The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INCOME SUPPLEMENTS

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, in an article on pensions in Victoria, British Columbia, which appeared in today’s Globe and Mail, the following statement was made with respect to guaranteed income levels for senior citizens of British Columbia as compared to Ontario: “Provincial income supplements guarantee minimum monthly incomes for a single senior of $349 and $698 for a couple. An Ontario supplement guarantees a single $349 and a couple $678.”

This did not agree with figures I had received from my staff, so I asked them to look into the matter and report back to I me. My staff have reconfirmed this morning with the controller’s office of the BC Department of Human Resources that the income supplement for a pensioner couple in British Columbia is in fact $673 per month and not the $698 amount reported in the Globe and Mail. In other words, the income guarantee provided to the pensioner couple in Ontario is $5 per month higher than the income guarantee in British Columbia, not $20 per month lower as reported.

Mr. McClellan: It is still below the poverty line.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the minister going to make a statement every time there is something wrong in British Columbia? Write a letter to the editor.

FUNDING OF HOMES FOR HANDICAPPED

Hon. Mr. Norton: I wish to respond on behalf of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) to a question asked by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) on Friday, April 20, regarding the proposed Participation House in Ottawa, which would provide specialized residential services to persons who have cerebral palsy.

I believe it is essential to clarify my ministry’s position on services for handicapped persons since the specific proposal has to be related to our overall policy thrust. Since 1974, the ministry has been actively involved in a process of deinstitutionalization and has been emphasizing community living opportunities for handicapped persons.

My ministry has encouraged service to handicapped persons which emphasizes a variety of accommodation alternatives and, where possible, utilizes existing community services. It is our intention to support the normalization principle. This means that to the fullest extent possible opportunities will be opened up so that handicapped individuals may reach their potential with a lifestyle as near as possible to that of other citizens of our province.

In keeping with this philosophy, my ministry has in recent years helped to establish a range of group homes across the province for developmentally handicapped persons. These homes are augmented by a variety of support services to help these persons make full use of their communities. In the last fiscal year we established 757 community residential places for the developmentally handicapped and this year we will continue this program through the establishment of an additional 500 residential places.

With respect to the particular needs of persons with cerebral palsy, my ministry is funding Participation Houses in Markham, Brantford, and Hamilton. I recognize that some persons with cerebral palsy require specialized residential services and the three Participation House projects are responding to these needs. These projects were made possible as a result of the special efforts and fund-raising capabilities of local Participation House groups and the Ontario Federation for the Cerebral Palsied. I would like to commend them on their efforts.

I must emphasize that we proceeded with the Hamilton and Brantford projects during a period of financial constraint when almost all other capital expenditures for institutional care have been suspended. The financial limitation on that aspect of our ministry programs is continuing and very little money is provided for capital expansion for the foreseeable future for institutional care. These financial limitations have required the re-examination of many programs.

In addition to the limitations imposed on capital funding, I am concerned, as minister, that the Participation House type of service may not be entirely consistent with our philosophy of community living. Through the provision of high quality support services, however, it may be possible to assist many of these individuals, including those residing in Participation Houses, to take part more fully in the community and to live in a range of accommodation alternatives, such as group homes or apartments.

As announced in the speech from the throne, “The government will move toward a modest expansion of several pilot projects which were launched recently to provide special accommodation and necessary attendant care for the young physically disabled. These projects have been remarkably successful in enabling these young people to maintain a life in the community, in many cases going to work or school and working toward being self-supporting.”

We are funding four pilot projects in housing and support services for physically handicapped individuals. Two of these projects involve apartment style living and two involve a combination of apartment and group home, living under the same roof with support services.

Mr. McClellan: Does that include Clarendon?

Hon. Mr. Norton: That’s one of them, yes.

Also, as transportation is a special problem for some cerebral palsied individuals, the speech from the throne indicated our government is committed to improving transportation for handicapped individuals. The five community transportation pilot projects will become permanent programs and further expansion of these services will begin in other communities.

Participation Apartments, an affiliate of the Ontario Federation for the Cerebral Palsied, has recently submitted an application for support services in an apartment-style project. It is my opinion we should further explore this type of approach and take an opportunity to apply the normalization principle more vigorously for persons who have cerebral palsy. Because of the nature of their disability, persons with cerebral palsy may require a high component of personal care and treatment or training and day time programs. The focus of each of the three existing Participation Houses, however, has been to provide the majority of these required services within one location.

Again, I must emphasize this ministry has encouraged services which provide a variety of accommodation alternatives and, where possible, utilize existing community services. This approach provides persons with special needs the best opportunity to reach their potential through a lifestyle as near to normal as possible. Therefore, funding of any additional institutional-type Participation House projects will be deferred until we have had an opportunity to evaluate existing projects and determine the range of needs for all physically handicapped persons, including those persons with cerebral palsy.

We shall invite representatives of the Participation House associations to work with us in this evaluation of existing projects and our examination of alternatives.

My staff will work with all interested community groups in this assessment process. Limited additional funds are available and not yet designated to specific projects in this fiscal year for some alternative forms of residential services such as group homes, apartment programs and support services which would assist physically handicapped adults to live in the community. Community groups which have contacted us for funding for services to physically handicapped persons and for Participation House projects will be notified of our willingness to assist them with the development of these alternative services and of the availability of financial support.

I hope the Participation House committee in Ottawa and all Participation House groups throughout the province will be flexible and interested in pursuing these alternatives. I hope the energies and funds of the cerebral palsy associations will be increasingly directed toward developing alternatives that make greater use of existing community services. Through this process, it should be possible to encourage greater integration of persons with cerebral palsy into the community.

Mr. Speaker: Will all honourable members please keep their private conversations down? It’s extremely difficult for a minister to be making a statement.

CHILD TAX CREDIT

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the honourable members that the council of the city of Chatham, at its meeting yesterday afternoon, reconsidered its position with respect to the treatment of the child tax credit and agreed --

Mr. McClellan: Well, what do you know? Sometimes it’s worth raising things in here, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- to review all general welfare assistance cases where eligibility had been adversely affected by receipt of the tax credit.

Mr. Warner: It is the member for Bellwoods who has accomplished this.

Hon. Mr. Norton: A review of the situation by officials of my ministry revealed 18 recipients had their assistance discontinued as a result of receipt of the tax credit. We found it necessary to issue emergency assistance directly in two cases.

Following the review, I wrote to the mayor requesting the city review and reconsider all such cases. It is the view of both the Ontario and federal governments that the recipients of public assistance should be allowed to utilize tax credits on items that are not normally covered by their social assistance budgets. It’s therefore not appropriate to suspend the case due to inadequate transfer of assets if the recipient received fair material return from their assets.

Mr. Bolan: How about more specificity?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Thus, the purchase of a freezer, a stove or other appliances, the payments of debts, car or house insurance and other similar expenditures are within the meaning of the regulations and should not affect eligibility. Since the administration of general assistance serves both short-term and long-term recipients, it is necessary that municipalities continue to maintain their existing discretion in the administration of the program.

An hon. member: Is that the totality of it?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Norton: Such discretion, however, must be exercised both prudently and within the provisions of the Ontario law. We found it necessary to intervene at the point where the actions of this municipality were not consistent with the relevant regulations. To the knowledge of my officials, this problem has arisen only in this one municipality and yesterday’s decision by Chatham city council will ensure that all social assistance recipients in Ontario will benefit from the child tax credit without exception.

This problem arose due to the fact that the federal government was not able to provide the new child tax credit once a month or once every three months; accordingly, families receive a lump sum payment once a year, which is the equivalent of 12 monthly payments. We have asked the federal government, once again, to modify their tax credits to provide monthly or quarterly payments, and I might add that prior to the announcement of the child tax credit system all of the provinces urged, in fact, pleaded with the federal minister to sort out the administration of the tax credits before proceeding. The provinces, at one point, offered to handle the administration through their monthly distribution system, to avoid the very kind of problem that has developed in the city of Chatham.

I trust that following the election the federal government, having gained the maximum credit that it could during this particularly crucial period, will be able to introduce the necessary changes to the system so that these problems will not continue in the future.

NOISE CONTROL GUIDELINES

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In February 1977 the Ministries of Transportation and Communications and Housing announced that “where feasible” noise barriers would be provided by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for new construction work on major freeways through existing residential areas. It was also stated that developers of new residential units near freeways would have to include similar measures to reduce noise impact.

We are now able to introduce guidelines to control the noise in outdoor areas of new residential developments near freeways. I am pleased to announce a new policy which has been formulated in consultation with the Ministries of the Environment and Transportation and Communications.

Briefly, this new policy sets an objective of 55 decibels as an outdoor noise level in residential developments adjacent to freeways. Where the outdoor noise level is likely to be excessive, the developer must demonstrate that measures will be taken to get as close as possible to this objective level of 55 decibels. In those cases where the attenuated outdoor noise level exceeds 70 decibels, residential development will be prohibited because this is the level where extensive community dissatisfaction occurs.

My ministry, in co-operation with the Ministries of the Environment and Transportation and Communications, will be forwarding guidelines on outdoor noise levels for new residential development to all municipalities. This material also indicates some techniques which could be used to reduce the noise impact. Copies of these guidelines will also be provided to all members.

Noise control guidelines are also being prepared relative to the indoor sound environment and these should be ready in the very near future.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to take this opportunity to bring the Legislature up to date on the work my ministry has been doing with respect to trucking policy and regulation in Ontario.

Ever since the select committee on the highway transportation of goods submitted its report, we have been concentrating on reviewing and implementing as many of the recommendations as possible. However, as the members are aware, it is an ongoing process, designed to keep pace with the changing requirements of the trucking industry. In the work we have been doing, our broad goal has been to ensure that Ontario enjoys a safe, efficient and responsive transportation system for the highway movement of goods.

One of the major areas of concern, as expressed not only in the select committee report but since I became Minister of Transportation and Communications, is to provide a specific way of clearly defining and developing this goal and of transmitting it in the form of government policy to the Ontario Highway Transport Board. To date, legislation has not been explicit on this. Therefore, this is one of the major changes I am proposing in the new legislation.

As a first step towards a more coherent policy direction, the government has established the following principles to govern all truck operations on the highway:

The safe operation of trucks on highways is of primary importance and will continue to be promoted through all appropriate means.

The conservation of energy is vital to the economic well-being of the province and will be a primary consideration.

The best possible for-hire system will be encouraged, consistent with the right to private carriage of goods.

Economic regulation will be a continuing component of public policy and will be applied to control the suppliers of for-hire trucking services as appropriate. Economic regulation shall be applied in such a manner as to foster as high a degree of competition as possible, considering the characteristics of the suppliers and the nature of the markets to be served.

Mr. S. Smith: Are any of those new?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Flowing from these principles, the government has developed policy guidelines for the use of the OHTB. These guidelines, which will be embodied in an order in council, once the government has the legislative authority to issue policy statements to the board under the PCV Act, will include the following directions:

When applying the test of public necessity and convenience, the Ontario Highway Transport Board shall take into consideration, together with other appropriate matters, the need for an efficient and viable transportation industry which, given the characteristics of the suppliers and the nature of the market to be served, will support Ontario’s general economic productivity; use capital, equipment and manpower resources efficiently; promote the efficient use of energy and minimize empty movements; be responsive to existing market demand and changes thereto in terms both of the level and type of service; offer service at the lowest cost in the long run; be characterized by effective competition both within the trucking industry and between other modes; be innovative in service levels, equipment design and utilization, administration and freight-handling procedures; take advantage where possible of intra-modal and inter-modal co-ordination; and be provided by an appropriate mixture of small, medium and large operators.

The guidelines to the OHTB will of course be added to when and if necessary.

We have developed extensive legislation in response to the select committee’s recommendations, legislation which I introduced last year as Bill 78 to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act. As everyone is aware, Bill 78 was not proceeded with because of the strong objections that were received regarding the one section of the bill that dealt with exemption of commodities. The new bill I am introducing today encompasses much of the legislation contained in Bill 78 and takes into consideration the discussion and representations that have been made since the former bill was first introduced.

One of the areas of proposed exemption related to certain kinds of agricultural supplies and products. When the former bill was introduced, it received mixed reactions. In reviewing the reactions, it became apparent that the issue of agricultural supplies and products had not been dealt with extensively enough by the select committee. Therefore, members will note I have made no reference in the new bill to the exemption of the transportation of agricultural commodities as it relates to the Ontario farmer. Rather, I have asked for a review of the whole question of farm-related trucking in order to get a better idea of the ramifications of change within this segment of the trucking industry.

The review will be carried out by Mr. Everett Biggs of Everett Biggs and Associates Limited, Brampton. Mr. Biggs, as a former Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, is especially well qualified to carry out this review. It is expected that there will be input from such groups as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Grain and Feed Dealers’ Association, the Ontario Trucking Association, the National Farmers’ Union, farmers’ co-ops, individual farmers, milk haulers, marketing boards and other concerned groups and individuals. Mr. Biggs will be coming back at the end of this year with a report which will enable me to respond to the needs of the agricultural community.

Another area of concern which has received a great deal of attention is the Bill 78 proposal to exempt lumber and related products. To meet the concerns of the northern and eastern lumber producers, while maintaining the principle of entry control, we propose to establish a new class of licence for the haulage of lumber and related products. This will permit the transport of lumber and related products from the region of origin specified in the licence to any location in Ontario.

For this purpose, three regions have been established -- northwestern, northeastern and eastern. I will be proposing to the Ontario Highway Traffic Board that it hold hearings in these three regions for the purpose of granting these licences based on local needs.

I do not intend to go into all aspects of the new bill, but, at this point, I would like to mention some of the new initiatives. In order to be responsive to patterns of urban growth and facilitate local cartage trucking, we propose to define commercial cartage zones which will be exempt from PCV licensing, in line with the select committee recommendations.

The new legislation will also contain the authority to vary the system of PCV licensing of vehicles by issuing the plates to the holder of the operating authority rather than specifically to the vehicle. Other sections of the bill which will be of interest are the measures to simplify administrative procedures with respect to closed-door corridor movements, forms and the refiling of tariffs.

Although not part of the legislation, but of significant interest and benefit, especially to the operators of large fleets, is a regulation under the Highway Traffic Act which will provide for the one-time registration of all trailers. Commencing in the 1980 registration year, there will be a general reissue of a reflectorized trailer plate.

One further item; I have received some strong representation to amend section 17 of the Public Commercial Vehicle Act. This amendment would place other persons or organizations, in addition to the Ontario Provincial Police and Ministry of Transportation and Communications enforcement officers, in a position to carry out prosecutions. The proposal deserves consideration, but it requires analysis of the potential impacts of private prosecutions on the court system, OHTB, and the problem of evidence. I have asked my officials to look at this problem and report back to me within the next few months.

I am convinced that the legislation we propose goes a long way towards meeting the needs of Ontario manufacturers, shippers and the trucking industry as a whole, and I can assure the members that my staff will continue to work with industry representatives to ensure that legislation meets ever-changing conditions and guarantees not only access for the shippers to carriers, but also a viable trucking industry geared to meet the needs of the people of Ontario.

DREE AGREEMENT

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. F. S. Miller) confirmed recently that negotiations with the federal government for a new DREE agreement in eastern Ontario had broken down. This morning, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture made public a letter in which OFA president, Peter Hannam, expressed eastern Ontario’s urgent need for a new agreement.

Mr. Hannam is pretty angry, and I don’t blame him. The province of Ontario has been ready to sign a new agreement for months. We should have had one by last January.

The history of the federal cabinet’s actions since last September can lead us to only one conclusion: they don’t want a new agreement and have no intention of signing one.

