Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 190, An Act respecting Urban Transportation Development Corporation Ltd.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a brief explanation of this very brief but very important bill that we have before us this morning.

The bill outlines the interpretation of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, which is a company fully owned by the province of Ontario but incorporated by letters patent dated October 10, 1974, issued under the Canada Corporations Act. It is a regularly incorporated company under the federal act. The shares are totally held by me on behalf of the government of Ontario.

Section 2 of the bill declares “that the Urban Transportation Development Corporation is not an agency of Her Majesty in common law nor a crown agency within the meaning of the Crown Agency Act.” This is a similar clause to section 13 of the Ontario Transportation Development Corporation Act, which corporation was incorporated by act of this Legislature. Section 13 was included to state that the corporation was not a crown agency under the meaning of the Crown Agency Act.

As UTDC was incorporated under the normal method of incorporation, that was not included. We wish to give the corporation that status. That makes the corporation an operating company subject to the same rules and regulations basically as a regularly incorporated business corporation except that, as I understand it, the corporation is exempt from federal income tax under the Income Tax Act since it is more than 90 per cent owned by the crown.

The purpose of this is to confirm that the corporation is a separately operating business corporation. It will be subject to several laws of the province, such as the Planning Act and the Labour Relations Act, just as any other corporation is. It would not be exempt from those acts as a crown agency is. It will also make a difference as far as the statute of limitations is concerned, and the employees would be private sector employees and not employees of the crown.

The other main purpose of the act is to provide for guaranteeing the performance of contracts or the indemnity by the crown. As the government of Ontario is the only shareholder and the owner of the corporation, this is not an unusual procedure at all when entering into performance bonds for the carrying out of contracts. I know that when any corporation is requesting bonding by the major surety companies of the world, those bonding companies will in almost every instance, ask for guarantees by the parent corporation or by the shareholder of the corporation.

I know from my own experience, having been in the construction industry for about 25 or 30 years and procuring bonds for the carrying out of contracts, it is always the procedure of the surety company to request guarantees from the owners of the company whether they be private individuals or other corporations. This provision of the act provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, on behalf of the province of Ontario, provide such guarantees of indemnity to the surety company on behalf of UTDC.

10:10 a.m.

This would provide for the corporation to obtain the normal performance bonding that any company would be expected to provide in the carrying out of any significant commercial contract. This bill provides for that purpose. That is the explanation of the bill.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, initially I should say we will be supporting the bill today, requesting that it go to committee.

Bill 190 causes us some real concern. On the face of it, this small item of legislation appears to be reasonably innocuous but the main thrust of the bill is to permit the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on behalf of the province, to enter into covenants or financial agreements to bond or guarantee contracts entered into by the UTDC.

Over the last six or seven years the Ontario Liberal Party has been somewhat sceptical, at least in a responsible sense, with regard to the rapid transit proposals put forward in the name of this crown corporation and its predecessor. Members of the Legislature will recall the pomp and ceremony and publicity that occurred with the ill-fated Krauss-Maffei system. I think in that year the Premier (Mr. Davis) was the beneficiary of the Transit Man of the Year award. Unfortunately, that system would not go around corners.

That same year, on September 12 or 13, 1974, we had an announcement during the fifteenth annual Premiers’ conference in Toronto, the headline on which was “Ontario and Alberta Join in Urban Transit Development Corporation.” It got headlines in all the local papers. There was a lot of whoop-de-doo in the press. Very briefly it said:

“The overriding theme of the fifteenth annual Premiers’ conference has been inter-provincial co-operation. In part, this stems from an understanding which the province of Ontario gave at last year’s Premiers’ conference in Charlottetown to seek ways by which the various provinces could work together in development programs to the mutual advantage of all parts of this country. Since last year a number of areas of joint participation and co-operation have been explored, one of which resulted in the purchase earlier this year of Alberta coal by Ontario Hydro.

“Today Alberta and Ontario are pleased to announce that the province of Alberta will make an investment in UTDC and will cooperate with Ontario in the development within the private sector of Canadian transit technology and in the Canadian transit equipment industry.” It goes on for five pages. The last paragraph quotes the Premier. “‘The government of Ontario’s original announcement of the corporation and its activities suggested that it should be a corporation serving national interests. Alberta’s participation is a significant step towards that goal,’ Mr. Davis said.”

Mr. Nixon: How much of that Alberta money did we get?

Mr. Cunningham: Not one thin dime, Mr. Speaker. It is regrettable, because I think the intent and the purpose expressed in that agreement and in the press announcement, which obtained a great deal of coverage not only here but across the country, was excellent. It is the kind of thing that, especially in 1974, might have helped to bind us today. It might have helped cement better relations today, but unfortunately, for a number of reasons, Alberta changed its mind on this situation and chose not to enter into an agreement.

Three days later, on UTDC stationery, we have a news release. It is dated September 16, 1974, Toronto, and says: “Kirk Foley, president of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, today outlined a co-operative development program with Douglas Aircraft Company of Canada, Toronto, and the McDonnell Douglas Corporation for a North American application of the GO Urban rapid transit system.” Yet again more headlines right across the country and this was just three days later.

“Earlier today the McDonnell Douglas Corporation of St. Louis, a company noted for its commercial aviation and space exploration activities, entered into an agreement with Krauss-Maffei of Munich for exclusive US rights to the west German company’s magnetic levitation rapid transit technology. The UTDC will receive 10 per cent of the royalties flowing to Krauss-Maffei from its agreement with McDonnell Douglas. This arises out of the corporation’s own licence agreement which was signed over a year ago. The US transportation company will invest at least $20 million in further development of technology now evolving from the GO Urban transit development project in Toronto.

