient supply of repair parts for the farm implement will be available to the purchaser for a period of 10 years from the effective date.”

This is very similar to the legislation I have put forward. One of the problems we faced in the past, as farm machinery manufacturers have experienced difficulties because of the economic situation facing farmers, is that a number of them have ceased production, laid off their workers and discontinued their product line. That can be a very serious problem for the purchaser. Obviously, if the purchaser puts out $120,000 for a piece of machinery and then does not have any guarantee that there are going to be parts available, it can put the purchaser, the farmer, into a very serious situation, so it is important that we have this implied warranty.

Subsection 16(1) also says:

“On the sale of a new repair part there is an implied warranty that the repair part will be free from defects...for a period of 90 days from the date of purchase or, if purchased out of the season of use, 90 days from the date it is first used...”

Again, obviously, if you are going to provide repair parts under a warranty, the parts have to be warranteed; otherwise, it defeats the purpose of the warranty. I think it is important, too, to recognize that under this bill the distributor of the farm implement is liable to the purchaser to honour the warranties under the sections that I have quoted, and the dealer and the distributor of a new farm implement are jointly and severally liable to the purchaser to honour the warranty under section 15.

I think it is important to recognize that small farm implement dealers sometimes face situations as difficult in dealing with distributors and manufacturers as do the farmers. I think most dealers living and working in small farm communities understand the problems that face the farmer, want to serve their neighbours well and want to be able to ensure that they keep their business; and if they find themselves in a situation where they cannot get a repair part when it is required by their customer, or the parts have been discontinued, or the parts that are available are defective, then it makes it difficult for the dealer to continue to carry out his business in the way that he or she would want to be able to.

My bill dealt particularly with the situation of emergency repairs and the difficulties that farmers face in season if a machine that is necessary for that particular farm operation breaks down. That was my main concern when I introduced my legislation before the House.

I do take some pride in pointing out that the provisions of this bill look to me very similar to my bill. I would never accuse the minister of plagiarism, but I would say that I was told once --

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That is why we are working together.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, we are working together.

I was told once by a university professor that plagiarism was a great form of flattery, but flattery would get me nowhere.

Mr. Miller: Do you not get some satisfaction from being flattered?

Mr. Wildman: Exactly. I am saying I take some pride in this. I am very happy that this is done. What this bill does which is similar to my bill is to require that parts be available at a dealer’s place of business within three working days, 72 hours, of the day the order was placed, unless the parts cannot be made -- that is, it might be a part that rarely breaks and there is not a great demand for it, and so you could hardly expect a dealer to keep an inventory of that kind of part -- but unless the part cannot be made within that time because of conditions beyond the distributor’s control. However, if the parts are not available in the time prescribed in the act, then there are provisions to ensure that the farmer will be able to continue to do the operation in the time in which he requires it to be done. This is incumbent on the dealer and the distributor.

1710

“If...the dealer fails to properly place an order for emergency repair parts, the dealer shall be liable to supply the purchaser with a satisfactory substitute farm implement, within” the 72 hours, “at one half of the prescribed normal rental rate for that implement.” Further on, there are provisions for regulations to be set to determine what the normal rental rate would be and to have them updated.

“If the dealer is unable to provide a satisfactory substitute farm implement, the dealer shall be liable to reimburse the purchaser one half of the prescribed normal rental rate for a substitute farm implement rented from a third party.”

I agree with this provision. It is similar to what was in my bill. I will point out, though, that in my part of the province this is not going to help most farmers, because there are not many custom operators in my area. There are some, but there are not many who do rent their equipment or go out and do custom work on a regular basis, not as many as there might be in the cash crop areas of southern Ontario. I support this because it will be useful in those parts of the province. I just mention the proviso, though, that it may not be too helpful in some parts of the north.

Mr. Laughren: Right on. I’ve already had complaints.

Mr. Wildman: The farmer from Nickel Belt has had a lot of complaints about this.

Mr. Villeneuve: You should use a crusher.

Mr. Wildman: When you try to combine rock, it tends to break down the machine.

Mr. McCague: Rye on the rocks.

Mr. Wildman: Rye on the rocks.