The whole sorry mess began on September 8, 1979, when the federal government on their own, without consulting anyone, terminated the Agricultural and Rural Development Agreement. Most of the shared-cost drainage programs ended abruptly in December, nearly four months before ARDA was due to expire. Between December and March, therefore, numerous projects went into limbo.

[2:30]

We had been led to expect that there would be a new DREE agreement to start when ARDA ended. In fact, we had actually been negotiating with the federal officials since the previous June.

Mr. Nixon: I’ll bet you are not going to vote Liberal.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is interesting is are you going to.

Mr. Nixon: I am, but I am not going to lose my vote.

Mr. Speaker: Would you like me to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to sit down for a few minutes while you complete your private conversation? Surely this is just common courtesy to a minister of the crown.

Mr. Nixon: It is an irresponsible political attack from the minister.

Hon. W. Newman: What we didn’t know then was that the federal government had no intention whatever of entering into a new agreement. But they haven’t had the courage to tell us that and they don’t have the courage to tell the municipalities and the farmers of eastern Ontario either.

Mr. Nixon: What did you do with that federal money for medicare?

Hon. W. Newman: I am just telling the facts as they are. Last November the minister responsible for DREE, Marcel Lessard, met with the Ontario Treasurer, several other Ontario ministers and myself, and said that a new agreement for eastern Ontario was a high priority item.

Mr. Roy: Joe Clark needs all the help he can get.

Hon. W. Newman: Consequently, in January the province forwarded to Ontario proposals for such an agreement. We asked that Peterborough, Victoria, Haliburton, Muskoka, Bruce and Grey counties be allowed to remain in the agreement area, together with the northern part of Simcoe county.

Mr. Wildman: What about Algoma?

Hon. W. Newman: We suggested a 15 per cent overrun clause to cover inflation during the life of the agreement. This would have given us a $57-million agreement, half to be provided by the federal government and half by the province.

Mr. Bradley: You would have to have a stimulative deficit to finance that.

Mr. Sterling: Take some of it away from Quebec.

Hon. W. Newman: However, in a dazzling flash of logic, the federal government ruled that Victoria, Peterborough, Bruce, Grey and northern Simcoe were guilty of being too close to Toronto, and they took them out. They argued, therefore, that these counties don’t deserve a new agreement.

Mr. S. Smith: They were too close to Brampton. That was the exact reason.

Hon. W. Newman: Then they chopped the $57 million back to $50 million, leaving the effects of inflation to fall on the heads of the municipalities and people of eastern Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Just like the Treasurer’s budget.

Hon. W. Newman: To top it off, they demanded that Ottawa-Carleton be excluded from the small business assistance programs of the proposed agreement.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: While Montreal stays in.

Hon. W. Newman: By this time the end of March was approaching. The province of Ontario very reluctantly decided to grant these concessions so that we could get an agreement before the March 31 expiry date. However, we made it perfectly clear to the federal government we would be raising these issues again.

Mr. Bradley: The Tory hatchet man.

Hon. W. Newman: We got Management Board approval and we got the necessary order in council. We were all ready to sign.

Mr. Kerrio: But you kicked the pail over.

Hon. W. Newman: But the March deadline came and went without word from the federal government. In April Mr. Lessard told us why. He had discovered that Muskoka and Haliburton were as unworthy as Victoria and Peterborough under the other old ARDA agreements. He refused to sign unless these two areas were removed as well.

Mr. Ruston: Who wrote that?

Hon. W. Newman: I worked pretty late on it myself.

Faced with the threat that the federal government wouldn’t sign at all, Ontario agreed very, very reluctantly. But Mr. Lessard still wasn’t satisfied, having kicked Ottawa-Carleton out of the small business assistance program, and he decided to throw the rest of eastern Ontario out of this program too.

Mr. S. Smith: You’ve got a future as a speechwriter, Bill, but not as a minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Leader of the Opposition try to set an example? That’s the least he can do.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the $10 million small business assistance program is vital to the economic health of eastern Ontario. The previous ARDA agreement contributed enormously to job creation and resource utilization in eastern Ontario. That program, which we shared 50-50 with the federal government, built or renovated everything from sawmills to cheese plants. It not only made jobs for the people employed directly by the assisted companies, but it stimulated the construction industry, the trucking industry, the dairy industry, and retail firms in the towns of eastern Ontario, to name only a few secondary beneficiaries.

For the future, we had envisioned the small business assistance program taking up where ARDA left off and helping to establish production facilities, for example, to stimulate agriculture and the marketing of agricultural products.

But all this federal backtracking is by no means the whole story. Not by a long shot.

Interjections.

Mr. Bradley: It’s the whole story, but it’s not the real story.

Hon. W. Newman: Two of the most critical components of the ARDA agreement were drainage and flood control. When the federal government axed ARDA, they said they would pay their one-third share for drainage projects on which commitments had been made. There were 70 such projects, for which engineering contracts had been let. Some of these go back two or three years; one even goes back to 1973.

In December, the federal government finally agreed to pay their one-third share of projects for which construction contracts had already been let. That decision has left a lot of projects hanging, projects on which all the engineering has been done. I personally made a vigorous protest to Mr. Lessard that he at least agree to include a few of these outstanding projects.

Mr. Eakins: I’ll bet you did.

Hon. W. Newman: That still leaves dozens of projects hanging. If this agreement had been ready by the end of March, as we had hoped, these projects would have been well under way today. However, here it is May, and there is still no agreement. I’m beginning to wonder if the federal government intended those projects ever to be built.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: There are municipalities and individual farmers left, not only without long awaited drainage facilities, but holding the bag for the federal government’s committed, promised, share of the costs. Engineering costs already incurred run into very large sums. These municipalities are faced with finding money to pay the federal government’s share from their narrow tax bases. Individual farmers face the prospect of meeting Ottawa’s obligations from their own pockets.

As for flood control and land reclamation projects, we were all ready to go ahead with some vitally needed work on the Chesterville and Plantagenet channelizations in the South Nation watershed project, but, now, with negotiations stalled, this program is in abeyance. This project is vitally important. Thousands of dollars are lost by area farmers every year in the spring floods.

Mr. Bradley: Tell us about Joe.

Mr. Nixon: Political baloney.

Hon. W. Newman: Political -- who is playing politics? You’re defending your kissing cousins and you say you want to separate from them. That’s what you’re doing.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: in fact, the situation was so serious the province authorized some work to begin, because we had been assured --

Mr. Peterson: We should have got you on the debate the other night.

Hon. W. Newman: -- repeatedly by federal representatives that this project had high priority in the federal government.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: This behaviour by the federal cabinet displays a callous disregard for the welfare of the people of eastern Ontario, but I would go farther and say a government which reneges on promises of many years’ standing, and has the gall to do so in the middle of an election campaign, is showing contempt for the people it has betrayed.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: The people of eastern Ontario have been betrayed. There is no other word to describe the federal government’s behaviour in this sorry affair.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order, order.

CONDUCT OF MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: First of all, I would like to apologize on behalf of all members of this Legislature for their conduct to our visitors in the galleries today. If we can now get back to ministerial statements, I will hear the Minister of Education.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, sir, I’d like to bring to your attention, sir --

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order. It is my responsibility to see that we maintain order in this House. I have failed to do so in the last 15 minutes. There is nothing out of order except the members of this House.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce an improvement in the level of funding --

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order.

Mr. Warner: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Nixon: My point of order, sir, is that I do not find it necessary for you to apologize for me. As a member of this House, I have the right to say what I choose, and that is what I have done.

Mr. Speaker: Within the rules of this House. It’s my responsibility to maintain order and decorum, and I have failed to do it. If I don’t apologize on behalf of the members of this House, I do so on my own behalf to the members up here.

Interjections.

Mr. Warner: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Some hon. members: Resign.

Mr. Warner: Am I correct that it is normal procedure for us to allow a maximum of 30 minutes for statements? Are there many more statements to follow?

Mr. Speaker: That only applies on days when we have private members’ public business.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce an improvement in the level of funding for the heritage languages program, effective September 1, 1979. This will replace the funding provisions in the 1979 general legislative grant regulation. The improvement is a reflection of our continued commitment to the broadest possible principles of a multicultural society as a unique part of our Canadian heritage.

The government believes strongly in the value of the heritage languages program. The changes are being introduced in order to reassert that commitment and to ensure that the program is fully viable and that all children in Ontario whose parents are interested in the objectives of the program will have an opportunity to participate in it.

As of September 1, 1979, a grant of $13.50 per instructional hour will be provided where a school board provides heritage language classes whose size averages 10 pupils. This will be increased by 50 cents per pupil where the average is more than 10 pupils per class, to a maximum of $21 per instructional hour where the average class size is 25 or more pupils. These amounts represent the provincial contribution and do not include a local share.

An analysis of the actual costs incurred by school boards offering the program indicates that in the vast majority of cases the cost of providing heritage language classes will be equal to or less than the level of the provincial grant. School boards should, therefore, be able to provide these classes without imposing a mill rate burden on local taxpayers and without imposing a fee on participating pupils.

These changes mean, in effect, that the provincial government is assuming the full cost of the heritage languages program and will be funding it in a way that ensures there will be no decrease in the general provincial funding available to school boards that is otherwise provided in the 1979 general legislative grants regulation.

Our province and its people are inordinately enriched by the many cultures and languages which have been brought to our shores. This enrichment must and will be sustained through this program’s activities.

Mr. Foulds: Now do it for special education.

Mr. Swart: Finally. Congratulations to the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande).

ORAL QUESTIONS

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Health on this continuing matter of X-ray exposure of patients. Since, as I said earlier, the only thing the ministry is required to do to protect those of us who are patients is to make sure the people using the X-ray equipment are properly licensed and able, and to make sure the equipment itself is the best available to reduce exposure, why are we continuing to read that the minister refused to make registration mandatory for those who use the equipment and, now, that his inspection team was allowed to wither, according to this morning’s Globe and Mail?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the last part. As to why the member continues to read about this, he may well have to ask some of the people who are writing it.

[2:45]

Let me deal with the question of the size of the X-ray inspection service, and let me take members back to 1972. I got these figures this morning. In 1972, there was a total of 12 complement for the X-ray inspection service which consisted of one manager, eight technical staff -- for “technical staff,” read “inspectors” -- and three clerical support.

By 1976, that had changed to a total complement of 11: one manager, seven technical staff and three clerical support. It was at that point that one inspector had been transferred to the Ministry of Labour with the associated work with veterinarians, research, education and so forth; that person was responsible for about 500 units. So that made 11.

By 1977, that was reduced to 10: one manager, seven technical staff and two clerical support, the reduction being in the clerical support.

Currently we are running at one manager; seven technical staff, including one vacancy, and one clerical support, for a total of nine. I hardly think that would be classified as withering.

Regarding the earlier part of the honourable member’s question, with respect, I believe I answered that yesterday. In my reply to the society, which recently wrote to me, I certainly did not dismiss any of their suggestions. I indicated in my reply that we had started into this work with the Ontario Medical Association in developing this program to which relates the research project of Drs. Johns and Taylor, and which we are funding to a very great extent, and that we wanted them involved in the process. One of the answers to that may well be registration, but that will come out as we move along the way through this overall effort.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: The record given by the minister is certainly one that I would classify as withering, even if he does not -- from 12 down to eight in a time when we are learning more and more about X-rays and their dangers.

But to ask a precise question, which I want to ask now, is the minister familiar with the fact that Dr. Taylor’s study shows that the screen-film combinations and the presence or absence of a filter can make a difference of a factor of 10 in the amount of radiation to which people are exposed?

In this circumstance, why does the minister not act immediately, and why did he not act when he first knew about these matters, to make sure that only the fast film and screen combinations are installed in Ontario equipment and that there are proper filters in all the equipment being used on patients?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This is the type of thing that was referred to in the statement last week as well as the report of the kinds of things they have learned from the research which has been done to date, funded by the ministry, various foundations, PSI and so forth. It is an educative problem of applying this.

One of the other things that I indicated yesterday we are hoping will come out of the early stages of this next project, this $600,000 project, is something we can mail to all operators and use to check regularly -- more regularly than manual inspection would do, no matter how many inspectors were involved.

The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the service is withering. The part that is most important is the technical staff component, which has gone from eight to seven. Admittedly, there is a vacancy right now -- we are running at six -- but we have gone from eight to seven. That is hardly withering.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Since it is a matter of public record that Dr. Taylor’s program of reducing hazardous X-ray exposures can be accelerated if there are additional funds, does the minister consider the problem sufficiently urgent to provide the extra funds, and when has his staff met with Dr. Taylor to establish how much additional funding will be required?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me make clear that in the $300,000 grant over three years we granted everything that had been asked for. Everything. Since this matter arose as a publication in the last week, apparently Dr. Taylor has said to a reporter that he thinks there might be some way to do it faster.

What I have indicated -- and my staff are aware of this; I know some of them talked with Dr. Taylor last week, but he was away for the weekend, and I am not sure he is back yet -- is that if they got a proposal that in their judgement, since it is a matter for the scientists to work out between them, will bring about a staged resolution of this matter faster, then we are certainly prepared to put more money and more staff into it. We are committed, now, to the $86,000 for research over 1978-79 and 1979-80; to the $300,000 to this latest evolution of their work along with providing two additional staff. If they can propose to us more that will bring it about faster, we’ll commit it.

Mr. S. Smith: So the minister would have us know there are six inspectors on staff at the moment. Can he tell us how many inspections they make; how many machines there are to be inspected; why it is that some machines appear not to have been inspected in as long as 12 and 22 years, and how many defective machines have been found? Can we have access to the inspection certificates to see the results of these inspections and what it is they’ve been inspecting?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me go back. The member asked these kinds of questions yesterday and I said I’d be more than willing, be anxious to discuss this during our estimates so that we can review all these matters. But, I want to go right back to the statement issued last week by the gentlemen who prepared this research. Let me remind the member again of the closing sentences of their statement:

“It is tempting to suggest that dose reduction can be achieved by government regulation and inspection. This is far from the truth, since we are dealing with very sophisticated pieces of equipment and many disciplines with different levels of knowledge. The only real solution to the problem is a co-operative one between the various groups mentioned above, and the eventual creation of inhouse capabilities in radiation control.”

I wish he would acknowledge and recognize the fact that in launching into this effort over the last 18 months, and in particular this project which we are supporting through the Ontario Medical Association, with Drs. Johns and Taylor, we are further ahead than any other jurisdiction in eradicating a very serious problem.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister says that apparently Dr. Taylor is now saying he could use more money. In view of the urgency and in view of the needless exposure to excess X-ray radiation, why haven’t the ministry’s officials already contacted Dr. Taylor to find out by how quickly this can be accelerated and to ensure that the decision to speed up is made and funded right away?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The matter of public record to which the member for Ottawa Centre refers was embodied in an article in the Globe and Mail on Saturday morning, and my staff tried to contact the gentleman, but as I’ve already said, he was away for the weekend. Certainly, once contact is made we’ll make it clear to him directly. I want to repeat that we granted every single penny that had been asked for in the original proposal. If there is a modified proposal they want to put forward that will bring about a faster resolution, we’re quite prepared to support it.

[Later (2:58):]

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Labour about X-ray hazards. In view of the piling up of evidence of serious health effects resulting from low levels of radiation, including radiation below the present allowable standard of five rems per year, will the minister make a commitment to expand the ministry’s funding of research on the possible health hazards to X-ray technicians in Ontario, and will he also consider the hazards that may be undergone by people who are X-ray technicians in industry?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Ottawa Centre knows, when the new occupational health and safety bill is promulgated in the near future it will bring the X-ray technicians throughout the province under the sphere of that legislation under this ministry. I can assure him that the funding that’s available for research within my ministry, for which there is an awards grant committee, will continue to be available and I would certainly hope that as the months go by that funding will remain as broad as it is and hopefully even expand.