“‘With UTDC and McDonnell Douglas each holding exclusive rights to the use of this technology in Canada and the US respectively,’ Mr. Foley said, ‘We now have initiated a co-operative development program to bring a prototype maglev technology to production status within the shortest possible time.’” That was 1974.

“‘The decision by McDonnell Douglas to enter this field, which will involve engineering, marketing and manufacturing,’ Mr. Foley said, ‘is a result of several years of analysis of the urban transit market in the United States and an evaluation of emergent technologies for high-performance rapid transit.’” It goes on for another four or five pages.

“In making his announcement Mr. Foley stressed that this development program, including Douglas Aircraft Company of Canada, is another part of the UTDC commitment to transfer its technology rights to Canadian industry. This will ensure that the Canadian industry will load in the development of revenue systems produced for markets in this country and for export markets.” That was in 1974.

It is not surprising that we do not regularly get press releases from Mr. Foley any more. I think he anticipates just how they might be used.

I may be wrong and I stand to be corrected, but I do not think we obtained much of our 10 per cent on that. If anything, I do not think we got one thin dime from McDonnell Douglas. That particular arrangement is unfortunately ancient history. McDonnell Douglas was to share in the cost of recovery of the KM technology 50:50, and I do not think that ever happened. The maglev technology soon found its way to the back burners.

Then there was the famous announcement, made I think through the good graces of CFTO-TV, announcing that we had obtained and we were going to perform a contract to build a system from Tel Aviv to Haifa. That project never got going. There was optimism and publicity with regard to a Caracas bid. Thereafter there were bids all across the United States -- Philadelphia, Miami when it was cold up here, Boston, Buffalo. Now there are Los Angeles and latterly Vancouver.

In the meantime, UTDC has spent a small fortune developing technology -- for the most part, technology that I believe the private sector already had. The arrangement with UTDC and Hawker Siddeley to build streetcars for Toronto has been, in my view, moderately successful if at all. The cars are extremely heavy. One can get a foot massage by standing on Front Street listening to these things run up and down the street. They are incredibly expensive. My gut feeling after this experience is that Hawker Siddeley probably could have done the job cheaper and more efficiently on its own.

Not a word has been heard -- maybe it is because again I am not getting the press releases, but I do not sense that there is any progress -- with regard to the UTDC arrangement with Bombardier-MLW. I recall they were going to build articulated streetcars; not a peep. I am inclined to think that particular project is again on the back burners and there is some real doubt.

Now we have an announcement of a project in Vancouver. The Premier, in co-operation with the British Columbia government, has announced an advanced light rapid transit system in Vancouver some two weeks before a feasibility study in that city would be completed. Globe and Mail columnist Robert Williamson said in yesterday morning’s paper -- I will just quote it here for you, Mr. Speaker, in the event you have not had a chance to see it:

“Here, through the political chicanery of the Social Credit government, is something to behold. In a sudden stampede to pre-empt the installation of Vancouver city council and its new NDP mayor and claim the glory for the Vancouver transit system, Victoria has deceived municipal leaders into expecting up to $100 million in cash from Ottawa. The federal cabinet has not even considered the west coast transit aid, and when it does it will be looking at no more than $50 million.”

I had a discussion with officials from that ministry yesterday and I am led to believe that that in fact will probably be $40 million. The long and short of it is that it was a rather hastily arranged proposition. The cost of this is still in some doubt. I think the newly elected mayor of Vancouver is entitled to refer to this possibly as a pig in a poke and hardly the basis of a sound workable business arrangement.

10:20 a.m.

In response to questions from my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), the Premier indicated no such contract exists at this time. Nothing was written and none of the real details had been ironed out.

In fact, there were more questions than answers on this particular project. Will the project be elevated or will it be below ground? Will it be a combination of those factors? Will it be run by computers or will it be manual? Will it be propelled by a linear induction motor or by a rotary motor?

These are all technical questions to be answered and questions that must be of vital concern to those of us who are concerned about the potential liability on the part of the Ontario taxpayer if this project should fail. That is what Bill 190 is all about.

Are there firm prices or are we anticipating cost overruns? Were there cost overruns at the Kingston test track? What is the assessment of the viability of this project by the independent bonding people? Very simply, are we considering advanced light rapid transit when a conventional light rapid transit might be simpler, cheaper and more efficient, and of less risk to the Ontario taxpayer?

What are the natures of the agreements with our subcontractors? Who are the subcontractors? At this point, we are not even sure who those people will be. Have we made or are we making arrangements with Bombardier-MLW? Does Canadair continue to want to work with UTDC? Does Hawker Siddeley Canada Limited? If they do not, and recognizing that UTDC has no manufacturing facility, what Canadian company would do business with us?

It is estimated that upwards of $100 million of Ontario taxpayers’ money has been spent on UTDC to date. Will this project we are speaking of in Vancouver recover those costs, or will this project in combination with the Los Angeles project recover our development costs? Those are questions yet to be answered.

It is estimated that at least 60 per cent of the costs will relate to land acquisition, and construction of terminal stations in the sky and, of course, the track bed itself. It is my understanding that the steel for the rails will not come from Ontario but will likely come from Sysco Steel in Nova Scotia or Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Corporation from the west. That leaves roughly 40 per cent of the cost of this project to be developed elsewhere, and if Ontario contractors were not to be involved, what really is the benefit of this project for Ontario? I think that must remain the fundamental question and I hope the minister will comment on that in some detail.