I understand the minister has a number of amendments he wishes to put forward. I also have some as well. I am concerned particularly about the controversy that has erupted and I understand there have been recent meetings between the minister and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the dealers’ association dealing with these concerns, but I am still concerned about section 23, the buyback provisions.

I am concerned because it is difficult to deal with these matters. The way the bill is drafted, they are really going to be set out in the regulations. As I indicated earlier, there was a consensus arrived at among the various players in this matter and then it became a matter of concern that apparently that consensus had somehow broken down. There is concern that the so-called short-line distributor would be exempted. Then the question arises, how do you properly define a short-line distributor? Does the distributor himself define it? If that happens, the distributor will in fact be exempting himself from the provisions of the buyback, which is important, because this is the one section of the bill that assists the dealers in dealing with distributors.

There are a lot of obligations placed on the dealers as well as the distributors in other parts of the act. This buyback section deals with the problems of the dealers in dealing with distributors. It would be most unfortunate if under the regulations a large distributor were able to exempt himself from the provisions of the regulations by simply defining himself as a short-line distributor. What is a short-line distributor? Is it defined in the act or is it going to be defined in the regulations?

Because if we have a situation where a distributor terminates an agreement with a dealer and then moves down the road and makes a sales agreement with another dealer, what protection is there for the dealer who has had his agreement terminated? Surely, that dealer should have a provision where his inventory is purchased back by the distributor to try to ensure that the small operator, the small businessman in the rural community is protected, as well as the farmer.

I am sure farmers do not want to see their friends and neighbours whom they have been doing business with left in the lurch, and I do not have a lot of sympathy for large distributors that are able to say, “We’re not producing too many of these,” or, “We’re not going to be continuing to produce that particular implement,” or whatever. Or to say, for whatever reasons, they are dissatisfied with the relationship they have had with one dealer and to terminate and not have to make some redress to the dealer that has been terminated.

In this regard, I am also concerned about the suggestions about the dollar figure for exemption. I know the Ontario Federation of Agriculture would like to see $1,500 as the figure because, obviously, if someone has purchased a machine or a part that is worth $1,500, it should be under the legislation.

There has been some suggestion, however, that the exemption figure should be raised to $5,000, which is a significant investment. I understand there have been discussions today and that there may have been a compromise arrived at which might serve better than the $5,000. However, I would want to see what that compromise is. I would like to hear from the minister as to what is being proposed, because $5,000 is just not acceptable.

I know the minister has had correspondence with the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and with the dealers and has had meetings on this. I, frankly, have some problem with some of the comments that the minister has made in this regard. I have a copy of a letter that was addressed to Brigid Pyke, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, dated October 13, signed by the minister, in which he deals with these concerns. He says in that letter, and I quote, “A buyback requirement where there is not a need to maintain an inventory of either equipment or parts would create an onerous provision for one segment of the industry, short line distributors, and should not be implemented.”

Again, I ask: What is a short-line distributor? But the thing that I am most concerned about in this statement is the phrase, “Where there is not a need to maintain an inventory of either equipment or parts.” I would like the minister to explain that. Where is there not a need to maintain an inventory of either equipment or parts, particularly if you are looking at a maximum figure of $5,000? It seems to me that is not a reasonable statement. We need to have a definition of a short-line distributor and we need to have some rationale for an exemption limit of that high a figure.

I know also, that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the dealers have expressed some concern about the registration fees that have been proposed for the regulations. Initially, I understand, they were more in the neighbourhood of $25. Now what is being proposed is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 for dealers and $300 for distributors. I will admit this is not a major problem in terms of the legislation and the regulations, but if there was an agreement on a certain figure, why would it be changed without the proper consultation and reaching of a consensus?

1720

My main concern, though, is with regard to the buyback. I will be introducing amendments to try to deal with that unless the minister’s amendments can be shown to adequately respond to that concern.

I also want to make a couple of other comments about other sections of the bill which I think could use some clarification.

Before entering into a sale agreement, I think the dealer should have to ensure that the date of manufacture of the new implement is clearly marked or stamped on the farm implement in a conspicuous place, and the sale agreement should make clear the date of manufacture.