I wouldn’t be prepared to give him a definite commitment, but I do want to assure him that priorities are placed on areas where priorities should be and if that does continue to be a problem that one should be concerned with, and I am concerned about it, then it will undoubtedly receive some priority in line with others.

Mr. Peterson: What did you just say again?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I said I want to go to London and visit you.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that a number of scientists have recommended lowering the current allowable exposure for people exposed to X-ray radiation to one tenth of the present level? Does the minister not think that it’s of the utmost importance to find out what the facts are about the health hazards to X-ray technicians, particularly since many of them will be women of childbearing age and therefore of the age and sex running the greatest possible hazard from this kind of radiation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Certainly we do, Mr. Speaker, and the member well knows that all areas of concern with regard to health and safety are being reviewed at all times within the ministry and that’s another area that will be reviewed and with greater intensity once that particular matter becomes part of my ministry under the new occupational health and safety legislation.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: May I suggest to the minister that he consider providing the individual who is X-rayed with some type of a log so he would have a permanent record and could show it to another medical practitioner as to the frequency and the intensity of the X-rays that he has been subjected to?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As someone who has worked in the area where one gets exposed to X-rays, I may tell the member, in case he wasn’t aware of it, that we are required already to wear little indicators on our lapels when we are exposed to radiation and those records are kept and tabulated through Ministry of Health records. So that is already being done.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the minister has confirmed that the protection of X-ray technicians is presently in limbo because Bill 70 has yet to be proclaimed and that authority has yet to be taken on by the ministry, can he say when the relevant portions of the act will be in force so that X-ray technicians can start to get adequate protection of their health from the Ministry of Labour?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The implication is that they are not receiving adequate protection now, and I question that. But as to when the bill will be promulgated, the member well knows we are working diligently on all the regulations and --

Mr. Cassidy: You promised it for April.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- promulgation of the act automatically rescinds all other legislation dealing with occupational health and safety. It would certainly be inappropriate to do that until all of the regulations involved in all of the areas are prepared.

Mr. Bounsall: When’s it coming?

Mr. Conway: To the degree that the Minister of Labour can inform us in a way the Minister of Health indicates an unwillingness to do, can he indicate what it is inspectors are inspecting or are likely to inspect and what specific qualifications they have for what is clearly a very important mandate in terms of public safety?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I don’t have that information at present available, but if the staff have documented and itemized the particular information the member wants, I will be pleased to provide it for him.

[Reverting (2:52):]

STUDENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Education: Can the minister give us her view of the form being used by the board of education in Toronto in which parents are asked to sign a routine consent, so that information can be given from the board of health to the board of education? The mailer was described by Justice Krever as an abuse of authority. What is the view of the minister and what action is she planning to take?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have not, as yet, had an opportunity to see the form suggested specifically by the Toronto board, but the reports I have had about some of the requested information would lead me to believe that Mr. Justice Krever has a point which should be considered very seriously. It would appear to me, that while it is necessary for teachers and those responsible for developing program to have the essential, relevant information about the kind of illness or impediment which a child may suffer, some of the questions which are being asked on that form may be a severe and intensive intrusion into the medical privacy of the children involved.

I would wish to have some very prolonged discussions, not only with those who are considering this from the point of view of the medical record, but also with those who are considering this from the point of view of teacher requirements. I think that that is essential and I don’t think that any board should develop unilaterally, the kind of document which may indeed intrude upon the medical privacy of the children they are supposed to serve.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, if I may ask a brief two-part supplementary: Will the minister look into this matter and make sure that all school boards are informed that a formal consent should only be sought when there is an understandable reason for such consent? Similarly, can she tell us what the situation is at the community colleges and universities? Is she aware of any instances in which people are asked to sign such consent forms to obtain medical information and this information is made available to the university or to the community college on a routine basis with regard to students who are studying there?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the Leader of the Opposition that we had begun the exploration of this specific problem much earlier than when the statement was released by the Toronto board. I had discussed it earlier with some former members of the Toronto board as well, because of their specific concern about it, but it is a matter which must be examined by those who have some knowledge and some responsibility for the maintenance of the security of medical privacy of individuals within this province.

I am not aware of any specific indications that questions in relation to medical information are being asked of those students at community colleges or universities who are not yet deemed adults. I have been informed that upon occasion, for specific reasons, the medical officer or the person involved in the health care of university students has made information available to the administrative staff of the university, I presume for faculty use.

In those instances about which I am aware, I thought it was for a very good medical reason, for the protection of the individual student himself or herself, and I am not aware of any widespread activity in this area. I shall certainly be willing to investigate to see whether there is.

Mr. S. Smith: A final, brief supplementary: Would the minister not agree that consent should be obtained in these instances from the student involved, since some cases have come to my attention, and possibly to hers, where the student felt that perhaps this information was then used in a discriminatory way? As long as this consent is always obtained, I am sure we would have no objections.

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Would the minister care to comment on a survey which people in my office have just done of 10 industrial firms employing over 6,000 workers in Ontario, which showed they have only 67 apprentices? Does the minister think the government is meeting the needs of industry when these firms have only 67 apprentices for 1,513 skilled workers, giving a ratio of one apprentice to every 22.6 skilled workers?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In response to a question last week, I think I made it very clear we were attempting to encourage industrial establishments of all sizes, beyond those which are very small, to become involved in the apprenticeship program or employer-sponsored training program.

We have indications from a very large number of firms that they are interested, and we are moving as rapidly as possible towards the involvement of such firms. I would respond by saying those firms obviously have not perceived the need in the past to be as involved in industrial training as they should be. It would seem to me there would need to be a great deal of encouragement provided for such firms, in order to persuade them they should become involved with such a program.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the minister explain why it is these 10 firms, which she says have not perceived the need to train skilled workers in this country, should be 10 of the firms that were allowed to seek workers abroad under the selective placement service of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism? Can she explain why those firms with only 67 apprentices were allowed to seek 119 skilled workers abroad? Doesn’t the minister think it is time for more than just persuasion in order to ensure that industry is training here in Canada the skilled workers that Ontario needs?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There are different forms of persuasion. I am much more attuned, I suppose, to those which are not related to the Neanderthal position of a very large club with a very large nail in it, as the honourable leader of the third party seems to be suggesting.

Mr. Sweeney: Can the minister explain how it is that firms like Ford and International Harvester, who have none or very few apprentices in Ontario, have a substantial number of apprentices in European countries like West Germany, France, Sweden and England?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, I can. It is because of a number of factors: the traditional status of the individual who has a skill training within that society, the activity which has been taken by the employers and the trade unions in those countries to be actively involved in the development of programs; the role of the government in legislating certain kinds of arrangements related specifically to educational streaming of young people at a very early age into apprenticeship programs.

Mr. Martel: That was the Bill Davis scheme, streaming kids.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: All of these factors have had some bearing upon the numbers which arc obviously participating in such programs, particularly in West Germany and in Great Britain. Mr. Speaker, those are models which have been looked at as far as North American jurisdictions are concerned. They have, in fact, been rejected by almost all North American jurisdictions in terms of the development of apprenticeship programs. We are looking at other methods which hopefully will produce the same kinds of results.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since the ratio of one apprentice to every 22.6 skilled workers is clearly inadequate to meet Ontario’s need for skilled manpower in the 1980s, can the minister say when Ontario’s programs will ensure there is one apprentice for every eight skilled workers, as recommended by the UAW, or when we will achieve the level of one per every three skilled workers, as is permitted under Ontario’s apprenticeship regulations?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we would be delighted, in many instances, to develop programs which would permit one apprentice for every three workers. That was the purpose of the legislation being drafted in that manner. There are certain impediments to reaching that goal of which I am sure the honourable member is aware, including some negotiated contracts which do not permit that kind of relationship or that kind of ratio. But, Mr. Speaker, we are working as diligently as possible in the direction of improving the ratio of apprentices to employees within a number of establishments. We have selected priorities because of the specific concerns that have been expressed by employers and trainers and young people looking for jobs. We are moving in those areas in which the priority has been established and we will be very happy to expand as rapidly as possible once we have the program launched as well as it should be.

Mr. Sweeney: Can the minister explain why the employer-sponsored training program which is supposed to be the flagship of this government’s new approach -- and we were advised a year ago there would be several thousands of people involved in this -- at this point in time has only 750 involved?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I promised the honourable members I would bring in all of the figures related to apprenticeships and to employer-sponsored training and that I shall do. I am sorry they have not been made ready for today.

CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services: In view of the need for increased income for single welfare mothers, but mindful of the government’s financial constraints, would the minister take steps to vastly improve methods for collecting child support orders? As yet unpublished information I have from statistics provided by Chief Judge Andrews shows in 1978 over $38 million in child support payments were in arrears in Ontario alone.

Mr. Mancini: Shame!

Mr. Blundy: In view of this huge amount of uncollected moneys, representing 70 per cent of all accounts, and in view of a rather dismal collection rate of 43 per cent in 1977-78; will the minister take immediate action to improve his ministry’s success in collecting child support orders?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t agree more with the point the honourable member is making with respect to the rather dismal performance of spouses in terms of supporting their families in this province once they have deserted. I have on occasion in the past discussed that with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

I have not seen the data the honourable member quotes, but if the figures are accurate I must say it is even more alarming than I thought. I assure the honourable member I will discuss it further with the Attorney General immediately.

Mr. Blundy: In view of the many inadequacies and inequities written into the Family Benefits Act and its regulations -- inequities I think the minister acknowledges -- and in view of the well-documented concern expressed by the family benefits work group that not only are allowances too low but are designed to discourage remunerative work and job training opportunities, would the minister now commit himself to rewriting this legislation in a fair and sensitive manner?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, there is probably nothing that I would like to see done more than a major overhaul of the total income distribution system in this country. I would point out that in any given year, according to the analysts in my ministry, the total amount of income transferred in various types of income-support programs in the country -- not just in Ontario -- is about $16 billion. The bulk of that would be at the federal level and the remainder with the other governments, including municipal governments.

I believe a much more effective distribution of $16 billion can be made to see that those people in the lower economic groups can receive a better and fairer share. That major overhaul is something which the province would find very difficult to undertake alone, because of the need to comply with federal legislation and the need to qualify for cost-sharing.

In the earlier part of this decade, for four and a half years there were discussions between the provinces and the federal government which were intended to lead to a major overhaul of social services in this country. That culminated, about a year and a half ago, with the federal government unilaterally announcing that it was not going to continue with that. It substituted for it a proposal for block funding of social services which would allow the provinces to get out from under the Canada Assistance Plan and have greater flexibility in providing services to people in the province. That proposal was unilaterally withdrawn last fall, along with the $55-million commitment for increased funding this year.

Mr. Peterson: He didn’t ask for a speech on everything you do.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am answering the member’s question as fully, as honestly and as completely as possible, if my friend will just give me an opportunity.

Mr. S. Smith: He’s asking for a revision of the act. That’s all he is asking.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Although I would like to see done what the honourable member is suggesting, it is simply not possible for a single province to do a major overhaul alone --

Mr. S. Smith: You can revise your own act.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- when the bulk of the money is being transferred at the federal level from one fairly high-wage earner to other fairly high-wage earners, and the poor are being forgotten by the federal government.

Mr. McClellan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I want to ask the minister whether he is aware that, for a mother with three children on family benefits, the allowance in 1971 was $2,948 and the allowance in 1979, $5,469, which translates into 1971 dollars at $2,954, for a net gain of $6.

Mr. Speaker: How do you relate that to the original question?

Mr. McClellan: The original question had to do with the adequacy of allowances.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: I want to ask the minister how he can pretend that those allowances are adequate when there has been no net gain in seven years --

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I recall, the question dealt with the inability or the ability to collect. Final supplementary?

Mr. Roy: By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Since the proclamation of the Family Law Reform Act some time around April 1, 1978, and with the provisions in that act for attachment orders against salaries and for penalties for absconding or for delinquent payments on support orders, can the minister advise whether that act and its provisions have assisted his ministry in the collection of these orders, and is his ministry making full use of the tools given under the Family Law Reform Act for the collection of these delinquent payments?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not have current figures on the rate of recovery and what the changes might he at this point. I will try to get that information for the honourable member.

AUTO INDUSTRY

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Treasurer: Is the minister aware that in the first quarter of this year the auto trade deficit with the United States was $478 million, compared with $84 million in the comparable period last year? Does this not demonstrate that serious problems with the auto pact still exist? What is his government doing to resolve them?

Further, is the minister aware that Chrysler Corporation purchases all its four-cylinder engines from Volkswagen and from a Japanese company and claims it cannot build its own four-cylinder engine plant because of lack of financial resources? Would the government be willing to talk to Chrysler and enter into a joint venture -- quite different from the $68-million grant that the government gave -- sharing ownership, sharing profits and providing jobs for the people of Ontario.

[3:15]

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member got in quite a few questions in one period of time. I’m not sure I’ll get them all in order.

The auto trade pact was negotiated by the federal government. We feel that it has had a very thorough review recently. I’m sure the member has seen the results of that review.

What are we doing about it? First, in spite of the member’s objections in his own riding, we helped the Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited. We got $500 million worth of their money for $28 million worth of ours to create 7,000 jobs in the community, which does appreciate this government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They like it down there.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Doesn’t the minister realize that, despite the $28 million and the $68 million given by the provincial and federal governments respectively the export of parts from Canada to the United States has increased by only 26 per cent while imports have increased by 36 per cent and the deficit in parts will be $1.2 billion in 1979? Can the minister tell us how many jobs will be lost in Canada as a result of the deterioration of our trade deficit, and what he is going to do?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Premier, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and I very recently had a very enjoyable discussion with a number of auto parts manufacturers. I can assure the member there is a great deal of interest in building more plants in Ontario. We only had to assure them that we would win the next election and the opposition wouldn’t, and they said they were willing to put the money here.

Interjections.

CHILD TAX CREDIT

Mr. Watson: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Will the minister meet with representatives of the city of Chatham to discuss the welfare payment program in this province and specifically to discuss the payments to the welfare family that the council ruled invalid and which the minister subsequently overruled, in view of the fact that there is considerable concern in Chatham and, I expect, in other cities that didn’t catch on to the fact that some of the people are receiving these large payments from the federal government all at once and maybe the municipalities should demand that the system be changed?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would be pleased through the member to arrange to meet the representatives from that municipality and hear their views. I would remind them though that we are all bound by the law of the province.

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman). I might also ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) to listen closely because it has to do with the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation. When he was describing DREE, I thought he was talking about the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation.

I would like to ask the Treasurer for some comments and answers concerning the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation. Funds ended abruptly at the beginning of this year. In the words of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, everything went into limbo. No one had the courage to tell us what was going on, yet we were told it was high priority.

Mr. Speaker: What is the question though?

Mr. O’Neil: The question is this: I would like to ask the minister what additional funds have been allotted to eastern Ontario? I would also like to ask him why so many small businesses and industries are being turned down left and right, while large funds are being given to multinational companies in this province?

Hon. F. 5 Miller: The Minister of Industry and Tourism is away. He is in Japan helping us get some sales.

Mr. Warner: It’s part of your buy Canada program.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would suggest that he is better qualified to answer for OEDC than I am. I can only say that the slowdown was because of the outstanding success we had had in obtaining applications. In fact, there were so many applications that the entire budget for the year was going to be oversubscribed. Until the minister made his statement about a week and a half or two weeks ago clarifying the issue, there was no use taking on more than we currently had money to provide.