Through this bill we will be accepting the responsibility for a very large financial bond. I truly and sincerely hope the project works. I want to say this to the minister and I want to go on record very clearly and unequivocally right now, I will be one of the first people to admit I have been wrong on this if what has been proposed turns out to be successful, viable, there is no risk to the Ontario taxpayer and the original purpose of UTDC is achieved.

I remain somewhat doubtful with regard to that, but I would like to say our scepticism with regard to UTDC has not been unfounded. Other questions arise. Why are we putting the people of Ontario en the financial hook on this particular project? Have we tried private bonding companies? The minister has a great deal of experience in that particular endeavour. Have we looked at Canadian surety companies? Have we looked at Lloyds of London? It would almost be beneficial to take a look and see what it thinks of the viability of these projects. I would like to know why we have not gone to Lloyds. If we have, what does Lloyds of London think about this and what does it think of a money-back guarantee that will exist on a project of this sort that has never been tried or proved, at least to date?

It would be nice to know, when we are granting our friend Mr. Foley the combination to the consolidated revenue fund, the extent of our possible liabilities. It has been said that with Vancouver it might be $300 million. My gut feeling is that the initial estimate of the cost of that project is modest indeed. Now we have word of an LA project and a possibility of bids elsewhere. It is doubtful we will get more than one of those bids in the US, but it would be nice to know and I think it would be helpful to members of the Legislature who would like to be responsible on this, the maximum downfall we may be facing should one or more of these projects fail.

Frankly, I really am delighted to hear that the technical advisory group in Los Angeles is leaning to the UTDC proposal, but again I have some very real doubts about how many jobs will be involved for Canadians and specifically how many jobs will be involved for the people of Ontario. We, through this bill, are putting ourselves on the line. We are on the hook financially. The downside is at great risk to us and I am not entirely sure that a large proportion of the jobs is going to be there for us.

Very briefly, I do not think Mr. Foley has done a particularly good job of helping the minister with his job, and that is keeping the members of the Legislature informed with regard to the corporation’s activities and just what it is doing. We have not denied UTDC funds in the past. I think we have been responsible on that. We have not pulled the plug on this corporation, in the fervent hope that at some point over the last seven or eight years Mr. Foley would come back with an order.

I, frankly, am not one who necessarily believes 100 per cent in Murphy’s law, that being that if anything can go wrong, it is bound to. Often I thought that maybe that was a principle that underlined the UTDC bid policies. However, we have had a number of major capital projects in Ontario be subjected to some doubt. From Hydro across the street, we hear announcements in this Legislature that half of the Bruce B project is mothballed; Wesleyville is half done, it is mothballed; J. Clark Keith, a $56-million proposition in Windsor, is mothballed, and I think a $2-billion proposition, and I stand to be corrected, at the Lennox generating plant in Kingston is mothballed. That is a lot of money, and if something went wrong on this one, we really could be in a tough spot.

The original intent of the corporation I think was to assist the private transportation sector and develop a catalyst to export this particular material. The thesis remains very valid, but in practice it is now apparent that UTDC is in the process of abandoning some of its original partners and is in fact competing with them. In the recent Buffalo bid, we successfully outbid Hawker Siddeley and another Canadian company --

Hon. Mr. Snow: By about 20 per cent.

Mr. Cunningham: -- which really is inconceivable, because invariably we probably have to go back to those people and get them to do the work. I do not know how they could overbid, if they were interested in the work, and we could come under their bid if we would eventually have to use their services anyway.

It really disturbs me when the government of Ontario, or any government for that matter, chooses to go out and use its massive funding and resources to compete with the private sector. It is obvious that notwithstanding the abilities of Bombardier-MLW, Canadair, Vickers or Hawker Siddeley, none of them has the resources of the province of Ontario, the unlimited resources, and certainly none of them is going to have the key to the Treasury, as my friend Mr. Foley is going to have it when this bill becomes law.

I would like this bill to go to committee of the whole House so some more detailed questions might be answered.

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, we too will be supporting this bill this morning. It is a little difficult for me to talk about a light rail service or any other kind of service. Mr. Speaker, being an old railroader, you will know that when one lives in a community of 85,000 people and very seldom ever sees a train, it is kind of tough to get on track and talk about a rail service.

When we look at this bill we have several questions to raise. Many of the questions have been raised by the member for Wentworth North, who is much more knowledgeable in this than I. He has been the Liberal critic for transportation and communications for some time now and I am relatively new at it.

One of the things that we on this side are interested in is why it is the government is trying to put itself at such an arm’s-length distance away from UTDC on one hand and on the other hand is accepting responsibility for any faults that may occur during the operation.

10:30 a.m.

For example, sections 1 and 2 of the act try to suggest that somehow or other UTDC is not a crown corporation while at the same time all of the shares are held by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. It is a nice way of saying maybe the government’s philosophy does not agree with the crown corporation structure, but let me assure the minister that I do not know whether he can sell that to the people out there, that the government owns all the shares but somehow or other this is not a government operation.

It is a good trick if they can get away with it, and I suspect by passing this act today they will get away with it in a sense that they will be able to say, “UTDC is separate and apart from us, except we have all the responsibility when it comes to putting up the bucks for performance bonds.” That is something we have to question on this side of the house. I should say philosophically that from a political point of view, were we the government, we would not attempt in any way to separate ourselves from an operation like UTDC. We would make it a crown corporation.