I would also like to ensure that in the sale of used equipment there is a provision, as with automobiles, that there has been a proper safety check, particularly when we are talking about things like tractors and combines, to ensure that the implement meets the safety requirements and performance standards which would make it acceptable for sale; and that this should be certified by a person with the qualifications to do that certification. If we do it for automobiles and trucks which are travelling on a public thoroughfare, I do not see why we should not be doing the same thing for a piece of equipment which is going to be used not just in a field or a farm yard but which will also on some occasions be travelling on public thoroughfares.

We all know the record of accidents on the farm, which is not a happy circumstance. I think other members of the House will agree with me that we should be doing all we can to ensure the safety of the farmer, the people who might be employed by the farmer on the farm and also farm families. Too many accidents on the farm do not just involve the farmer himself or his employees, but children.

If we can do anything to ensure a safer operation of a piece of machinery, then we should be doing it here. Why not do it when we are dealing with a bill which deals specifically with the sale of farm implements? If we can require, as part of the sale, a safety check and a certification of safety, I think it should be added to the bill.

With that, I will yield the floor and say in conclusion that this is a matter which has been of special interest to me and I know the minister shares that interest. I do not want to take undue credit, but if in any way the private member’s bills I have introduced in the past on this subject have assisted in the drafting of this legislation, then I am very happy to have played a role in finally bringing this matter before the House. I said at the time I introduced my private member’s legislation that if the government of the day did not wish to pass my legislation or allow it to pass into second reading and go into law, I would welcome a government bill that incorporated at least some of the provisions of my legislation.

I have never claimed a proprietary interest in this. As a matter of fact, I have made it quite clear that I patterned my bill after legislation that was already in existence in western Canada, and at the time I introduced it, I invited the government to review that legislation and see if it could be applied.

I appreciate the fact that the board has worked on this, in conjunction with the farm organizations and the dealers, and has surveyed the western legislation and come up with legislation for Ontario; legislation which, on the whole, is supportable and I think will go a long way to improve the availability of parts to ensure that farmers get the machinery, the implements they require, when they require them, and that they are working properly.

As I said, I would like to see some improvements with regard to the controversy over the buyback provisions and the exemptions for the protection of the dealers. I also would like to see some improvements with regard to the certification of safety of equipment at the time of sale and to ensure that the warranties are proper.

With that, I conclude by saying I congratulate the minister for bringing in the legislation. I am happy that we finally got it before the House and I look forward to further discussions in committee of the government’s amendments and the amendments that I will be putting forward, as well as amendments which I suspect my friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry may be providing.

Mr. Smith: I want to make a few comments along those same lines that the member for Algoma has mentioned.

I happen to have been a custom operator in farm equipment, so I agree with some of the things he is saying. It is very important that the farmer has a good relationship with the dealer. If you cannot depend on the dealer to back you up when you go for parts or you go to buy a new piece of equipment, then I guess you can say that your business as a customer operator breaks down and eventually the dealer will break down.

I had the experience about 21 years ago of having bought a piece of equipment and found out through my dealers that, really and truly, it was almost a pile of junk. It had fallen off a transport and I could never figure out why all of the bearings were going out of the machine, so this is what I say: We have to work with this bill and help the dealers so that the manufacturer does not take advantage of them and, in turn, the dealer may have to pass that along to the farmers. In my case, I happen to have been successful to some degree, but I never felt I was ever successful to the amount of money that I felt I had lost in buying that piece of equipment.

I was certainly pleased to hear that the minister has some substantial changes to this bill, because I have got a lot of letters from dealers in my riding of Lambton and they are concerned with this legislation. Maybe as we go through this debate, we will hear more comments from the minister that may help alleviate some of these problems.

Mr. McGuigan: I would just like to mention the comments about the warranty period. It says, “In the case of tractors, the lesser of one year or 1,000 hours of operation.”

I guess I am only speaking for southwestern Ontario where you have fairly large tracts of cash crop farming, but with the size of the equipment that we have today, I understand that most of those large tractors only put in about 300 hours a year because of, as I mentioned, the size of them and also we are going to minimum tillage, less tillage than we used to. If you take 1,000 hours of operation, that is really equivalent to about three years of normal field work.

Then you have to consider the case where the farmer uses that tractor as a power unit other than for field work. It might be powering irrigation equipment or grinding equipment or whatever, in which case he could run up to 1,000 hours a year.