Mr. Conway: That’s never stopped you before. That’s your modus operandi.

Hon. F. S. Miller: However, we have seen ways. We are going to be using banks a little more so that there are more guarantees and so that the government’s money will go further. I can assure the member, just as we have noted last week that the Smiths Falls project had been approved by the Employment Development Board, he will see a good deal of action in those areas where we have applications that, in our opinion, are able to stand on their own feet.

Mr. O’Neil: A supplementary: I wonder if the minister is aware then of the feeling that exists in eastern Ontario where they feel he is only interested in the large multinational companies and that these small companies which are being turned down are the companies that really need the assistance? Who is really letting down the people in eastern Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think one needs to be specific. I would say if anything has destroyed the confidence of eastern Ontario it’s been the actions of the federal government in the last while by refusing to sign the DREE agreement with us.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Why does the Treasurer attach such a low importance to tourism loans through the development corporation? In past years, about 25 per cent of the approved loans have gone to tourism. In 1977-78, out of 398 loans only 52 went to tourism, which is 7.5 per cent. How does he account for that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I personally attach a very high importance to tourism for obvious reasons. It’s the largest industry. It supplies 410,000 jobs in this province.

Mr. Eakins: Give us the answer to the question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would like to have the minister tell the member how many applications there were rather than how many approvals there were.

Mr. Eakins: There were 398.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Is the minister aware that the improvement in the heritage languages program she announced today will mean a 48 per cent cutback in September 1979 instead of the 50 per cent cutback which she originally announced in February? Is this two per cent solution all the concern her government can muster to show “continued commitment,” as she put it in her release, “to the broadest possible principles of a multicultural society as a unique part of our Canadian heritage”? Will the minister, once and for all, rescind the 50 per cent cutback?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The announcement today, in fact, means no cutback but an increase to the entire heritage languages program. I would be delighted to hear the circuitous mathematics the member went through to come to the very erroneous conclusion he just presented.

Mr. Grande: A supplementary: Is the minister not aware that the February legislative grant to the heritage languages program announced by her was --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Would the member kindly read today’s statement which supersedes the February announcement?

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the question and the minister can answer it? Is the minister not aware that the February legislative grants she announced were $20 per instructional hour for the heritage languages program, which meant a 50 per cent cutback from last year, and now she is changing it to $21 per instructional hour? Does this not represent a two per cent solution? If not, answer.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly obvious that the member has neither read nor listened to the statement. The statement specifically said, and I would remind the member that the total funding for the heritage languages program in the province of Ontario is provincial funding, and that it is at the level of $21 per instructional hour where the class is 25 or more; $13.50 per instructional hour where the class is 10 pupils, with a gradation in between. The funding will come entirely from the province.

It will mean a very slight reduction, I would presume, in the amount of money made available to the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board and that is the only group which will have a slight reduction, but in the cost estimates of the provision of their program, $21 is what the cost is to provide the program for the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, it is a reduction over what they received last year --

Interjections.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- because of the fact it was provided at a rate of grants for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board which permitted that school board to develop a profit related to the heritage languages program.

Mr. Bradley: Shame.

Mr. Sweeney: Given the history of this government’s starting programs or encouraging boards to start programs and then, at a later date, withdrawing some of the funds, for the record will the minister tell me exactly what she means by the last sentence, “This enrichment must and will be sustained”? Exactly for how long, and by whom will it be sustained?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It means precisely what it says.

Mr. Conway: At least until the next election.

Mr. di Santo: Last year, the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board lost $1 million in grants.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In grants?

Mr. di Santo: Yes, because of the reduction in grants. In 1979, I mean. This forced the board either to put a fee on the students or to shut down the courses. Does the minister’s announcement mean that in 1980 they will lose only $800,000?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The allotment which is granted to each school board will cover the cost of providing the program, including that of the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board.

FRENCH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education: Today there appeared in front of Queen’s Park some citizens from the Penetanguishene area requesting the building of a separate French-language high school in that area. What was the minister’s approach to that and what was her answer to the people making that request today?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in response to a letter sent by the French-Language Action Committee in January, we suggested about two months ago that a meeting be arranged between the French-language Action Committee and the school board. Such a meeting was held and although it was felt after that meeting there was a majority of both groups in support of the decision taken, that support has since been eroded and there has been a disagreement.

There was a request to my office about two weeks ago to arrange a meeting with the French-Language Action Committee, and I felt very strongly this was a matter which had to be resolved between the two bodies involved in this problem in the Penetanguishene area. I made a strong suggestion to them that there be a meeting again with ministry participation.

That meeting has been arranged by the ministry. It will be held at 8 p.m. on Monday, June 4, in order to accommodate the concerns of some of the French-Language Action Committee’s members that they could not afford to miss any time at work. We recognize that. It will be held in Barrie, on neutral ground --

Mr. Conway: What neutral ground?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- with the executive members of the staff of the Ministry of Education serving as chairman and mediators, in order to try to resolve the difficulties which have arisen in this matter.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: Accepting the minister’s answer to my colleague’s question about the meeting and the possibility of negotiating this matter at the local level, would the minister give her assurance to the people of Penetanguishene, and more specifically to those who were here protesting this morning, that if a decision is not made, if agreement is not reached at the local level, they will not find themselves in a situation which unfortunately has happened in other areas of the province, where they have had to wait, five, six and seven years for a decision to be made and for their school to be built?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I’m sure the honourable member recognizes that one who is going to act as a mediator does not in fact impose preconditions to the potential results of the mediated exercise. I have assured the people of Penetanguishene, particularly the French-Language Action Committee, that we are very much aware of their concern and very sympathetic to the concerns which they have expressed, but we would feel very strongly that this matter should be resolved at the local level and we will do everything we can to help that happen.

[3:30]

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: Has the minister yet made it very clear to the board of education what the degree of capital funding will be for that school, and if it is at the 95 per cent level it might well be accepted and proceeded with quite expeditiously, the way it would have been some year and a half prior to requiring the bill to be brought in in the Essex county French school?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have a strong suspicion that the members of the regional board in that area are aware of the level of funding which will be available to them. I am sorry I do not have the percentage. I couldn’t tell the member accurately at the moment.

AUTO REPAIRS

Mr. Bradley: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue, a question which the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) will no doubt be interested in.

Is the minister aware that in the province, specifically within the automotive repair and maintenance business, and more specifically within the muffler replacement and repair business, retail sales tax is being charged not only for parts but also for labour? If the minister is aware of this would he inform the House whether or not this is contrary to regulations under legislation governing his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: The member was good enough to send me over a copy of an invoice for, I presume, the complaint that he is talking about. I don’t see any labour marked on this invoice, so maybe he could give me some clarification if he is referring to this particular invoice.

Mr. Bradley: In consultation with members of the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, it is substantiated that this practice is indeed allowed in the province of Ontario and that legislation does not seem to govern it, not only in this specific instance but in other instances. One would presume from this bill that the labour costs and the installation costs are within the costs shown beside the parts as well.

If the minister determines that this is indeed the case, that sales tax is being charged on labour for the installation of these parts, would he undertake to change this particular provision, either through regulation or through legislation, in order the consumers in the province can avoid paying the retail sales tax unnecessarily?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I will certainly look into it.

MINES INSPECTION

Mr. Martel: Is the Minister of Labour aware that the Atomic Energy Control Board has a policy of notifying Eldorado Nuclear Limited of Port Hope of impending inspections? While I am aware it is not within our jurisdiction totally, would the minister be willing to advise the Atomic Energy Control Board that in Ontario the government will not tolerate the practice to continue whereby the company can clean up the conditions before the inspection occurs?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the member knows, that is a matter that is solely within the jurisdiction of the federal government, but I would be pleased to convey our own views on the matter.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Will the minister at the same time find out whether the Atomic Energy Control Board is in fact giving notice to Denison and to Rio Algoma as to impending inspections, particularly in view of the fact it is our inspectors who are under contract to do the work on behalf of the AECB, to ensure that the same thing is not occurring there and thus spoiling the benefits of an unannounced inspection?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: When I visited the Denison mine last November I did inquire into that very point and was assured by the inspector who was present, and indeed by the other members of the union I spoke to, that any notice that was given was reasonably necessary in order to get the people involved available, but there was nothing in the way of a day or two days’ notice; it was a matter of hours and, where possible, the same morning. If the member wishes me to examine it in more detail and report to him, I will.

DISCOUNT PRACTICES

Mr. McGuigan: My question is to the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister aware of the report in the May 8 issue of the publication Farm and Country in which the president of M. Loeb was reported as telling the inquiry into discounts and allowances that no store owner need pay the full legal minimum price for apples between September 1 and November? Has the minister referred this to the Farm Products Marketing Board, and are they investigating the allegation?

Mr. Conway: I hear he doesn’t read; he is generally read to.

Hon. W. Newman: The royal commission is going on. I’ve said repeatedly we are monitoring the royal commission hearings and that if there was anything that broke my ministry’s regulations or legislation we would look into it. Yes, I did know about that, and yet I have asked the Farm Products Marketing Board to look into it.

Mr. McGuigan: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of a past practice in the packing industry whereby the packer gave no credit to the producer for the apples that were taken out for juice purposes? In the past these sold for about $30 a ton and there was some justification for the packer keeping these to offset his costs in grading, but this past winter those juice apples sold for as high as $185 per ton rather than $30. Is the minister aware of this and is he looking into whether or not producers will be given some compensation for those apples?

Hon. W. Newman: I’m not exactly clear on the member’s question so if I may take it as notice, I’ll look into it. I know juice apple prices were high and I know there were certain supposedly discount practices going on, but I’d like to take the question as notice so I can get all the wording and details back to the member.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Isaacs: I’d like to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs whether he is able to make an announcement in response to the request from the city of Hamilton for funds to assist with the phasing in and the implementation of the assessment equalization program we talked about in this House last on April 27? Can the minister explain why it’s taken so long to come to a decision on that matter?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It took a while because we seriously considered all the ramifications. It’s a program which has some ramifications and some large money figures attached to it.

I talked to the mayor of Hamilton today and I told him I was very much in favour of a phasing-in program for those whose taxes will go up because of a section 86 reassessment. I said I certainly hoped Hamilton would implement some kind of phasing-in program but that I was sorry the province couldn’t provide any financial assistance for that program. I didn’t believe provincial money should be used for that.

There are two ways the city can provide for this phase-in program. One is to provide for those whose assessments will go down to phase in the reductions over a period of three, four or five years, whichever the city wishes. Or they can let those assessments go down fully in one year and phase in those whose assessments and taxes would go up by putting the costs on the mill rate. I think that’s a fair way.

I also indicated we would bring in an amendment to section 505 of the act within the next week to allow for much more flexibility on the part of a city like Hamilton to devise a phasing-in program. We’re presently drafting that amendment. We’re going to work with the treasurer of Hamilton to make sure it does take into account the kind of things they might want, and it will no longer require the approval of the minister to effect that phase-in program.

I was very impressed with one of the other members from Hamilton who thought the taxpayers of Ontario shouldn’t help the people in Hamilton with the program. He thought the phasing in should occur but it should be handled by Hamilton.

Mr. Cunningham: I’d like to ask if the minister is aware that some of the increases are going to be in the area of 500 per cent, both in the commercial sector and in the residential sector. Notwithstanding the phasing-in proposition, does he feel that is fair?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it is for me to decide whether it’s fair or not fair. The facts of the mailer are that the city of Hamilton, by resolution, asked for a section 86 reassessment. It was explained to them what this meant. It means there are winners and losers. Well over 55 per cent of the people who had their assessment changed had their assessment dropped. Almost 45 per cent, I guess, had an increase in their assessment. A lot of those increases were minimal. There are some very outstanding cases where the assessments of businesses and some homes have gone up. I think the city of Hamilton should take care of that in some manner, and the amendments to 505 will allow them to do that.

Mr. Swart: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Might I ask the minister if he has any plans for revisions in the assessment program other than section 86 of the act?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for the assessment program. As the honourable member knows, the assessment program, section 86 reassessments and so on, are taken care of by the Ministry of Revenue; he would have to ask the minister responsible for the act if he has any amendments to the Assessment Act in mind.

What I would say to the honourable member is that section 86, the new equalization factors that will be announced, other things that the Treasurer will announce, programs that we all announce and measures that the Minister of Revenue will announce over the next year or year and a half, all will bring about property tax reform and added impetus in this province --

Mr. Conway: Darcy McKeough will be in an old age home before you get to that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, it will all happen in an ordered, equitable way that will be acceptable to the members opposite and to us.

BARRIE JAIL

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) I address this question to either the Premier or the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry).

In view of the fact that statements have been made before a grievance committee hearing into the suspension and dismissal of a guard at the Barrie Jail, is anything going to be done concerning the inmates and their safety, considering that the statements have been to the effect that the jail is a fire trap?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the honourable member was anxious for me to answer this, or the Solicitor General. In fact, we both might take a crack at answering it. I thought initially that the --

Mr. T. P. Reid: We still won’t get an answer.

An hon. member: Flip a coin.

An hon. member: Why don’t we have a contest?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now, listen. Mr. Speaker, I have been very quiet this question period. I have not provoked anyone, and here they are interrupting me.

Mr. Speaker: Why start now?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am trying to think of some way to start now.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is quite properly concerned about the Barrie Jail, and I will certainly discuss it with the Minister of Correctional Services to see what assistance can be given to rectifying the problem.

I was a little concerned that the member was going to ask me to comment on some of the observations or the grievance procedure itself, in which case I would have said that I did not think it would be appropriate for me so to do. But, in terms of the jail itself, certainly I will discuss it with the minister.

Mr. Peterson: Why doesn’t the Premier answer the four questions that weren’t asked while he is at it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for London Centre has asked his typical question. He has asked me why I do not answer more questions like the ones he asked, which are irrelevant. My answer to that is, “Okay.”

Mr. Peterson: The Premier’s problem is he doesn’t know when people are making fun of us.

Mr. McClellan: Order. How many rules of order are there in this House?

MOTION

SITTINGS OF HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the House will not sit on Monday, May 21, or Tuesday, May 22.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The committees will meet as usual on Wednesday, May 23, and sittings in the House will resume at two o’clock on Thursday, May 24.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.

Motion agreed to.

[3:45]

Hon. Mr. Drea: Section 37 of this bill was amended in 1975 to cover lessees from Ontario Housing Corporation who subsequently bought their property. This is a housekeeping bill that brings about a further amendment to section 37. It takes into account the fact that Ontario Housing Corporation is transferring the home ownership part over to the Ontario Land Corporation. It also takes into account the fact that crown land in northern Ontario, once traditionally leased, is now being sold.

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 88, An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: These amendments reflect changes recommended as a result of an ongoing internal review of the board’s procedures. In effect, they are designed to clarify or improve some of the board’s procedures. I think they are self-explanatory.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 89, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have no further explanation on that bill, other than the statement I made earlier today.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 90, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have just introduced a bill to amend the Highway Traffic Act. There are 13 separate amendments in this bill. Some are designed to clarify existing sections of the act and others are new.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to review briefly the highlights, particularly the exemption for emergency vehicles at red signal lights.

After much discussion and an in-depth examination of applicable legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions, it was agreed there are legitimate circumstances where emergency vehicles should be exempted from some rules of the road -- when proceeding to fires, pursuing criminals, et cetera. This bill, therefore, proposes that such emergency vehicles should be given the right to proceed against a red signal light when adequate warning is being given by a continuously sounding siren and an intermittent flashing red light and the vehicle has been brought to a full stop before proceeding through the intersection.