I can understand that when you originally got yourselves involved in this program, and you were a little concerned it was going to fall flat on its face, you would want to keep it at arm’s length and suggest that was something separate and apart. But now, with all the nice announcements you keep popping up with to the effect that suddenly this thing is going to burst out all over -- starting with Vancouver and then Los Angeles and then Miami; it could be going all over the place -- if I were the government I would be proud to stand up and say, “My God, look, we have got something there that is worth while, and it is ours. It belongs to the people of this province.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: It sure does.

Mr. M. Davidson: It may, as you say, but the way this act is written it is saying, “You guys stay over there and do the little operation and if anything goes wrong we will pay the money out of the bottom end, but we can still attach some blame on that side.” I suggest to the minister, if there are failures and the money is going to be taken out of the public purse to cover those failures, then maybe you as the government should accept that responsibility. Maybe you should stand up and say we were wrong and not just stand there and say UTDC told us this was okay, that everything was going to be fine. I and my colleagues do not understand why it is you have to have that arm’s-length separation between yourselves and UTDC.

Section 3, which gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council on behalf of the province of Ontario the right to post performance bends for the operation of UTDC, is again something we would have to question. Some of those questions were raised by the member for Wentworth North as to whether you have looked at other types of performance bonds. Have you gone to companies and asked them what it would cost you to pay for a performance bond through an agency? We are getting stuck here with $300 million in Vancouver. If you go down to Los Angeles they are going to require a performance bond. If all of these things get into operation you are going to have performance bonds posted in three or four major centres, all of which are going to be very costly in terms of dollars to the people of this province. If there are any failures in any of these systems that require that bond to be paid, we cannot even tell you at this moment the amounts of money that that may cost the people of this province.

Nevertheless, having said that, I can well see that again the government is putting itself in a position to own the shares through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, fund the project, post the performance bonds, but at the same time separate itself from UTDC through legislation and not admit that it is, in fact, a crown corporation.

It is rather funny; the member for Wentworth North talked in terms of jobs and of these supposed sales, because none of us is really aware of what kind of agreement or arrangement has been made for the Vancouver system. Questions were raised to that the other day and we really do not have a response nor do we have any idea what the agreement is or the conditions of the performance bond, or any of those things. They are not on board. All this bill does today is legitimize a supposed transaction that has already been made.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is not so.

Mr. M. Davidson: It most certainly is so. How could a performance bond possibly be posted if legislation has not yet passed through the House?

Hon. Mr. Snow: A performance bond has not been posted yet.

Mr. M. Davidson: There you go. So how do we know what the conditions of that performance bond are?

Hon. Mr. Snow: What a bunch of sceptics.

Mr. M. Davidson: Sceptics? Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister we are not playing with his money, we are playing with the money of the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have more in it than you have.

Mr. M. Davidson: You may very well have more in it than I have because I do not have very much. Getting back to the job situation, we have been given to understand that if this project rolls and gets going, if we got sales to Vancouver and sales to Los Angeles, that is going to create a great number of jobs for Ontario.

The other day during question period the Premier indicated that I did not know my mathematics. Somehow or other the understanding was that part of the agreement with the BC government was that a certain number of component parts would be manufactured in BC. The Premier stood up and said when you start from nothing and you end up with 300 jobs, just to use a figure, then you have to gain. He said that was the old math. Thank the Lord I have children who taught me the new math. The new math in my view is, if the potential were 500 jobs and we gave 200 of them away, we have lost jobs in this province. We have not gained, even though we do end up with 300. You do not give away the jobs.

That is why I suggested the other day that the performance bond in terms of dollars is one thing, but in actual fact if you are going to allow the component parts of the units to be made outside the province then your guarantee is really a lot more than $300 million. Your guarantee is perhaps 100 or 200 jobs and all of the benefits those would have brought into the province. Let’s not finagle with figures. There are the facts. Even though you may end up with 200 or 300 jobs, you are still giving some of them away. That is the truth of the matter.

Even though we are going to support this bill I think many of the questions raised by the member for Wentworth North are valid and require some kind of answer. Many of the situations that could possibly come forward out of the passing of this legislation could very well put the people of Ontario in great financial difficulty if this system does not perform the way the government seems to think it will. Until we know the terms and conditions of those performance bonds, until we know what it is we are going to be covering with those performance bonds, the operation and all of the things that apply to it, then we really do not know what kind of agreement the minister is prepared to make.

10:40 a.m.

I am like the member for Wentworth North: if I am wrong I will be the first one to apologize, but let me tell the minister, if this system fails and we have to start paying out those millions of dollars, the minister is going to hear from me on behalf of my people.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good spirits of my colleagues and I am extremely interested in this bill. As a matter of fact, I might as well tell the minister that I find it extremely offensive. The Urban Transportation Development Corporation has been in operation for many years and I do not see why, if it requires these cosmetic changes to its corporate structure as well as the very important government responsibility to back it with a performance bond, we could not have had the legislation months or even years ago.

We could have had an opportunity in a committee outside this House to question the officials of UTDC and others who might have had an impartial ability to judge the quality of what we have produced here. Instead, the minister introduces the bill, which lies dormant for a few days, and then it is --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Two weeks.

Mr. Nixon: No, more than two. It was introduced on November 15, I believe. The minister then says this is an important bill that must be carried because --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Almost four weeks.

Mr. Nixon: Everybody is looking at it -- it says November 14. When we questioned the Premier, of course, there was little or no information forthcoming but simply a challenge that would dare us to oppose this bill.