1730

As the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) mentioned, if you related that to an automobile at 60 miles an hour, that would be 60,000 miles which may seem a fairly small number of miles for a heavy-duty tractor, but you must remember that when your car is going down the road, it is only really working while it is gaining speed. Once it gets up to speed, it is really cruising and the engine is really loping along, whereas a tractor, whatever it is doing, is pretty close to its rated power capacity. So 60,000 miles is not unreasonable, I think, for the amount of guarantee.

There is another thing the member mentioned, the three days for parts. I think today that is not an unreasonable figure. I think the criticism might be that it is too short a time, but when you consider that today most of the manufacturers are connected to dealers with --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Wildman: I thank my friends the member for Lambton (Mr. Smith) and the member for Essex-Kent for their comments. I agree completely with the remarks of the member for Lambton that there has to be a good relationship between the dealer and his customer, between the farmer and the dealer, if either of them is to benefit.

I would hope this legislation would enable the dealers to continue in business and to improve their relationship. I would hope that the changes we can bring in with regard to these concerns about buyback can be dealt with, as my friend the member for Lambton indicated.

With regard to my situation in northern Ontario, I agree very much with the comments of the member for Essex-Kent about the length of time for parts to arrive. Quite often, in northern Ontario, you are dealing with dealers who are not local. You are dealing with dealers who are in Barrie or southwestern Ontario and are shipping the parts to the farmer.

We have had situations in northern Ontario where they do not seem to be too careful about how they ship them. You get a situation where a part is supposed to be going to Sault Ste. Marie and it is shipped to Thunder Bay first and then south from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste. Marie. It just seems to me that if there were a time limit, a requirement that they had to supply the part by a certain length of time, they might be a little more careful.

It also might make it easier for local dealers to operate and to continue in business, because I think it is an important part of our rural community to be able to have local dealers. The comments regarding the length of operation of hours for a tractor I think are useful and helpful and I hope members will support those provisions of the bill.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is also a pleasure for me to participate in the debate on Bill 78. At the outset, I can advise this House that I was very fortunate to have been a member of the Ontario Farm Machinery Board for a number of years prior to my incarnation as a member of this venerable assembly. I am pleased to see a former colleague, who was referred to by the member for Algoma, sitting in the members’ gallery today.

Back in the early days of the farm machinery board, I think many rather thorny issues were resolved and resolved rather well, at limited expense to both the government of Ontario and to the farmers. We certainly had a great deal of co-operation from industry, from dealers and from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Of course, we were there to listen to concerns farmers were having, problems they were having with different items of equipment. By and large, the farm machinery board, without judicial and legal powers, did a remarkable job in making arrangements to try to make things right for all concerned.

Inevitably, Bill 78 had to come. This bill was being formulated back in the days when I was on the board and I think we go back to the early and mid-1980s; I guess 1983 was when I resigned from the board. I certainly think it was high time it be brought to this Legislature. I commend him and thank him for bringing it forth.

I think there are a number of concerns that we expressed here, as would normally be the case. I see where the minister has suggested a number of fairly minor amendments. We can certainly look at those and discuss them further.

I am concerned about a number of items, as my colleague the member for Algoma was. Subsection 3(4) says, “An agreement between a distributor and a dealer respecting the purchase and sale of a farm implement shall be in writing and shall contain such information as may be prescribed.” I just wonder, is there an opting out or is that a must and is that mandatory for everyone? We are led to believe there are ways a dealer and/or distributor may be in a position to opt out on that one. Certainly, I think we should be discussing that one fairly closely prior to enacting Bill 78.

The buyback provisions certainly will be controversial, and until such time as we go through a few experiences, I think probably the buyback provision will be difficult for everyone to understand. Is it universal coverage? Is there some opting out? For some time, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been strongly suggesting that a bill to protect farmers and agricultural producers be brought forth, because certainly equipment, outside of the farm itself, is one of the largest capital expenditures a farmer makes, and makes on an ongoing basis on a productive and progressive agricultural operation.

The Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers’ Association has also been very supportive. It was very supportive of the farm machinery board in its present incarnation. It is supportive, as I know it has advised the minister, on most of the items that have been brought forth here in Bill 78. Certain dealers still worry about the inventories, the requirements and indeed the method of enforcing some of the provisions that are within this bill. I think we should air those and discuss them thoroughly prior to enacting Bill 78, so that there are no surprises for dealers, distributors, manufacturers or farmers.