Another amendment concerns reciprocity for bus safety inspections, exempting those vehicles that meet comparable standards for programs administered by other provinces or states, providing such jurisdictions reciprocate in a similar manner. This will allow bus operators with inspection facilities already established outside Ontario to avoid unnecessary duplication of safety inspections. Ontario companies should enjoy similar benefits, particularly those with routes to the United States.

The bill also pertains to the securing of loads for all vehicles. This amendment will extend the legislation covering the proper securing of loads, making it apply to all motor vehicles including passenger cars. This is aimed at drivers we have all seen on the highway attempting to move goods such as lumber, furniture and boats without taking proper precautions to ensure what they are carrying is properly tied and secured to the car.

The bill also proposed to more clearly define “a driver” to include a person who drives any type of vehicle, not just a motor vehicle. This would underline the fact that the rules of the road contained in the Highway Traffic Act apply to bicyclists, for example, as well as motorists.

As I mentioned, this bill contains several clarification amendments such as a new definition of “road-building machine.” A further amendment will permit school bus operators to use their own log books to provide data required by the ministry.

Another amendment changes the words “produce a driver’s licence” to “surrender a driver’s licence” to remedy situations where a motorist has kept possession of his licence without giving the investigating police officer time to record necessary information. With this amendment every driver will now have to actually give his or her licence to the investigating officer when asked.

Also contained in this bill is an amendment concerning axle-unit weight and axle-group weight. When a vehicle’s weight exceeds the allowable weight the driver may be required by the inspecting officer to remove the additional weight. In many circumstances all that may be required is that the load may be redistributed to comply with existing axle-weight standards.

In another amendment we are introducing the use of portable lane-control devices, units displaying red, green or amber traffic signals controlled by radio. These will be used mainly to alternate the streams of traffic when a two-lane highway is restricted to one lane. These units will be in operation mainly at road construction or repair sites, and these portable traffic signals must be obeyed just as permanently-installed signals are.

Finally, the Highway Traffic Act would be amended by a section stipulating that no person shall deposit snow or ice on a roadway without permission in writing to do so from my ministry or the road authority responsible for the maintenance of the road. This would eliminate the common practice where snow ploughs or snow removal devices dump snow from driveways and parking lots directly onto an adjacent roadway. That is presenting a potential danger to passing motorists. We realize such a bylaw now exists in some communities but this amendment would make for uniform coverage to include rural as well as municipal roads.

In addition I also intend, on second reading of the bill or in committee stage, to introduce an amendment to section 120 of the act to reflect the resolution of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. Johnson) regarding the use of flashing warning lights when transporting the mentally retarded on school buses. This resolution was debated in the House a few days ago.

I have touched briefly upon the proposed amendments contained in the bill which I have introduced and which is described in the accompanying compendium.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Ms. Bryden, on behalf of Mr. Renwick, moved first reading of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

HALDIMAND BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS’ DISPUTE ACT

Mr. G. I. Miller moved first reading of Bill 91, An Act respecting the Haldimand Board of Education and Teachers’ Dispute.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. C. I. Miller: The purpose of this bill is to resolve the dispute between the Haldimand Board of Education and the secondary school teachers who are employees of the board. The bill orders an end to the strike that commenced March 29, 1979, and establishes a final offer selection procedure as a means of settling the matters in dispute between the parties.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answer to question 114 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HURONIA DISTRICT HOSPITAL ACT

Mr. G. Taylor, on behalf of Mr. C. E. Smith, moved second reading of Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the Financing of the Huronia District Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

VILLAGE OF COOKSTOWN ACT

Mr. G. Taylor moved second reading of Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the Village of Cookstown.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Parrott moved second reading of Bill 24, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have an opening comment?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I don’t, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gaunt: I want to make a few comments with respect to what I consider to be major environmental legislation. I certainly welcome this bill. I think the opposition parties in this House can take a great deal of credit for this legislation. It was only because of opposition questioning and opposition badgering, in some cases, of the ministry --

Mr. Nixon: I never badgered; it was the member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: -- that we got this bill in its present form. To be fair, I think the minister has taken a great deal of interest in this problem. He has undertaken a new thrust within the ministry for which I congratulate him. But, I point out that there are questions on Port Loring and Dowling. I suggest the whole matter of the liquid industrial waste hearings have certainly pushed the minister --

Mr. Nixon: Brought him to his knees.

Mr. Gaunt: -- into areas of good environmental legislation, of which this piece is one.

Having said that, I think the minister can determine that we welcome and endorse the main thrust of this particular bill, and even, for the most part, specific provisions within the bill. There are some concerns, but I want to come to those later on. I don’t want to take a lot of time, but I think I should review some of the provisions of the bill with which we agree. One of those provisions is a rather contentious provision and I want to deal with that in a moment.

[4:00]

I think the provisions having to do with requiring persons responsible for a spill to immediately notify the minister, the municipality or the regional municipality, the owner and person in control that a spill has occurred, the circumstances surrounding the spill and the action the person intends to take or has taken is a laudable requirement.

The bill imposes clear responsibility for control, cleanup and restoration of the natural environment on owners and persons in control of pollutants, and this includes those who may not necessarily be the owners but are in the business of manufacturing, transporting, storing and marketing pollutants. We certainly agree with that.

The bill broadens the power of the minister to order the owner or person in control to clean up and restore the natural environment and, where necessary, the bill authorizes the minister to order persons other than the owner or person in control to clean up and restore the natural environment.

The bill enables the minister to take immediate action to ensure cleanup and restoration of an area and to pursue the question of liability for costs of cleanup and damages later. That is certainly supportable from our point of view.

This is the contentious one, or perhaps the most contentious part as far as we are concerned: The bill establishes the absolute liability of the owner or person in control for damages resulting from a spill and the costs entailed in cleaning up and restoring the environment. In our view this is very important in ensuring that the burden of a loss does not fall on the victim of pollution or on the public purse and adheres to the principle that the polluter pays. Regardless of whether the spill resulted from no fault of the owner or person having control, the risk of spills is inherent in their business and they should be responsible as a reasonable part of their business for the costs of control, cleanup, restoration and damages resulting from spills.

I said this was contentious and it is contentious from the point of view of transporters, of manufacturers of chemicals, from the point of view of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association. To be fair, I think there are some of them who can see the advantage of this kind of legislation, but at the same time of course it could very well put heavy additional financial requirements on some of those companies.

None the less, environmental groups and those who are concerned in this particular area have strongly supported this particular clause of the bill, and I do and my party does as well. I think it is legislation which is absolutely necessary in this day and age and I want to make it clear to the minister that we support this provision.

I acknowledge some of the concerns which have been expressed to me privately and publicly, but none the less, on balance I see no other way to go in this area. I think the absolute liability embodied in Bill 24 on the positive side should give industry the incentive to take precautions against many of the unforeseeable risks.

To transport hazardous wastes, the nuclear industry, for example, uses trucks whose tanks will withstand a 100-mile-an-hour collision. I think it is possible in this day and age, although it will obviously incur some costs on the part of the owners or the transporters of such pollutants, to technologically develop some systems and some equipment that will lower the risk of transporting some of these very hazardous and dangerous materials.

I think that because of this industry will have a much greater incentive to prevent some of the spills which have occurred.

As I understand it, there were slightly over 1,000 spills in Ontario last year. I guess that averages out. It runs around 1,000 spills per year in Ontario, many of which are preventable. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, industry will certainly have a lot more incentive to improve their technology which, in effect, will prevent a good many of these spills. I repeat again, we are in support of the provision of absolute liability.

Further, the bill authorizes control and cleanup of spills and restoration of the natural environment by designated persons and municipalities and provides them with the right to recover their reasonable expenses from the owner or person in control.

The bill gives persons who are authorized, or ordered to do cleanup, the right to enter on private land for the purposes of cleanup. The bill enables a person other than those responsible for the spill, who have been ordered to clean up a spill, to recover his reasonable expenses from the ministry.

I think those are most of the main provisions of the bill. Those are provisions with which we agree.

In respect to some of the flaws in the bill, there are several points I would like to mention.

In terms of the industry itself, insurance is available. I’m assured insurance is available to companies to cover them under the terms of this absolute liability requirement. I believe insurance is available to a maximum of $20 million for an aggregate number of spills in the province per year with a maximum of $10 million per spill for any one year.

I think a Swiss company offers that kind of insurance. I believe they have an office here in the city of Toronto. Presumably most of the companies would take on that kind of insurance since it would be in their best interests to do so. It would offer them the kind of insurance protection which I presume most will feel they should have.

There is one matter that was raised with me and that was the fact that in the chemical industry particularly there are a lot of smaller producers which, perhaps, could not afford this kind of insurance at the rates at which it’s provided. I don’t know whether that’s the case or not. All I can say to the minister is if that is the case, perhaps industry should be encouraged to set up a fund of its own, a fund which would allow all companies to contribute, perhaps, a half a cent per gallon for insurance coverage which wouldn’t be sought by some of the smaller companies. Those companies could then be secured, or at least protected, and could draw from this fund should the need arise.

The minister should certainly promote the setting up of such a fund to allow these smaller companies some protection in the event they really don’t feel they can afford the normal insurance coverage but might, for one reason or the other, incur a fairly large liability bill in the event of a spill.

Another problem I would draw to the minister’s attention is the matter of the two-year limitation. Previously it was six years. A six-year period is really a normal limitation period from the date the cause of action arose. I think two years is rather limited and too short. In many of these cases -- and I cite Port Loring as one -- the effects of that pollution do not become apparent to their fullest extent within a two-year period. The pollution of the wells in those areas did not became apparent until after a two-year period.

I suggest to the minister that a two-year period is too limiting and too restrictive. I think that particular limitation period should be extended beyond the two years it currently is in the bill.

The other point on which I want to make some comments is the matter of payment or liability as the direct result of a spill. That has caused some concern. It is a new wording from Bill 209. Some concern has been expressed to the extent one would have to prove causation. Sometimes that is very difficult to prove and sometimes it is even insurmountable. Under those conditions, the public would therefore fail to obtain compensation.

It has been suggested that the section be broadened to include both direct and indirect damage. I don’t know whether the minister would feel comfortable with that or not, but I suggest it is worth looking at and worth considering. If the minister views the pros and cons of inserting indirect damage as well as direct damage, hopefully he will come to the conclusion that both direct and indirect damage should be included under the terms of the bill.

Another point which is perhaps not a big point, although it could be, has to do with the proclamation of the bill. As we know, some bills around here receive royal assent but aren’t proclaimed for months, and in some cases years, after the bill has been passed in the Legislature. The minister should give some consideration to changing the bill and making it effective on royal assent rather than on proclamation.

I can understand there may be some aspects of the bill which the minister may not have in place on royal assent. My fear is of a very powerful lobby moving in on the minister’s office after royal assent or after committee hearings, which I presume will take place in the weeks ahead. Whether that happens before the summer break or not, if not completed before the summer break, presumably it will extend over the summer break period to be completed by the fall. If the bill becomes law on royal assent, I think it foregoes any possibility that the ministry could stall in the event of a very powerful lobby.

What I am saying to the minister is that this is good legislation. We want to get it into place as quickly as we can and we don’t want to be sitting here one year hence saying, “Why haven’t you proclaimed Bill 24?”

[4:15]

There is some concern that the minister’s power under the terms of this bill, in section 3(e) amending section 94 of the act is very broad. In this section, the minister has the power to exempt any spill or any class of spill. I think that’s very broad power and it does alarm some people who feel that exemption power could be and may be misused in the years ahead.

I don’t think it’s necessary under the terms of this bill to have that broad, wide-ranging power of exemption. If the minister wants a power given to him under the terms of this bill to exempt a specific class where he considers there may be a problem, then I think it should be spelled out in much clearer terms than it is. All I’m saying is that the power for broad exemption is there and that’s worrisome.

My final point -- and we’ll be dealing with this undoubtedly in clause-by-clause -- is that the definition of “pollutant” is seen to be “a contaminant other than heat, sound, vibration, or radiation.” I can see the definition could extend to the first three, but I’m wondering about radiation. Is that an appropriate inclusion there or should it be excluded from the pollutant definition? I pose that question to the minister. It did raise some flags as far as I was concerned.

We’ve been listening to the effects of radiation from our nuclear plants and from X-ray machines and it’s consumed a lot of time in this House and in committee. It’s becoming a greater and greater problem in our society. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on it.

In short, we support the legislation; we think it will make Ontario a safe place in which to live, and in general terms I think it will enhance environmental quality in this province. For those reasons we will support it.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation and I’m a little surprised the minister did not have a fuller statement on second reading than he gave on first reading, in order to establish clearly what are the principles of this rather ground-breaking kind of legislation.

This bill is an attempt to answer the problems created by a series of environmental incidents over the years -- spills of oils and other hazardous substances, contamination of water, air and soil, and so on. These were incidents which have caused serious injury to people or communities in this province and where it was found difficult to establish liability or obtain any justice for the victims under existing legislation and common law.

As the previous speaker mentioned, it also provides for a no-fault obligation, which is a fairly new concept in liability legislation. It imposes this on both the person who owns the pollutant and the person in control. It imposes on them also a liability not only to clean up but to rehabilitate the affected area and to compensate the victims. In addition, it allows the ministry and the municipality or persons designated by the ministry in the regulations to undertake the cleanup and restoration of the natural environment on their own, in the event that the polluter fails to act or cannot be identified.

This is all, as I say, ground-breaking legislation and I commend the minister for having the courage to bring it in. It is long overdue. We have been waiting eight years, since the Environmental Protection Act was passed in 1971, to get legislation that would really make the polluter pay. I think it has taken a long time to convince the government the polluter has not been paying, that he has been shifting the costs to the victims of pollution or to the public bodies which are left to clean up the mess afterwards.

I hope the minister will not water this legislation down and that it will also be an indication we can expect other legislative improvements from him in other areas of our environmental legislation, such as provisions for class actions on a more adequate basis.

While the legislation is good, it is not without its weaknesses, as the member for Huron-Bruce has pointed out, in some areas. We hope to correct those weaknesses in the committee stage but in the meantime, with that hope, we intend to support the principle of the legislation on second reading.

The need for this kind of legislation has become more and more evident. The growing use of chemicals and petroleum products, many of them highly toxic, imposes a liability on the users of those substances and products to see that they do not adversely affect either the health of people or the environment in which we live.

As the member for Huron-Bruce said, there are about 1,000 spills annually. Many of those, in my opinion, are preventable if there was sufficient incentive for the polluter to see they were prevented, and to redesign his equipment so his transportation equipment is virtually fail-safe and leak-proof and as close to being unbreakable as possible. The other equipment could also be designed to ensure leakages in the environment or spills of any kind would not occur.

We have only to look at the many cases which I think, we, in the opposition, have brought to the minister’s attention where the legislation failed to provide either adequate cleanup or adequate compensation to the victims, in order to realize how important it is to pass this kind of legislation and to make sure it is not watered down.

We think of the attempt to get at Dow Chemical of Canada Limited through the law courts and the absolutely pitiful amount of compensation obtained for the fishermen whose livelihoods were destroyed by the company’s discharge of mercury into the St. Clair River. We have to look at the Dowling case up near Sudbury where a PCB spill has not yet been cleaned up six years after the event. We do not know the effect of those PCBs on the soil there, still contaminated with PCBs.

Just this year, we read about a spill of 8,000 gallons of gasoline in North York. Five thousand people had to be evacuated. Think of the inconvenience to those 5,000 people, not to mention the fear of what might happen if they had stayed.