Honestly, going by the record and the information that we have, I personally feel it approaches irresponsibility to support it. I really feel that way. My colleague the member for Wentworth North has gone over the record of UTDC and its various predecessors, which is the only thing that is available to us, and it is a sorry record.

The only break in the corporate continuity was when the chairman either resigned or took a leave of absence to seek a Progressive Conservative nomination. He was defeated by a guy named Spurge Near -- was that not his name? Maybe that is irrelevant, but honestly, there is nothing in the record of either the minister or his corporation to establish any confidence that would lead people on this side, let alone the supposed good business managers who support the minister, to say, “Here is $300 million as a corporate bond which will be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund if your trains do not run on time.”

We asked the Premier about the contract and he really was a little vague about it. He kept referring to the other side of the contract as the greater Vancouver authority or something, and then he went on to say that maybe the province of British Columbia was involved. Is that supposed to instil confidence in those of us on this side who are attempting to get some information that will permit us to support the very confident minister? He knows all of the background and it has been very well put down by my colleague.

He even goes back further than he described, because I was here at the time the original announcement was made. My colleague used the word “fanfare,” and believe me that is a very conservative noun to use in conjunction with what occurred. As I recall, we were all trundled up to the Ontario Science Centre. The very best hors d’oeuvres were flown in from Bulgaria. Everything was there. They had special banners flying from the walls of the science centre. I had a flashback to Nuremberg.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I was not there.

Mr. Nixon: Think about it; all right, the minister was not here.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I was here, but I was not there.

Mr. Nixon: The minister had other responsibilities. The Premier was flanked by -- I do not know whether it was Stan Randall or somebody else; all I can remember was the Premier giving us the same shot that he gave us yesterday: “Shrink back ye of little faith, you people without the breadth of vision even to contemplate magnetic levitation. Forget all this. Go over to the lunch table.” He probably knew my weakness even then. “Leave all these important matters to us. We are working on a worldwide scale, with international agreements. All of my friends with special connections in the business communities of Switzerland and Germany have advised me this is what to do, that this international corporation with a reputation ne plus ultra called Krauss-Maffei is actually making us the North American agents for magnetic levitation.” It is just a riot when you look back on the damned thing, it really is.

Part of the Premier’s vehemence in response to the rather moderate questions put to him on this is based upon the fact that, in his own selective memory, this is one area he cannot rationalize as anything but an abject failure --

Mr. Mancini: A boondoggle.

Mr. Nixon: -- “boondoggle” is a better word -- and a failure that the electorate, which he is so careful to curry and stroke, has never really been aware of. He has been able to tell us that there has never been any significant amount of money lost on that, and yet I have been out --

Interjection.

Mr. Nixon: All right, I am not objecting, other than to the public relations costs; even the Beluga caviar must have cost somebody something. I regret I had only a couple of little wafers of the stuff and I did not like it very much either.

Mr. Sargent: The last figure was $72 million.

Mr. Nixon: My colleague chimes in with “$72 million,” but, certainly the public relations costs must have approached $1 million.

Even in those days, the Premier had this funny weakness of being carried away with his own enthusiasm. It may be some kind of a background worry about his place in history, that he has to have concrete pylons stuck into the earth with his initials carved on them or something, because the first thing he did was to announce that we were going to have this blooming train run around a test track at Exhibition Park. Even before it had been tested in any way, the holes were being dug, gas mains had to be moved, pylons were poured, trees were ripsawed or chainsawed down, and it was all in the interests of the William G. Davis people mover.

Then, all of a sudden, we did not hear much about it. It turned out the damned thing would not go around corners, and there was some concern that the guideway, if it had even a mere mist of snow on it, would cause the linear induction engine not to work efficiently, or to work sideways, backwards or something like that. So that drifted off.

Then, with bombast, he said we had not lost anything except, of course, the public relations costs, which were really designed not so much to levitate magnetically, but to convince the people of the province, who seemed to be so readily convincible by some of these arguments, that we had entered into the twenty-first century and that Bill Davis was the magus. I was thinking of something like “tooth fairy”, but I have to be careful of that since this House has become remarkably sensitized to some of these words.

The honourable member has put in detail before you, Mr. Speaker, the procedures used by UTDC -- and it used to have another name; I think it had “Ontario” in it: Ontario Transportation Development Corporation. It had several changes.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Only one.

Mr. Nixon: The minister did not even have a corporation when he started this thing. The minister is just like the Premier, who went out to Vancouver and delivered this oeuvre, I think the word is, about a commission on western separation. He must have had a cup of coffee, or maybe two cups of coffee, with a couple of the ministers out there, had a handshake while they looked deeply into each other’s eyes, and have come back with a contract that really is not backed by anything at all.

There are no papers you can lay on the table. The minister himself has said the performance bond has not been signed, so I would think the BC government is not stupid enough to sign anything on its part without Ontario putting all the money up, front and centre, in case anything goes wrong. Does the minister think they are going to take a risk with this business?

We hope it works. We have been listening to their propaganda for years about how wonderful it is. I see the minister has Hugh Winsor on his side in a big way; but even he admits, like most of us, that we love to see trains that work, and that they are exciting and really nice. However, the minister has not gone out of his way to provide any of the information for the members of the Legislature, who are asked to give him the authority to pay out $300 million from the consolidated revenue fund if the thing does not work.

10:50 a.m.

It has never worked in the past. We have seen it going around on television and in the minister’s own promotional films. There are always the minister and the Premier with a broad smile. Mr. Foley, who has joined us, is there, conducting everybody through it, saying: “My God, is that not quiet? You can carry on a conversation standing right beside this as it goes around its nice little track on its little rubber wheels.” Honestly, I do hope it works. I am very interested in this sort of transportation, I really am.