I have a letter of concern here from a short-line farm equipment manufacturer and I will read his concerns in part. “We have reviewed the draft and find it heavily weighted to the advantage of the dealer. There seems to be a campaign by the dealers to put all the blame and responsibility of sales on to the distributor of the equipment rather than assuming a share of the responsibility for the performance of the equipment.” This manufacturer refers to a section of the act, “On and after the 90th day after this Act comes into force, a distributor shall not sell a new farm implement to any person except a dealer registered under this Act.”

My question pertaining to this concern is, can a manufacturer indeed also be a distributor and/or a dealer or both? We have some short-line equipment manufacturers that are not large operations. They may even be family-sized operations where the building of farm wagons and this type of equipment would be what we are talking about. My question is, can the manufacturer of this equipment be distributor and dealer as well?

As we further discuss this bill, I will be bringing forth some of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s concerns, as I am sure they were expressed to the minister this morning. I cannot help but go back to a question I put in this Legislature earlier this afternoon when the minister selectively read from the OFA’s presentation. With the indulgence of the House, I want to suggest that my question referred to both the Ontario Farm-Start program and the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program.

1740

Certainly as the minister gets into the OFA presentation, all of the great things that he does so capably -- and he does it quite well; I must give him credit for that. But I wonder: Some of those people have been told they do not qualify under Farm-Start and may not qualify at all. It was a five-year program, and the OFA is very concerned. The minister did not read their concerns, as they have reported, in their brief to him and the opposition parties, “The OFFIRR Program.” I read right from their report: “The OFA requests that the government of Ontario continue to fund the OFFIRR program at 100 per cent of the indicated need.”

As the minister knows, he has cut it back by 60 per cent. He is going at only 40 per cent of what he did in a year prior to an election. That is not exactly what the OFA likes to hear. These are some of things the minister failed to read in his answer to some very --

Mr. McGuigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think the member is not addressing the bill. I would point that out and ask that he address the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Mr. Villeneuve: Thank you. I realize that my colleague who has just brought up a point of order would rather not hear these things. However, these are very much a fact of life and they affect the agricultural community very directly, as will Bill 78. Bill 78 certainly will afford some degree of additional protection, some degree of protection that is most welcomed by the agricultural community. I will be looking forward to participating in the clause-by-clause debate of this bill.

Mr. Smith: I want to comment again on Bill 78, and the comments the member from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry has made. I think we have to emphasize and re-emphasize how important it is to help the dealer, I suppose you could almost say, against the manufacturer. As I said earlier on in the debate, if the dealer had not helped me out against the manufacturer, I would never have found out all the reasons my piece of machinery did not happen to work the way it should. I think any way we can help the minister get the appropriate amendments into this act is what we are all striving for.

I have had well over 20 years’ experience of custom work, working on the farm with many different pieces of equipment. I can mention, for instance, a combine that costs in the neighbourhood of $170,000 today with four different heads on it; four different units. I think we have to have these provisions in this bill for buyback, as the word is used. I want to re-emphasize that we have to protect these dealers so that they, in turn, can help the farmers of our many communities in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other comments on the member’s statement? If not, would the member wish to respond?

Mr. Villeneuve: I also want to thank the member for Lambton. I too have been and still am involved in the business of farming. Yes, farm equipment breaks down at the most inopportune times. However, from my experience as a member of the Ontario Farm Machinery Board I want to tell the member for Lambton that dealers were the ones who were most helpful. They would provide the board with a lot of information that would not otherwise have been available.

They would also provide the board with their opinion as to how the equipment had been used by the farmers, and certainly not all farmers -- should I use the term -- baby their equipment. Sometimes, when farmers are out there working almost 24 hours a day, areas may be left unchecked or service left undone, waiting for a rainy day. The dealer, who happens to live close by and who provides a lot of the service and a lot of the parts to these farmers, probably knows best what goes on, the type of treatment the equipment is getting.

Certainly this bill is oriented towards the farmer. I have no qualms about that. It if were oriented towards protecting the dealer at the expense of the farmer, I would certainly not be supporting it, but I think it is a hand-in-glove situation where the farmer needs the dealer, and he needs him really desperately when the equipment is down.