We read about the family whose home was completely impermeated with odour from a fuel oil discharge; the family lives in High Park in Toronto. A fuel oil delivery truck backed into a garage and a fence behind them, and for months they have been living with an incredible odour which has completely disrupted the living conditions in their home.

I would just like to read you one or two comments from the people concerned. Mrs. Wegierski, who is one of the persons affected, said, “‘We’ve been living in the agony of offensive odours and suffered the inconveniences of a damaged home,’ Mrs. Wegierski said at breakfast Tuesday, breaking into tears. She also said, ‘The oil spill has not only ruined our home, but seriously disrupted our routine and affected our health and stability.’”

They were unable to keep anything in their basement after the spill, because it all got contaminated by the terrible odour. Her husband used to do sculpturing down there, and they kept fruits and vegetables, as most people do, and she did some of her teacher preparation work down there. That was all completely eliminated. They still have not got compensation because it is going through various insurance claims and the actual spill, or the removal of the odour, has not been cleaned up yet. They even suffered from the problem of the insurance adjuster going on a holiday, which delayed further action on the claim.

This sort of suffering and injury to individuals cannot be tolerated in our society, and the experience in these kinds of cases, including the Port Loring case that the member for Huron-Bruce mentioned, has indicated that the present law, the Environmental Protection Act and the common law are inadequate to deal with this kind of environmental disaster.

The Port Loring situation, for those who don’t recall the details, is that for three years the water supply in the wells of the people in this area was contaminated with gasoline from a Gulf station, but the liability of the Gulf station was difficult to establish because they only leased the property on which the station was located. So for three years, people had to bring in water from elsewhere, and no one paid them for that, in addition to which, no one compensated them for the disadvantage of having a polluted water supply.

The important thing in this legislation is that it establishes a new concept of liability, to be placed on the user of our dangerous chemicals and other substances, and I think the 1976 legal decision in the case of Regina versus Power Tank-Lines underlines the court’s concept of that liability, a concept which I think should be accepted today, which is, that the users of these substances have an obligation to see that risks are minimized. If there are any accidents, regardless of the establishment of direct fault, those users are to be responsible for compensating the victims and for the cleanup and for restoration of the environment.

As the learned judge in the court case commented, you need prompt action in a situation of this sort, and if there are inhibitions about who is responsible and who is liable, you will not get prompt action. Therefore, you do not get adequate remedial action or compensation for the victims. Also, the industries using these products are the ones with the capability not only to prevent the spills but also to clean up after them.

[4:30]

The member for Huron-Bruce discussed the question of whether their liability should be covered by insurance, by a public fund or by a fund set up by the various industries. There are arguments in favour of each of these routes. I understand that the costs for the largest spill in this area affecting the St. Lawrence River were $9 million in recent years. That was a spill on the other side of the international border, but it did affect our waters.

One can get insurance right now for $10 million per spill or a total of $20 million for all the spills in one year. So insurance is available. I am sure that if this legislation is passed additional companies will move into the field.

The trouble with a fund is that if everybody puts in a small amount, so much per gallon, then they feel no responsibility for cutting down their own contribution to the danger of spills. There is no incentive except through the general rise and fall of the fund, but it becomes very remote and becomes really a sort of licence to pollute or licence to continue operating without looking at the risks and without trying to minimize them.

I realize there is a problem for small companies which may find some difficulty in financing insurance. They may have to group together and set up some sort of group insurance, but I think that is best done in the private sector. It may also be that we need something like an unsatisfied judgement fund in this field, because there may be cases where people are inadequately insured and are not able to meet their obligations under this legislation.

However, I hope that we will continue to maintain the principles of the bill, that the polluter must pay, that remedial action must be prompt, that the environment must be restored as far as possible to its original condition and that there must be compensation for the victims.

Looking at the legislation more specifically, this bill in effect adds a new part to the Environmental Protection Act dealing exclusively with spills and discharges. While I think the definition of spills and discharges is fairly broad I do join with the member for Huron-Bruce in questioning why four items are excluded: heat, noise, sound and radiation.

I hope the minister will give us his explanation as to why those items are excluded from the definition of spills and discharges. It seems to me there can be a discharge of heat from a nuclear plant into a waterway which can have a very serious environmental effect on the fish life and the whole ecology of that waterway.

I also would like to see the definition of “leak,” which was added to the new version of the bill from the December version, extended to include the latent contamination that comes from leachates in waste disposal sites, landfill sites, and any sort of continuous leakage which may be going into the environment and which may have a latent contamination rather than a sudden or abnormal spill. I think such leakages are abnormal, which is the word used in the act for classifying what spills are covered, because they shouldn’t be coming out of any landfill sites and getting into any land or waterways.

The coverage of the bill is basically the same coverage as was in the Environmental Protection Act in the section on notification. There are six clauses there as to the kinds of spills and incidents where notification must be given and as to what kinds of adverse effects are to be covered by the legislation. Just to run through them, they involve impairment of the quality of the natural environment; injury or damage to property, plant or animal life; harm or material discomfort to any person; adversely affect the health of any person; impairment of the safety of any person; and the rendering of any property or plant or animal life unfit for use by man.

Those clauses are taken out of the present Environmental Protection Act, section 15, and re-enacted in this new part. I am glad they are retained. I am also glad the minister has added two new subclauses for notification of the effects of polluting the environment, which must be reported; they are, “loss of enjoyment of normal use of property” and “interference with normal conduct of business.” I commend the minister for adding those two clauses to the Environmental Protection Act under this amendment.

Looking at the compensation section of the bill, I have some questions about the coverage. I share the concern of the member for Huron-Bruce about the insertion of the word “direct” into the phrase that it should cover loss or damage directly caused by the pollutant. The member for Huron-Bruce suggested we should add the words “direct or indirect.” I would suggest we might just strike out the word “direct” and go back to the original version, so that the clause would then read “loss or damage caused by the pollutant.”

On the compensation question, under the act it covers “loss of life, personal injury and pecuniary loss.” I hope the minister will spell out to us what he means by “pecuniary loss.” Does it cover, for example, loss of wages, inconvenience from evacuation or from situations such as experienced by the High Park family who lost the use of a large part of their home? Does it cover the provision of alternative services, such as the water supply for the Port Loring people? I think what is covered by pecuniary loss should perhaps be spelled out in greater detail. That would save considerable litigation perhaps by people making claims under the act.

Looking at the restoration section of the bill, the obligation is placed on the polluter to restore the natural environment. It doesn’t say restore to what level. I think we should have a clause added saying something like “restore as close to its original condition as possible.” At least we would like the minister to clarify what he means by restoration and rehabilitation of the natural environment. I think it is going to be very difficult in the Dowling case, as my colleague from Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) may tell us later, to restore that area to its original condition.

With regard to the cleanup actions which may be taken by the ministry or by municipalities or persons designated by the ministry, I would like to ask the minister why he dropped out of Bill 24 the provision that was in Bill 209 last December, under which he could order other ministries and disposal site operators to take remedial action over and above what they themselves were responsible for as direct polluters if they became so involved. Does he still have power under the act to order disposal site operators in particular to clean up in the case of any spills or leachates coming out? I am referring to the operators of both publicly operated and privately operated disposal sites.

As I mentioned, while we support the principle of the bill, we would like to see some of the clauses changed. We will certainly join with the other opposition party to restore the time limit to the six years that was in the original bill tabled last December. I understand six years is the common limitation period for most liability legislation.

I think the six years should extend from the date that the claimant knows, or ought to know, about the loss or damage which he has incurred or which he thinks he has incurred. It seems to me that there will be many cases where people will not be aware of their rights or of their losses soon enough to get their action going within the two years, and it seems unduly restrictive to cut the six years down to two.

On the regulations section, we certainly feel it is much too broad and that it reflects the trend of this government to try to bring in window-dressing regulation and then take it all out by the back door with exemptions which virtually make the legislation a nullity. We hope that will not happen in this legislation, but we would prefer if safeguards were put in the legislation to prevent that happening.

The first safeguard should be that any exemptions that are to be brought in should be notified to the Legislature and to the public so they can be aware of what is contemplated and have an opportunity to register objections. The minister should indicate to us before the legislation is passed what he has in mind for exemptions. Is he planning to exempt individual spills or only classes of spills -- I would hope it would be the latter -- if he does have an exemption power?

[4:45]

Also, with regard to regulations, I would commend to the minister a practice that is being increasingly adopted by the federal government and by United States agencies of prepublication of environmental regulations. This is such a sensitive area, and it affects the public so widely, that it is very advisable to have an opportunity for the public, as well as the companies affected -- for all parties -- to look at the regulations ahead of time and to have an opportunity to put in briefs, comments and so on about them before they are actually passed and gazetted.

We have a concern that has not yet been mentioned about the question of farm wastes and whether they will be covered by the act. The repeal of section 15 of the Environmental Protection Act which is the notification section, also repeals a section of that act which exempted the disposal of animal wastes in accordance with normal farming practices from the notification requirements under the Environmental Protection Act.

In the re-enacting of section 15 in this new part, there is no reference to any exemption for farm wastes. I think that is something that should be considered, because if it was considered important under the previous legislation to exempt the disposal of animal wastes in accordance with normal farming practices, then it is still worth looking at the validity of that exemption.

I would like the minister to indicate whether he thinks he has power under his exemption powers in the act to exempt farm wastes and, if so, does he intend to exempt them? We think they probably should be exempt if they are disposed of in accordance with normal farming practices.

Those are the main points we would like to have the minister comment on or to see changed in committee, and we will be introducing some amendments to bring in those changes for the House to consider.

I would like to stress that this legislation does provide a very strong incentive for firms to prevent spills and to see that our environment is protected, and that is what we need. They will change their handling procedures, they will change their employee training, they will change the promptness with which they act and they will redesign their equipment if the onus is placed squarely on them to assume a liability for any environmental incident that happens.

The other thing that we are very pleased to have in the bill is the opportunity for the ministry to act promptly in the case of any environmental accident and to collect afterwards. We still believe in the principle that the polluter must pay, but we do not think the victim should have to wait, and we do not think the situation should be allowed to deteriorate to the extent where the environment is actually destroyed or the cost of cleanup becomes multiplied 100 times by delays. We would also point out that delays in compensation are really justice denied. Justice delayed is justice denied, so that is something that must be speeded up as well.

We hope the minister will continue to support the principles of this bill, and it is an indication we have a Minister of the Environment who really intends to change the legislation and make it effective.

Mr. Haggerty: I rise to speak on Bill 24, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act. Like my colleague from Huron-Bruce, I do agree with it in principle and support it.

I have some concerns about some of the interpretations of the bill. I am looking at the explanatory notes where it says: “The act also authorizes a municipality to take action for prevention, cleanup and restoration and to obtain compensation.”

That puts quite an onus onto a municipality. The reason I bring that to the minister’s attention as it relates to section 16 of the bill is that I think there is a lesson to be learned from the difficulties that have arisen in the United States. I refer particularly to New York state around the Niagara area, and the Love Canal incident. All these sites were originally approved by the federal environmental authorities and by the state. I’m thinking of the seriousness of the incident involving hazardous wastes which surfaced recently, causing problems to the health and welfare of the residents.

This bill will put the onus on the municipality the same as it has done on the American side. There the public -- concerned citizens -- are now taking civil action against the local municipalities. The blame is put on the municipalities, although they did not originally approve these sites. In a sense, many approvals were given behind closed doors by upper governmental authorities.

I would suggest this bill will mean the minister perhaps is going to saddle the municipality with tremendous legal costs in cleaning up waste disposal areas we may not be aware of here. There have been reports there are in Ontario certain disposal sites that receive large quantities of hazardous waste -- those creating the radiation in Port Hope, for example. There are other sites that have not received such large quantities of hazardous materials and perhaps the problem there is not as serious as at some disposal sites.

The Environment Canada Report completed in 1974 indicated Fort Erie was considered a hazardous municipal disposal site. Until this day those people are sitting on edge. They don’t know what the minister means by “hazardous,” or what materials are in there. Apparently investigations have been carried out and we still don’t know what hazardous materials have been dumped in that site, or what effect they will have in 10 or 15 years or perhaps in a much shorter time than that. The bill definitely indicates the minister is putting the onus on the municipality and the legal costs today, if I can relate it to the American side, are going to be very high. Compensation is talked about in here. Sure the municipality may be compensated for cleanup work, but there is going to be a legal cost involved. I can relate it to the cost of the Dow Chemical lawsuit the province was involved in -- the heavy cost of legal fees for that alone. This can come about through the municipality taking action to have the matter cleaned up.

I can think of another instance close by; that is, the acid spill in 1972 in the town of Pelham. That was seven years ago now and it’s still not settled. People have not been compensated for the damage to private land. The municipalities were compensated for the damage to roads, but the private land owners have never had a settlement. They’re dealing with a railroad. I think it is the TH and B Railway. There’s a question of which is responsible, the railroad or the firm that manufactured the tank car.

I suggest to the minister that on this particular area relating to moving hazardous material on railroads his staff should be looking at some of the obsolete railroad beds in Ontario. I think again of a particular railroad, Penn Central. It may belong to Amtrak now. It runs from Fort Erie to the other side of Welland into Wainfleet township. They have a speed control order on that particular railbed. I think it’s down to about 20 miles per hour. That bed isn’t safe enough even to carry passengers. There’s some concern about freight that may be carried there. One sees a number of tank cars being carried over that railroad track. I suggest that that’s an area the minister should be looking at.

My colleague from Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) has brought to the minister’s attention the situation where American railroads are using railroads from Fort Erie to Windsor that are owned across the border from Niagara Falls. There have been some areas where they have not maintained the roadbeds to sufficient safety standards. I suggest that the minister should be looking at that particular area.

I’m rather disappointed about section 2(f) of the bill on spills where it says: “pollutant means a contaminant other than heat, sound, vibration or radiation.” My colleague from Huron-Bruce brought to the minister’s attention the carrying of nuclear waste from Pickering to Douglas Point by road transport. That is used for spent fuel storage at Douglas Point. Spent fuel is one of the most deadly toxic chemicals on earth. I’ve questioned it during the MTC estimates and I find that they’re not well informed on what material is being carried. The government has taken a short-term measure here for storage of radioactive waste. They have not come to some conclusion on long-term storage yet.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We don’t license it in Ontario. You should know that.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s no excuse whether you license it or not.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It’s a good reason.

Mr. Haggerty: It is hazardous material and somebody has to show some responsibility in this area. I’m sure the minister will show responsibility in that area. The fuel has been used by Ontario Hydro, which is an arm of the government of Ontario. I suggest to the minister we should be moving in the direction of long-term storage. Don’t leave it to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Can’t you trust your government?

Mr. Haggerty: It’s a crown agency like Ontario Hydro. It is up to the elected representatives to be the watchdogs in this particular area because it’s a dangerous area.

I suggest that short-term measures are not good enough. The minister and his ministry will have to be involved in it. I suggest that the minister should be looking at this particular area. We’re looking for long-term solutions. It’s his responsibility, just like setting out these hydro sites right now. Somebody is going to have to take some responsibility.

When I look at the section on exemptions, that bothers me to some extent. I’ve seen the minister bring in control orders for certain industries in Ontario. They may not meet certain requirements, but he removes the control orders without even having a public hearing. I suggest, when the minister gives exemptions like this that relate to hazardous material or whatever, it allows them to pollute.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You are nine months out of date on that one.

[5:00]

Mr. Haggerty: I may be, but for example, the minister, I might say, has exempted Inco. He removed part of that control order to allow them to pollute the atmosphere. Of course, as they are shut down now. I don’t know what the studies would indicate for the Sudbury basin’s air quality. It would be interesting for his ministry to give us that up-to-date information on the Sudbury basin so we could see how clean the air is there now.