My daughter rides to work on the new streetcar. It is almost half as nice looking as the ones I have seen in Amsterdam, and I do mean the streetcars. She says if you want to get up to signal your station, you cannot reach up and pull a string or push a button. You have to stand up and yell at the guy, “I want to get off at the next stop,” or something like that. It is extremely heavy. It cannot be air conditioned. I like the looks of them and the paint job really is very nice, at $500,000 each.

They had those in Warsaw in 1939, did they not? They ran on electricity and on rails, except that they were lighter. They were just as fast and they were not so expensive but I do not think the paint job was nearly as impressive.

The thing I really find offensive is that the ministry is asking us for this authority, which is very far-reaching, and this could be extremely expensive. We all hope it does not cost us a nickel. We hope that, but we have been so severely disappointed in the past. They tend to oversell the thing even to us.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have never oversold anything.

Mr. Nixon: The minister is not as good a salesman. All he could do was get 401 six-laned out to his farm. Is that not right? That is one of the things that did not occur in the big speech last week. I was waiting and waiting. We heard about poor old Clarke Rollins getting his shoulders paved and all the rest, but they never get around to the Minister of Transportation and Communications who had 401 six-laned right from outside this office here to his farm, and then it sort of falls off into a gravel road. It is not exactly a gravel road, it is a four-lane, controlled access --

The Deputy Speaker: Now back to Bill 190.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, yes, back to this bill. I was particularly interested in the comments that have already been made about section 2, about the minister being proud of the fact that he has all the money in UTDC. In fact, its policy stems from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and I have a feeling that it is like the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, educational television and certain other sacred cows in the stable of the Premier. I am quite sure nothing happens in UTDC that he does not know about even before the minister. Is Mr. Foley the president or the chairman?

Hon. Mr. Snow: President.

Mr. Nixon: President and chairman and chief executive officer. I will bet he has Bill Davis’s home phone number and that every time the thing goes over 73 miles an hour or whatever it is, he phones and says: “Bill, wow, it is really working. We are really going.” I have a feeling the Premier is staying in politics to prove to everybody that he can build a railway, that he can really build a people mover. It will be a relief if he finally achieves it after all the false starts, all the money we have thrown around, all the press releases we have had to wade through and all that crap we have had from him -- if I may use that word, Mr. Speaker; you think about it -- just like what we had yesterday when, since there was no information he said, “I dare you to vote against it.”

Honestly, I really would like to vote against it. It has nothing to do with jobs in the province. All we can do is to look at the record, which has been abysmal. There really has not been anything that we can point to with any pride.

It is hard to sell these things. We know. We have been trying to sell the Candu, which is an extremely good reactor, and there was a time when I was critical of that and it is part of my job to be critical. I cannot look into the future. All I can do is to try to be as responsible as possible and to look at the facts that are available.

I do have quite a bit of confidence in the minister, and it is probably just a coincidence that the highway is six-laned out that far; I believe it is just a coincidence; almost a coincidence. I knew him when he was the chief panjandrum of the regional Lions Club and used to come out and speak to all the clubs. He was pretty definite and personable even in those days. But when it comes to pushing something down your throat, the Premier is the guy who does it.

This only leaves one thing for him to correct, and that is the teensy thing that happened a few years ago when he lost his majority. That is the only thing that would now drive him, assuming that this people mover -- is that really what we call it? -- this thing does function up to the specifications. I do not see any reason why it would not. It runs on wheels; the linear induction motor probably could be replaced by ordinary motors if necessary.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Nixon: All right, I see members are saying no and the minister is shaking his head, but the linear induction motor is probably just one of the reasons we ought to think about our $300 million. It was invented years ago. The principle of it is extremely simple and the obvious advantages should have led to its development, if not perfection, half a century ago. But so far the very brightest engineers have not really been able to make it a workhorse type of kinetic energy concept.

Evidently this is an important breakthrough because, obviously, if it works, is reliable and runs the trains on time, we have something that is saleable and valuable. If it does not, it is going to cost us $300 million. We will not even know. By that time the Premier will be retired to a rest home in Brampton and we will be trying to remember to send him a Christmas card. God knows what the minister will be doing; he is going to be specializing in local planning, or something like that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’ll have Highway 401 to Campbellville.

Mr. Nixon: All right, the 401 might be six lanes to Campbellford.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Campbellville.

Mr. Nixon: Campbellville, one of those great towns. But I simply want to express to the minister my grave concern that this bill is more important than he seems to realize. In the long run it could cost us an amazingly large amount of money, which he is asking us to approve without giving us any kind of significant background except to say, “Trust us.” The Premier, in fact, says, “Trust me.”

Mr. Hennessy: It’s better than trusting you.

Interjection.

Mr. Nixon: Fine. I am not trying to sell you a pig in a poke. I would know better than that. You are a pretty good salesman too.

I think it is close to irresponsible to put it on that basis. But I would not worry for a moment to take a personal responsibility to vote against it if that would make any difference. I do not want to stop the thing; I hope it works. Whether the minister and his buddy four or five seats to his right believe it or not, I do hope it works, but I will tell him that I get awfully sick of the baloney he and his predecessors have passed out to the long-suffering public in support of these programs. It is about time they got it right.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to make two or three points on this bill but I do not want to bring to it the vehemence that the former speaker just brought to the topic. As a friend of the minister I hope he will not, for some time, accept any telephone calls from the Premier without recalling what happened to his predecessor when the doors on the light rail transit at Exhibition Park did not open that day. I think it was the next day that Gordon Carton, the former minister and member for Armourdale, got the telephone call and left the cabinet very abruptly.