Most dealers do have an excellent electronic computerized system to provide parts, certainly to the central core of Ontario, where distribution is fairly accessible -- close to the 401, close to an airport -- and certainly we in eastern Ontario have a lot of service from the city of Montreal, so I think dealers do play a very important part. But this bill is for farmers.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to comment or make a speech? If not, would the minister wish to respond?

Mrs. Marland: I’d like to make a speech.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am quite prepared to relinquish my seat if the honourable member wishes to make some comments. I would be interested in getting the urban slant on this whole thing.

I want to thank the honourable members for their general support of this bill. Sure, they have some concerns, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has some concerns, ORFEDA has some concerns and the short-line distributors have concerns; but I think if we give this bill a chance to work once it has passed into legislation, I think members will find that those concerns will diminish to almost nothing.

One of the major concerns that has been expressed by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers’ Association was the lack of a buyback provision in the bill, or of an adequate buyback provision, so I have made a commitment to amend the bill to require a distributor to buy back any unused farm equipment no matter which party terminates the agreement. At the appropriate time -- and it is when we go into committee -- I plan to introduce a motion that will cause this change. I understand that both the dealers’ association, ORFEDA, and the representatives for the manufacturers and distributors have agreed with the position that we have taken.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s claim --and I think it was alluded to by the official opposition critic, particularly as it relates to buyback -- that Bill 78 does not faithfully translate the agreement reached by industry, dealer, wholesale and farm groups is incorrect. In fact, when the bill is amended, the buyback section will be the same as the original section that was agreed to by the above groups on August 21, 1987.

That brings us to the concern that my official opposition critic had with exempting short-line distributors, and one of the things he asked was, “How do you define a short-line distributor?”

Well, there is no legal definition in the act or in practice for a short-line distributor, but it is a term that refers to small manufacturers, distributors, who do not have franchise arrangements and usually sell equipment that large manufacturers do not provide.

I will admit that both the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and ORFEDA have requested that the buyback provisions be extended to cover all dealer-distributor arrangements, including ones where a dealer is not required to maintain inventory.

I find it of interest that in a survey done by ORFEDA in June 1988, 24 of 34 jurisdictions had buyback legislation similar to that found in our Bill 78. In other words, a buyback would only be possible where there was a requirement to maintain inventory. I am unaware of any problems faced by dealers in these areas. Dealers have an easy solution to their concern. In any purchase and sale with a distributor, they only have to state on the invoice that the buyback provisions of the act apply. Then, by law, they would have the protection they need and yet retain some flexibility where they are only making one purchase.

1750

I believe the critic for the Conservative Party expressed the same concerns that I have about including short-line distributors under this buyback provision of the act. I also have a letter here from what we call a short-line distributor and I m going to read part of it.

“Operating as a small business, I and my family have to assign receivables, inventory, as well as personally guarantee our bank revolving lines of credit exactly the same way as a farmer has to. Short-line suppliers should not be confused with multinational main-liners. If our bank were to realize our receivables were subject to buybacks, just because a retailer has not sold it, my borrowing power could be reduced by as much as 30 to 40 per cent, which in turn would reflect reduced inventory in wholegoods and parts, as well as service. Short-line wholesale distributors have no muscle to make a retailer buy or stock wholegoods or parts; therefore, if our sales programs do not compel, why should we accept buybacks under the proposed legislation in Bill 78?

“For 20 years, we have traded and exchanged wholegoods for other wholegoods. If Bill 78 were accepted in its original context, tremendous pressures would be put on short-line wholesale distributors and, in my opinion, the agricultural industry would suffer.

“Aside from internal combustion engines, most new innovative ideas originate either with a farmer or in a small welding shop and these ideas are, in turn, marketed through a short-line distributor. Our small wholesale distributorships help to promote and finance products totalling millions of dollars each and every year to agricultural retailers and farmers.

“I cannot believe the Ontario Federation of Agriculture would wish to disturb this delicate balance. It is my belief this industry is too small to have an attitude of ‘us and them.’ There is no question that in years gone by there have been massive abuses in the agricultural industry. It is my belief Bill 78 was really not designed to envelop the short-liner and multinational supplier under the same legislation.”