As I said, I am concerned about the exemptions because they could undermine the whole principle of the bill. I hope the minister is going to give some serious consideration to the exemptions he may want to bring about.

It has been suggested I think by previous speakers that there should be something in the bill that can go back to some of these older sites that have been used for liquid waste disposal in Ontario, so whoever dumped or permitted dumping will be responsible for this particular contamination of the air, water and soil in this area. Perhaps it’s something that was permitted 10 or 15 years ago, but I think somebody has the responsibility in this area.

In the matter of compensation, I would like to see something in the bill that gives the individual person who has his land or property damaged by a hazardous spill some right to legal assistance. For example, there is a Compensation for Victims of Crime Act which provides compensation to a person, who through some unnecessary action by some individual, has been injured. There’s no doubt about it, it’s an area at which we could look. When I look at the property owners in the town of Pelham who have had to go out and hire lawyers to fight their battle in the courts, I feel there must be some financial assistance or funds available to permit them to take legal action against the person who was found responsible for an acid spill or a chemical spill or hazardous waste spill, or whatever we want to call it. I suggest there should be some type of fund. I think my colleague from Huron-Bruce mentioned there should be a charge to the industry in this particular area.

I hope the minister is going to have a regulation in the bill that trucking firms carrying waste for disposal must be bonded. I was listening to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) this afternoon, and he indicated they are moving in the area of deregulation. He was putting the onus on the person running the tractor vehicle, not on the person who owns the trailer.

I suggest there should be some measures to protect the public in a sense to solve the legal question of who is responsible for a truck towing a trailer and whether the broker is responsible for part of the acid spill or the industrial waste spill or hazardous waste spill. I suggest there’s an area at which we should be looking. The minister had better talk to his colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, because this may put the onus on the person owning the vehicle, not on the person owning the tractor.

I think the bill is an improvement over the other bill. I support it in principle but these are some of my concerns and perhaps the minister will take a look at them.

Mr. Laughren: As others have done, I rise to support the principle of this bill. As I understand the bill, there are basically four principles, namely: the polluter must pay; there must be prompt action taken when there is a spill; there must be restoration of the environment; and, finally, there must be compensation for the victim. Those are what I understand the principles of this bill to be, and one would be foolhardy to disagree with them.

What bothers me a great deal is that the minister’s actions do not match his words. The minister did not have to bring in this bill to have had these principles run throughout the actions of his ministry when it had the authority to do so, and I think the minister knows full well what I am talking about.

Keeping in mind what those four principles of the bill are, I would like to relate them to an incident that happened in November 1973, when 1,000 gallons of askerol oil spilled in Dowling, not far from Sudbury. The oil was allowed to remain there and percolate through the soil.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment that it was some of the oil -- a very small fraction of the oil.

Mr. Laughren: Sufficient oil to be a serious problem was allowed to percolate through the soil. A number of tests were done over a period of time, and there was even some partial removal of the contaminated soil. That took us up to 1975 and 1976, and all the time the minister’s predecessor and the officials of the ministry did not take any serious action. Then in June 1976, lo and behold, a ministerial order was issued against CP Rail. The ministerial order stated:

“You are hereby ordered, commencing within 25 days of the date of service of this order” -- this is to CP Rail -- “(1) to remove all soils contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyl material to a landfill site or facility approved for polychlorinated biphenyl disposal, or (2) to transfer all contaminated material stockpiled from the 1975 excavation program, and all such additional contaminated material as can be excavated by providing shoring of the railway tracks, to a landfill site or facility approved for polychlorinated biphenyl disposal, and to implement a course of action suitable to the Ministry of the Environment designed to arrest the migration of polychlorinated biphenyl material from the railway right of way, along with a compatible monitoring program.”

That, basically, was the content of the order issued by the ministry and signed by the northeastern region director of the Ministry of the Environment; that was on March 21, 1977.

First of all, CP appealed that order, and since that time not much has happened. CP appealed it, and the contaminated soil is still there. The order is very specific: “Remove the contaminated soil.”

I know the minister will say, “One reason this bill is coming in is to allow the ministry to make sure that this is done,” but some strange things have happened.

Since that time, the ratepayers of the town of Onaping Falls, in the particular community of Dowling, have formed a subcommittee consisting of three engineers, all of whom know what they are about. They formed a subcommittee of the ratepayers’ association and they said to the minister, “You have to excavate that soil,” and they documented their case extremely well.

The town council of Onaping Falls passed a motion saying: “You have to excavate this soil; it is percolating down to our water table.”

The council of the regional municipality passed a motion saying that they should remove the contaminated soil.

Last, but not least, the local MPP said to the minister, “You must remove the contaminated soil.”

With that kind of opposition, all of it reasonable, knowledgeable and well-intentioned, the minister still took the position that he would not remove the soil. So the ratepayers put together a very thoughtful and very reasonable brief, in which they documented their wishes, and sent it to the Minister of the Environment.

All the time the minister is saying, “No, no. We are going to have a hydrodynamic containment well. We will draw off water; we will develop a cone of depression, suck the water into that cone, pump it up and test it and see if it is contaminated with PCBs.”

The ratepayers put together a good brief; sent it to the ministry and the ministry said, “We will send it to our consultants, Geocon.” Geocon were the people who recommended the hydrodynamic containment well. They sent it out to the same people. I don’t know what they expected. Perhaps the minister, with some kind of strange logic, thought the Geocon people would contradict their first reports when they had already said they wanted to have the hydrodynamic well and that excavation wasn’t the answer. The minister sent it back to the same people who made the original recommendations. That did not seem to make sense to me.

Mr. Gaunt: The mayor wasn’t very happy.

Mr. Laughren: No. The mayor of Onaping Falls was rather disturbed at the minister. At least now when the minister goes into Onaping Falls he tells the mayor he is there, which is an improvement over what happened previously.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The honourable member cannot be sure of that.

Mr. Laughren: That is right, one cannot be sure that he will always tell the mayor.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m liable to pop up anywhere in this province, any time.

Mr. Laughren: If the mayor finds out, the minister is in trouble.

Anyway, Geocon submitted its report back to the ministry just in the past week or so and said: “Do you know what, Mr. Minister of the Environment? We were right in the first place. We really must build that hydrodynamic containment well, and excavation is not the answer.”

I don’t know, I guess nobody was terribly surprised, but I think an injustice was done to a very good subcommittee of the Dowling Ratepayers’ Association, people who had put in a lot of work. The minister’s people ignored the recommendations of the ratepayers’ group.

What really gets me in this whole scenario is that when one goes back to March 21, 1977 the minister told Canadian Pacific: “Excavate the contaminated soil.” Now, when the onus is upon his ministry to get rid of it, they do not have the same requirement for themselves. What is good enough for CP should surely be good enough for the Ministry of the Environment. But no; the minister said earlier: “CP, you must remove the soil”; now, when the onus is upon them to do it, they back off and say: “No, we are not going to remove it; it is too expensive. We are going to put in a well and get the contaminated material out that way.”

That is not right, to decide it will be done in a second class way because the ministry is doing it. That is really what the minister is doing. We think he is gambling where he should not be gambling.

Look at the principle of this bill: the polluter must pay. The spill occurred because a train hit a truck at a level crossing. Two private sectors were the characters which caused the spill. One of the principles of the bill with which the minister agreed is that the polluter must pay, whoever caused the pollution.

The second principle is there must be prompt action. That spill was in November, 1973. A known carcinogen was in the soil and percolating down through to the water table. That is not prompt action.

The third principle is restoration of the environment. The contaminated soil is still there so it has not been restored to its original form.

The fourth principle: compensation for victims. There have been no known victims to this point and there won’t be. Even if it was into the water table it would take a long period of time for damage to be done. But the dangers of PCBs in a water supply is well documented. I don’t think the minister questions that. There is no safe level of PCB contamination, no safe level at all. The minister can say there are acceptable levels, but he surely would not disagree with me that there are no safe levels in PCBs in a water supply. In terms of compensation for the victims; if that municipality has problems in the future, there will have to be compensation. If individuals have problems in the future there could have to be compensation.

[5:15]

We have those four principles of the bill, on the first three of which the Minister of the Environment has been, quite frankly, negligent. I know this bill was not in effect, I understand that, but the minister could have proceeded with the cleanup faster than he has. The minister could have recommended that contaminated soil be now removed, using the same reasoning with which he recommended the well be used. He had a choice. He could say remove the soil or we’ll put in a containment well.

There are other choices too, but basically those are two fundamental choices; and the minister chose to put in the containment well. So it doesn’t make sense to say we don’t have the authority to remove the soil but we have the authority to remove the contaminated material by use of a containment well. It doesn’t make sense. The minister was proceeding anyway without this legislation, he was prepared to proceed, so it doesn’t make sense for him to argue now he couldn’t proceed because this bill was not in place.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There is a big difference. Who pays for it? Who is responsible?

Mr. Laughren: I would ask the minister whether in a situation like this, where the principles are clearly outlined in the bill and they apply to a situation such as the PCB spill at Dowling, he now intends to extract the costs of excavation or cleanup from the people who caused the spill? When he responds perhaps he would address himself to that.

I have my suspicions about the situation in the Sudbury community; namely I suspect the Ministry of the Environment is partially responsible for the current state of contamination of the soil. I suspect that if the Minister of the Environment was to take the CPR to court to clean up, the CPR could establish that the ministry, because of the responsibilities they have, are partially responsible for the costs because they knew the spill had occurred and did not take action promptly. I would suspect this ministry would have enormous difficulty having a successful court action against the CPR. That’s why I believe the ministry is not proceeding against the CPR to pay for the cleanup.

I hope the minister will respond to that in his remarks. Basically what has happened is that the matter has been allowed to drag on from 1973 to 1979, five and a half years. The contaminated soil is still there, the PCBs are still in the soil and indeed percolating their way down and spreading, always spreading yet nothing really has happened; all sorts of studies but nothing has happened. Surely the minister wouldn’t defend elapse of a five and a half year period from the time of the spill to the time when any kind of solution is even attempted. That’s a long time.

By attempted I don’t mean a study, I mean excavation or his containment well. It hasn’t started yet. They haven’t begun constructing the well and they haven’t begun excavating the soil. So nothing has been done as yet except some removal of the surface oil from the spill site. Surely the minister, if he is defensive about it, will not attempt to defend that kind of time lag between a spill and the cleanup process.

So while we support the principle of this bill we would feel much more comfortable about it if we felt the minister was going to be more aggressive, and if his actions in the past, when he could have taken actions, indicated he had a sense of urgency about a spill like this. There’s no reason that delay should have gone from the fall of 1973 to the spring and now into the summer of 1979; and still nothing has been done.

I would just remind the minister there are serious problems with his containment-well proposal. The Dowling ratepayers have indicated it; namely: “The ground water flow is known only in a general sense and the drawdown is based on purely theoretical data. In order to achieve the drawdown of five feet it may require a much higher rate of pumping than 50 gallons a minute. Even at 25 gallons per minute the total quantity of water will exceed 13 million gallons per year. It is reasonable to assume that all this water will have to be treated.

“3. The pumping would have to go on indefinitely, bringing the costs sky high.

“4. The method is subject to failure, as pointed out in the report by the following statements on page 25:

“‘This alternative represents a positive approach provided that pump water from the well does not have a sustained PCB concentration of greater than three parts per billion. The length of operation is not known and could be of very long duration so that ultimately the cost could exceed that of other alternatives.’”

That is also in the Geocon report, as is this:

“Frequent maintenance may be required with perhaps also replacement of the well one or more times.” And quoting finally from the Geocon report: “Additional remedial measures may be required in the future.”

Those are some of the problems attached to the containment well, as admitted by Geocon.

I would urge the minister, even at this late date, to reconsider his decision to proceed with the hydrodynamic containment well. I think he is wrong. The ratepayers think he is wrong. The town council thinks he is wrong. The regional council thinks he is wrong. Only he and his officials think they are right, and it is based on cost reasons; that is the reason they are proceeding in the way they are. We say that is not fair. Both the Onaping and Vermilion rivers meet in that community and proceed to other communities downstream, and the whole system could be badly contaminated.

We support the principle of this bill, but I wish very much that the minister had given us assurances by his actions that he will be more aggressive when the legislation is finally in place.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Bill 24 and to speak in relation to how the bill could affect my own community.

The minister and the members are quite aware that the major portion of the pollutants that come into the city of Windsor are primarily from across the river, from the industrial complex at Zug Island, and are of US origin. I was just wondering how this legislation would affect the citizens in my given area.

The minister is aware that at one time the electrical complex Detroit-Edison did have a serious soot fallout, and it was left entirely up to the citizens in the area to institute action against Detroit-Edison, which eventually settled out of court. But I think those citizens should have had some protection, whether it be by way of legal assistance or otherwise, not only from the government of Canada but also from the Ministry of the Environment.

I am fairly certain that the industry on the American side does not give notice to either the provincial ministry or the federal department when they have some of these problems, and we find out about them only after they actually take place. We think there should be much closer liaison between US officials and US industry and this ministry as well as the federal department.

While I am concerned about this trans-boundary pollution that we suffer from, I likewise accept that in certain border municipalities we are the ones that are responsible for the pollutants that go on to our American friends. But, speaking for the Windsor-Essex county area, it is essentially the Detroiters and the industry in and around Detroit that do contaminate our environment.

I am also wondering how this legislation will affect the boats that still ply up and down the Detroit River, those that have not been converted to oil-burning, and still seem to belch out pollution from the stacks of the vessels.

Another area that concerns me is the transportation of some of these cargoes through Ontario to disposal sites in the state of New York. I did raise the issue of hazardous cargo that I understood from the article I read in the Detroit News originated in a nuclear plant on Lake Michigan. It crossed the state of Michigan on an interstate highway and the last point where they seemed to have any information about it was the Ambassador Bridge. I think that cargo was transported across the bridge, across Ontario highways and into the state of New York.

One of the unfortunate things is when cargo goes in transit in bond I understand there are no records kept, so we don’t even know. From what I understand, the truck goes right through on the American side of the bridge. It is not inspected when it comes through customs on the Canadian side, because the cargo is in transit in bond; it goes right on to the destination where they will eventually dispose of the cargo. That vehicle could be involved in any type of accident on our Ontario highways and could leave citizens in Ontario in grave peril.

From what I understood of the incident I did relate, the cargo was contaminated hazardous waste from a nuclear plant. I also think when it comes to an incident like this, the ministry officials in my community should have some type of a lab or some method of analysing some of the wastes as they are coming through in case they are not identified on a manifest, so they would know just exactly what to do to either neutralize or to take care of the waste so there would be no danger either to themselves or to the citizens as a result of a spill.

I raise these issues with the minister hoping he can give us some answers and alleviate the fears of many in the Windsor area who think, and I believe they are correct, that some of the hazardous wastes may be going through our area to disposal sites in other parts of the United States.

There is another issue I would like to raise with the minister. The polluter is going to be responsible, but when the pollution is of a fairly short duration yet does contaminate the area what do the citizens do? How do they get the minister to close down the facility or stop it from operation as soon as they find there is some sort of malfunction?

The minister kindly gave me a letter on the issue to which I am actually referring. I won’t mention it by name, but the minister is quite familiar with the problem.

Those are the few concerns I have and I thought I would like to raise them at this time hoping to elicit some type of response.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the principle of this bill. I would like to take the opportunity to bring to the minister’s attention some of the problems facing residents of my riding in relation to an issue which has been dealt with in this Legislature several times in the past. I am making particular reference to the problem of lead pollution.