Mr. Nixon: He’s now running a milk store; you be careful!

Mr. Renwick: That is just a friendly warning to a friendly minister of the pitfalls of politics that he may not be aware of.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Now, de Grassi Street.

Mr. Renwick: That was my second point.

I was concerned that it was not within the principle of the bill, but now the minister admits that it was, I would like, when the bill is in committee, to introduce an amendment to the bill to provide for the reconstruction of the GO station at de Grassi Street, and for a permanent indefinite stop, at least to the end of the century, for the GO train in that de Grassi Street area.

11 a.m.

I have never had any support from the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener), whose riding is immediately across the street on the west side of de Grassi Street. I do not know why there is lack of concern by the Conservative members for people east of the Don and their ability to get to and from work. As I say, I am delighted that the matter is within the principle of the bill, and in committee I will introduce an appropriate amendment which I am sure will have the approval of the House.

The third matter I am concerned about is that we are the authority for an open-ended guarantee that we are permitting, if this bill is passed in its present form, without some kind of limitation or protection. I ask the minister to consider introducing an amendment himself, to save me the trouble of drafting the amendment, to provide first of all for the immediate tabling in the assembly -- and, if the assembly is not in session, immediately upon the assembly being in session -- of the order in council and the contract of indemnity for which the guarantee is going to be given. We have to have some kind of assurance that at the earliest possible moment the assembly is aware of the nature and extent of the open-ended obligation that is being assumed.

I recognize the difficulty of doing it but, certainly with respect to the financing of the government, there is always a dollar upper limitation in the bill, which will be introduced within the next few hours; I forget the name of the bill, but the annual financial bill which is introduced always has an upper dollar limit in it. Is it not wise for the minister to insert in this bill a protective upper limit for the guarantee and obligation which the government is asking authority to give? I think the assembly should expect that this kind of limitation would appear in the bill.

I ask the minister and his advisers in good faith to see if they cannot draft the kind of amendment to the bill that would do the two things; that is, to provide, for the immediate information of the assembly, the nature and extent of the contract and indemnity that is to be guaranteed; and, secondly, the specific question of whether this bill should require an upper limit and, if the upper limit were going to be exceeded, would require the minister to come back into the assembly and to have it adopted.

I thought a little bit about the question of taking the UTDC out of the Crown Agency Act, and I agree with that way of ordering the relationship between the government and UTDC and the relationship of UTDC to its clients or customers with whom it may from time to time contract. I do not have any difficulty with that aspect of it, but on the other two matters I ask the minister to respond to them and, if possible, to work out a suitable amendment in committee to answer my concerns.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to one aspect of the bill that concerns me. Having been involved in many contracts over the years dealing with municipalities and companies and having provided performance and maintenance bonds, in nearly every instance, it comes as a complete surprise to me that this government is now seeming to enter into a contract that is complete open-ended, as the previous speaker has just mentioned.

It is one of the reasons that it sort of contradicts the whole philosophy of the Tory party about free enterprise. When a free enterprise corporation enters into performance or maintenance bonds, it limits itself because of the value of the company. In the event that there is a major problem with providing the service or the performance or the maintenance and that company goes bankrupt, what the performance or maintenance bond does is suggest that a company that provides this kind of bonding is willing to see the job through to its conclusion.

Hon. Ms. Snow: That is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Kerrio: Except, and this is a big exception, the people of Ontario are on the hook no matter what it costs the government. There is no limit. I wonder if any government should put the taxpayers on the hook for that kind of involvement. The railways might be running in British Columbia 10 years from now with the people of Ontario providing the means to keep that transportation system going. That is unconscionable. Unless this government can provide some kind of evidence that is not going to happen, it comes as a complete surprise to me that it should be asking us to put forth this kind of money. I defy the minister to suggest that it is any different. It is just like the Candu reactor sales.

I am surprised the government does not have a sales group in the middle of this whole organization doing the selling and taking another great big chunk of money. A corporation that can take these kinds of chances and limit itself is one thing but, I say with all respect, it is asking the people of Ontario to take a great deal of responsibility to enter into such an agreement where money will flow continually from the taxpayers of Ontario to British Columbia. I hope the minister does not enter into another contract with Los Angeles and two or three other places so that he would put this government in a position of not being able to fund it because we will not be able to raise enough money here. The people of Ontario will not be able to support those kinds of involvements.

If the minister can tell us this is a way to provide jobs in Ontario and that is the purpose, I can accept that, just as Candu reactors may have provided jobs for people across Canada. But to come here and tell us we are going to guarantee a system before it has been truly tested seems a most inappropriate way to enter into any kind of contract. I am certain there are not many people in the private sector who would do that. I cannot believe an airplane has ever been put in service that was not pretested and made damned certain it was going to carry people and do the function for which it was sold.

There are not too many people willing to take the risk they are asking the people of Ontario to take -- not the government, which keeps pumping itself up as though this is a great thing the Tories are doing. It is not. The government is really taking money entrusted to it and putting it into a venture that is very questionable and I say, be careful.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, briefly, we are in favour of this bill in principle. I am concerned because we continually have these large amounts of money -- $300 million here, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) talking about $700 million for Toronto, building subways for this great area of Toronto, paid for mainly by the outlying parts of the province. We are fed up to the teeth reading bills the government keeps bringing in to squander hundreds of millions of dollars of our money over which we have no control on how it should be spent.