I have a lot of concerns about including the short-liner under the provisions of the buyback agreement in this particular legislation.

I could go on and quote other examples of where some of these short-line distributors -- maybe using an extreme case -- could perhaps be put out of business if they were to be included under the buyback provision. I do not think anyone in this House wants to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food bring in legislation that may put out of business those very people we need, the ones who quite often come up with the ideas that very often are stolen by the large equipment manufacturers.

A lot of these good ideas start from the farmer himself or from some person out there in rural Ontario operating a little welding shop and he comes up with a better cultivator or a better snowblower or a better set of chain harrows than the larger manufacturers can come up with.

I made it abundantly plain this morning when I was talking to the OFA, the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers’ Association and the short-line distributors that this Minister of Agriculture and Food was not going to be introducing legislation which would have the tendency to put out of business the very people we need in the equipment business.

Some other minor points were mentioned. I do not know whether the official opposition considers $5,000 to be really a minor issue in this bill.

Mr. Wildman: I said the fees were minor.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Okay. Let’s deal with the $5,000. If I could buy a tractor today for the price I could buy it in the mid-1970s, I would go out of this House with the greatest smile on my face you have ever seen. We all have to admit that costs have risen dramatically since the time we first brought in the farm machinery code of practice and what not. I do not think $5,000 is out of the way, but I am going to say that we can adjust this by regulation. As I indicated this morning to the group, if I think $3,500 is a better figure I make it $3,500. We can change it. There is no problem in changing that because that is addressed through regulations.

The registration fees I consider to be a minor matter too. I do not think any retailer is going to kick up much of a fuss about having to pay a $200 registration fee. Our administration costs will likely exceed $200. We have come to the point where we have to start to recover some of our costs in some of these programs we have.

We have been doing lab tests for cats and dogs and pet lovers and what not; if the cat got a bit of a tickle in its stomach and all the rest of it, we have been paying for it. I am not too sure we should continue to do that. I think we should be striving to recover some of our cost, and that is exactly what I am going to do. That is why this registration fee is going to stay at $200.

Mr. Speaker, I see --

The Deputy Speaker: There is slightly less than three minutes left.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: To deal with the concern of the Conservative Party critic, there have to be written contracts. I cannot believe, in today’s age, that any kind of agreement would be carried on unless it were a written agreement. When you are dealing with thousands and thousands of dollars’ worth of equipment, the day of doing it with a handshake is over. I wish it were still here. I wish we could still get by with doing our figuring on the medicine chest in the horse stable, or that my friend and I could agree to something with a handshake. I have to say that does not stand up in the courts today. I cannot believe any business person would want to carry on business without having a written agreement.

There is no opting out in this legislation. If members take a look at subsection 23(3), it very specifically says there is no contracting or opting out unless the buyback provisions are more favourable to the dealer. I would ask members to look over that section because we will be coming back to this, obviously; it is going to go into committee, and I have some amendments to make.

It being six of the clock, I will move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am anxious to move this along. I do not know whether the House is ready. If the minister wishes to take the vote on second reading, he might do so.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am prepared to take a vote on second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

November 15, 1988

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR WELLAND-THOROLD

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

ONTARIO MEDAL FOR POLICE BRAVERY

INTERNATIONAL WRITERS IN PRISON DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

CANADIAN WARPLANE HERITAGE MUSEUM

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

MEMBER FOR WELLAND-THOROLD

VISITOR

ANDREW RICHARDSON

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PATIENTS ON LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR’S WARRANTS

EPILEPSY AWARENESS MONTH

RESPONSES

EPILEPSY AWARENESS MONTH

PATIENTS ON LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR’S WARRANTS

EPILEPSY AWARENESS MONTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

YOUNG OFFENDER

ONTARIO FARM-START

VISITORS

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

GARBAGE PAIL KIDS STICKERS

SEWAGE TREATMENT

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

GASOLINE PRICES

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

PETITIONS

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

EXTENDED CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL BOARD PAYMENTS ADJUSTMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS ACT

GRAIN ELEVATOR STORAGE AMENDMENTACT

FARM PRODUCTS CONTAINERS ACT

FARM PRODUCTS CONTAINERS ACT

FARM IMPLEMENTS ACT