I would like to find out from the minister, when Bill 24 is passed by the Legislature, what kind of approach he will use to solve this problem which affects several communities, especially here in Metropolitan Toronto.

[5:30]

This issue has been raised in the past by several members sitting on this side of the House. I’m sure the minister recalls when my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) raised the issue of Canada Metal, located at Eastern Avenue, a company which is also affecting the lives of people living close by.

In my particular area, I would like to raise the frustration of residents living in Dovercourt in relation to particular problems affecting the environmental structure of my riding. I remember in 1975 when I was first elected I was supposed to deal with a particular problem which was related to Castle Spring Products Limited, located on Chandos Street on the west side of Dufferin, which was creating problems in relation to the environment. There were noise and pollution problems.

By way of history, it took myself and the residents two years to solve this particular problem and to raise the issue on the floor of the Legislature before the government took some particular action. By the way, I would like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that the action was taken by the residents because they took the company before the court and they were told that the Ministry of the Environment was producing a violation notice to the company. It took two years before the residents were able to deal with this particular issue before the court and put enough pressure on the company so that the company decided to leave the area completely.

Then there was the case of Wilkinson Foundry, in which there was a spill into the environment last year, around April or May. I’m not particularly sure about the date in 1978. There was a spill of a particular chemical product which is called bentonite, which has spread around the neighbourhood in the residential area located beside the particular company.

I raised the issue in the Legislature until the Minister of the Environment was able to produce another violation notice, but without any concrete results. What happened was that this particular company, Wilkinson Foundry, which is located on the east side of Florence, acquired some land from the CNR to expand its operation. This particular company is located again -- and I want to emphasize this -- in a residential area. It creates a lot of noise and environmental problems in relation to pollution.

The Prestolite company is located on Dupont and Dufferin. I’m sure the minister very well remembers the spill of sulphuric acid which took place in 1978. I raised the particular issue on the floor of the Legislature in order that the minister would investigate all of the plants located in Dovercourt to find out if there was a particular hazard to people beside the plants; after that warning to the minister to investigate the plants, two months later there was this spill of sulphuric acid.

Some of the people living and working beside the plants were particularly affected by this spill. What was the reaction of the Minister of the Environment? He sent some officials of his ministry to investigate the particular problem. Then there was an official statement made in the Legislature that the problem was finalized and so on.

But we still have the problem, Mr. Speaker, of lead pollution coming from this Prestolite company. I was completely surprised when, a few days ago, I read an article in the Globe and Mail, dated May 4, 1979. The headline of this article, and I want to quote it, is: “Province Will Not Replace Soil with High Lead Level.” For the record, I would like to read part of it. It shows the position taken by this government and the Minister of the Environment in relation to people affected by this particular environmental problem.

To quote from this article, Mr. Speaker: “The land surrounding railway tracks near a west end battery company where children often play contains lead levels up to seven times what the province considers acceptable, the provincial environment ministry says.” It is a shocking statement. The minister recognizes the problem and yet there is no action to cure or treat this particular problem, even when there are people living around this plant and affected by the pollution coming from it. It’s a shock to me and it indicates that if the minister is really serious about the introduction of Bill 24 -- even though this side of this House endorses the principle of the bill -- to get the best results in solving the problems which are caused by factories or plants located in the province of Ontario this government has to change its attitude and approach to the problem.

A few months ago, four or five months ago, I sent out my Queen’s Park report to my constituents. On the questionnaire there was a question as to what the residents thought about the whole approach used by this government in relation to the environment. The other question was: “Is the government too lax in relation to the enforcement of environmental problems?” Almost 90 per cent of the constituents who replied to my questionnaire stated that the government’s attitude was too lax in relation to the whole approach of environmental problems. Even though this party endorses the principle of this bill, I think that the whole attitude of the government, as I stated before, has to change if we are really serious about solving this modem problem of pollution in the environment.

Continuing on through the same article, it says:

“Despite a major soil removal project two years ago in the area around the Prestolite Battery Division of Eltra of Canada Limited, the contaminated soil will not be replaced because it is on private property where children shouldn’t be playing, John Steele, a ministry information officer said in a recent interview.” Such a statement is absurd, because even though it was private property the owner of the private property didn’t go and look for pollution. Of course the problem was created by the company. Why is the government making such statements and raising the matter of children playing on private property? What is the government looking for? Are people supposed to sell their own property to the private company which is just beside them? I really don’t understand.

Through this speech I would like to convey the frustration of my constituents to the minister. The effect of the government’s attitude is to force residents to sell their properties and to move out of the area. I don’t think that is the best approach to use in a period when inflation is high and mortgages have been increased. It is not right to force the residents, who are workers, to sell their houses and to move out and buy a new house where they don’t have this environmental problem.

The minister should take strong steps to prevent this happening. If the government and the minister are serious about solving this lead problem, we need action to ensure the emission of lead will be reduced at least to the level decided by this government. If the company doesn’t want to follow the guidelines of the Minister of the Environment, then the minister has to take action so the lives of the people, especially of the children, won’t be jeopardized by this problem.

I would like to continue with this article just to emphasize the problem and to emphasize also the attitude of this government: “But the fence between the railway land and the plant’s parking lot, which children can easily reach from the street, is low enough for them to climb over, with a section broken down completely; and further west there is no fence at all.”

Why do we have a Minister of the Environment? If this is the attitude coming from the government, we might as well do without the legislation. The companies are following their own whims and there is no law enforcement process which forces them to follow the guidelines of the Ministry of the Environment.

I would like to state as a principle that if we are serious about the legislation we need a law enforcement structure which makes the company follow the guidelines and the clauses and the sections of the bill enacted by this Legislature.

“The patch of land around the railway tracks was referred to at a recent Toronto Board of Health meeting, where members were asking provincial officials about problems involving lead contamination lingering in areas surrounding three Toronto lead companies.” The article continues later: “The board has been concerned since the early 1970s about the health risk that lead contamination can cause, especially to younger children who sometimes eat the soil they play in. Acute lead poisoning led to drowsiness, irritability, abdominal pain and vomiting.

“Mr. Steele said there were about 17,000 parts per million of lead in the soil in this area.” I hope the minister is paying attention to this figure; it is well above the accepted 3,000 ppm standard. “David Pinkus, the vice-chairman of the health board, produced documents which showed that one parcel of land in the area had a lead count of 20,750 parts per million.

[5:45]

“In a later interview, Paul Cockburn, central regional director for the ministry, explained that the results of the lead tests can vary like this from one patch of land to another on a site where counts are so high.”

Further along: “Bill Henry, director of the manufacturing of Prestolite, said in a recent interview that he felt there was no danger because asphalt and stones covered the area around the tracks. But a visit yesterday showed that soil was clearly visible in the area.”

This is the attitude of the company: There is no problem. Leave us alone; we have to make our own profits. If the health of the people living beside the plant is in danger, there is no problem; the profits are more important than the health of the people. I say it is time for the Minister of the Environment and this government to put the health of the people above the profits.

If we have a law in this province that governs everybody equally, then the companies should be bound by the same regulations and the same laws by which individuals are bound. We cannot have different law enforcement structures for people and for companies because production or profits are more important than people.

It is time for the Minister of the Environment to take a look at the situations involving the plants of Prestolite at Dupont and Dufferin, and of Wilkinson Foundry, which is going to expand its operation. The owner of Wilkinson has acquired some land from the CNR to expand its operation, and he has done it with the blessing of the municipalities. If the Minister of the Environment is particularly concerned about this situation, he should appeal the decision of the municipalities before the Ontario Municipal Board. It is just amazing; people are so frustrated they have to take action. They were supposed to look for a lawyer to defend the residents. Why is the Minister of the Environment not taking action against the company? I need an answer to that question.

In addition, there must be an overall review of this problem as it affects people living beside these particular plants. I hope that, after years and years of frustration for the residents, the minister will take some action to alleviate the problem instead of aggravating it by letting the companies pollute the environment and forcing people to leave the area. This particular attitude is irresponsible, and I think the minister has to take action.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of comments -- more than I anticipated -- on this particular bill, but I am glad to see that. I am glad, of course, to see the amount of praise from almost everyone who spoke, suggesting this is an excellent bill. I have to concur. I think I should give credit where credit is due on the drafting of this bill. I would like to so name Dr. Landis for having done an excellent piece of drafting on a very significant piece of legislation. Although I have heard a fair amount of rhetoric about why this bill came forward, I think I should put it on the record that it was -- I would not say at the insistence, but I would say at the prodding of our general counsel.

Just so there is no doubt about it, this was drafted before I became minister, so I can’t take any of that credit. Indeed, it was long before Port Loring was an issue on the front page of any particular newspaper. Again, I think the facts would indicate general counsel is responsible for this legislation, and I am glad to have the honour of bringing it forward.

I do want more dialogue on this bill in standing committee, and I look forward to that. I will, in committee, have three amendments, and I will send over these copies. They are very minor amendments and I don’t think they will affect the principle of the bill. I would like to serve notice so that you may have them.

Several points were considered by each speaker, and I am not sure I will cover all of them in chronological order. I will at least try to be finished before 6 p.m.

With reference to the remarks of the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt), his suggestion was, I believe, that a company set up a fund. Well obviously they are at liberty to do so and we couldn’t stop them, but there are some real problems with setting up a fund. One of them that comes quickly to mind is it is not likely it could be done on a gallonage basis. If you charged a half a cent or a cent, or whatever it happened to be, per gallon, I think it would not likely result in justice.

I think the member would agree some of our most hazardous wastes, the ones that are most difficult to control, would be in very small quantities. If we charged half a cent a gallon, that would be a fantastic amount of money if it were for gasoline but you could clean up 20 gallons of gasoline rather easily. If you had the same rate on a gallonage basis for some much more hazardous materials it would be unfair. I guess the extreme would be a gallon of dioxin. Even at a dollar, a hundred times the rate, it would certainly be unbelievable the damage one gallon could do and the cost to clean it up. I think there are some problems with putting on a gallonage charge. It is something we can perhaps talk about in committee.

There was a comment about a two-year limitation being too short. I think there are two rebuttals to that. First of all it is two years after the person knew or ought to have known, and I think that is a pretty significant time. Frankly, I feel to go to six years is too long, I think it leaves it in jeopardy far too long. I think two years after the person ought to have known, not necessarily at the time of the spill, is long enough. On a matter of general principle, it does sort of fit with other policies of government at this time.

Payment for indirect damages; again I am not sure we won’t want to talk about this more in committee, it presents some problems. I think there must be a limit to the amount of damage one would really believe should be the responsibility of the company that owned or was in control of the material. I think common law has always respected compensation for certain consequences, even though they are remote. To put in “indirect” rather than “direct” I think makes it so broad that perhaps the courts would be filled with cases to determine what is indirect damage. I think you can do a better job of compensating if we leave it as direct damage.

For proclamation, we need the regulations in place before we do proclaim the act. This was a thread that ran through many of the responses, the hope we are serious; of course we are serious. We wouldn’t have it here if we weren’t serious.

I am only going to deal momentarily with the last speaker’s comments. As did several others, he talked not about the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, but about illustrations of how nice it would have been had this bill been in place at the time the incident took place. I am rather amazed they should criticize the government for bringing in a bill they want so badly and which is so needed in this province --

Mr. Laughren: We talked about your negligence. It was your negligence; you didn’t need this bill.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- and would have stopped the very things they complained about. They didn’t speak on the principle of the bill, not at all. They used it as an opportunity to put on the record, and God bless them, those things that they felt would make good reading as they sent out Hansard.

Mr. Laughren: That’s nonsense. That’s misleading the House.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I understand that protest. The fact is they distorted the record somewhat.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lupusella: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment is accusing me of not applying myself to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That’s not a point of order.

Mr. Laughren: The minister has been negligent and he knows it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No; that’s not so and the member knows it. I think there has been a bill with the language more broad in the definition section than in this particular bill. It will give us an excellent opportunity to look after the concerns that members opposite have.

Mr. Lupusella: You didn’t pay attention to those concerns in the past.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As to why we left out atomic energy, I really feel that would complicate the administration of this bill. I think it should be left with the Atomic Energy Control Board to deal with uranium. It’s considered a national resource. I think including it would complicate it.

With regard to heat, that’s another problem. It is very hard to recover heat. It’s done instantly; it’s into the environment, it’s dissipated and how does one assess that situation? Again, we may want to talk about that. The effects are usually short term.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) did indicate that it’s possible to have some measurable effect of a spill that would be the result of heat. It could have some real effect, and I think we can get at that. But heat in itself would be extremely hard either to restore or whatever. I think there’s logic in leaving out heat and there’s justification in leaving out atomic energy; but we may want to talk about those at a little greater length.

Turning again to the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I think her words were we were watering down the bill. If we weren’t serious about this bill we wouldn’t have it here. It was put on the record, as members know, last fall. We have had a lot of comment about it and indeed we have had some who oppose it. One can well imagine there are many who have opposed the bill.

Notwithstanding that, we think the principle of this bill is so sound and so valuable to the people of this province and that it will so remedy many of the problems we have seen in the past that we are adamant about the principle of this bill. That is why it’s here. Let me put members’ fears to rest. There will be no watering down of this bill in committee unless they do it. There will be no less determination on our part to make sure that the value of this bill is fulfilled in its total.

Ms. Bryden: What about the limitation period?

Mr. Laughren: You’ve already watered it down to two years.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, we won’t.

Mr. Laughren: You have already.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I have covered some of the other issues. I feel that the six years is just too long and it wouldn’t be fair.

With regard to pecuniary loss, perhaps in some instances the courts will have to decide. Of course such things as wages, loss of the use of a home and all of those things obviously would be included. I suspect that when we get to some of the more subtle things the courts will eventually make those decisions.

Very briefly, the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) wanted to make a case that if we license, then we have a responsibility. I find that difficult to understand. Surely when we license an automotive vehicle we do not have the responsibility for that automotive vehicle if it does damage to persons or property. I think that case had the member a little bit confused.

After this bill comes into effect, we will have the opportunity to hold responsible those who pollute, if I can use that word, or emit into our environment, but surely not retroactively. I think the case the member for Erie made was that we should apply it retroactively. That’s a very unsound principle in this democratic government of ours. I am sure that we should not accept that. Any discharge that might be going on now on a continuing basis, and therefore will be discharging after the bill comes into force, is of course subject to the terms. But in no circumstances would we make it retroactive.

In conclusion on that particular item, yes, we do have many studies on the Inco situation both during and before the strike, and we will have them after the strike is over. We have all kinds of information that we can and will supply to the member if that is what he wishes.

With regard to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), it is hard not to respond, and time does not give me that privilege right at the moment. We have seen and will continue to see that that is looked after. I think a lot has been done in a very short period of time since August. I want to put it very clearly on the record for the member that the proposal by the citizens’ group will be looked at very carefully. I know the member felt that it was wrong to give it to Geocon. However, they are the experts, and the terms of reference that I personally gave to that company were simply this: “I want you to look at that proposal as objectively as you possibly can. If there is merit in it, if it is logical, we’ll do it.” They are not under any misapprehension that they have to go to the old method which we had previously agreed to, and it will be amended if there is logic in doing so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the minister has further comments, it is six of the clock.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think the balance of this discussion could very well take place during clause-by-clause consideration of this bill in standing committee. I would only say to the members opposite that I hope they will put a great emphasis on this particular piece of legislation when it comes to committee. I want it very clearly understood that I want this bill as soon as possible, and I hope the committee members will order their priorities in such a manner that we will have this important legislation as soon as possible.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for standing resources development committee.

The House recessed at 6:03 p.m.