In the Grey-Bruce area we do not have any means of transportation. Our trains have been cut off. Our bus system is run in a half-assed way. We have no way of being connected with this part of the province. We have Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railway tracks with nothing on them. The people in the outlying areas of the province are tossing their money into the big pot down here, watching the Minister of Industry and Tourism and the government throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Rotenberg: Where is the money coming from?

Mr. Sargent: It is coming from the outlying parts of the province, not from the people down here. We are paying the freight and the government is spending it.

The minister is asking us, in essence, to give him a blank cheque for $300 million and, in any form of business, we have no purchase orders, no signed contracts, no idea of how he is going to assemble it or where he is going to do it. He is saying, in effect, “Give to this one department, not to a crown agency but a special department, $300 million to play with.” That was the last caper Stan Randall pulled.

11:10 a.m.

They could not make it work in Germany, but they have brought it over here with more fanfare than there is now, and it was a fiasco. The minister is now saying to us that he wants this kind of money. With tongue in cheek, I have to support this because it may be good. As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) says, it may be good for the economy. It may be good for jobs in the province. It may be.

We have seen the minister flop on a lot of other things too; so how do we know he is right on this one?

Mr. Nixon: He has just started this.

Mr. Sargent: And God forbid if he gets mixed up in it. My point is that the minister has totally disregarded the need for transportation in western Ontario. I had planned to come to him and suggest we make a three-point deal, with the federal, provincial and western Ontario municipal governments putting the money in the pot, to let us run a GO train back and forth from Toronto; but we would get nowhere with the government, because we are subsidizing the GO train in Toronto here, including a great wealth of assessment for outlying parts of the GO train areas. We are paying for that through our taxes, but we cannot get the transportation to Owen Sound in the Grey-Bruce area.

As former speakers have said, unless the minister comes up with guaranteed purchase orders and contracts from a would-be buyer, and his modus operandi as to how he is going to build this equipment and where he is going to build it -- the total package -- he has an awful lot of nerve just asking us to give him a blank cheque without these things amended to the contract. Our party is supporting it, but we do it with these things on the record and we will watch him very closely.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise one question concerning Bill 190, An Act respecting Urban Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. I have heard members talk about $300 million but, as I interpret this bill and the explanatory note, it could be $300 million, it could be $1 billion, it could be who knows what. It is a blank cheque.

Mr. Kerrio: It is seed money.

Mr. Haggerty: Seed money; the member for Niagara Falls is correct. It is a blank cheque the minister is going to be issuing to this company. As I look at it, it is a company.

I just question whether it is such a sure thing, this new type of transit car or vehicle that is going to carry passengers on rail. If the minister is so sure of the performance of this thing, why does he not go to the Ontario Development Corporation to borrow the money? Why does he not go to the Federal Business Development Bank?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We are not borrowing money at all.

Mr. Haggerty: He is not borrowing money at all. Surely somebody is going to have to put up some money to get this thing going.

Mr. Kerrio: The taxpayers.

Mr. Haggerty: The taxpayers; that is right. There is a hidden cost in this thing. The minister may tell me that his decision and the performance of that design may look good on paper. I have to say to him that, while I am not an engineer, my experience in the fabricating and machine shop business tells me the minister could have many complications in such a design that is not yet proven. The minister is head of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. If this thing is that sure, then one would think this minister would be leading the province into mass transit system. We have the task force on rail services which has reported that the government should be heading in this direction just for the conservation of energy alone.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Did you ever hear of Hamilton?

Mr. Haggerty: Has the minister ever heard of Port Colborne and St. Catharines in the Niagara district? I have mentioned before to the minister that one place he should be trying out this type of transit system -- he should go back and perhaps bring back the old rail service that used to travel between Port Colborne, Welland, St. Catharines and Port Dalhousie. It was an exceptionally good rail service, carrying numbers of passengers on streetcars. That would have been a good place for the ministry to have tried this out and checked its performance, but I have not seen any of that, and I have been sitting here for 10 years.

I know my colleague went through the whole procedure from the beginning until now of the hopes and dreams of having this system work. Until this day, we have not seen it developed in the province. Perhaps it has been tested on the site at Kingston, but I suggest to the minister if it is that good, this is where he could borrow the money.

The system may be questionable because there are people more knowledgeable than the members of the Legislature who might ask: “Is it worthwhile going into the area of development of this proposed advanced streetcar?” They would probably take a good look at it and say, “No.” Somebody mentioned Candu. The same thing applies to them. There are many checks in the system, but again it is not backed by the government of Ontario or taken out of the consolidated revenue fund. Ontario Hydro pays for much of the design and research and development, the same as the Atomic Energy Control Board in Ottawa, which sets it up through its system of checks and balances. We do not seem to have it here.

I am being told to give the ministry a blank cheque for promotion. I hope it is successful, because I am looking forward to seeing new job creation programs in Ontario. I am not convinced that this is the right way to go. I think there are other areas from which the ministry can obtain the money to back it up.

As my colleague the member for Niagara Falls says, any private sector operation has to get a performance bond without the government’s backing. They get it from respectable business people in the industry, who say, “If it is worthwhile, we will back it and support it.” Here, the minister wants a blank cheque, and I just question whether we are moving in the right direction in promoting this new scheme which has not been proven yet. If be wants to try it out in an area to promote his scheme, he should try it in the Niagara district, because we need a rapid transit system there.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will not repeat all the concerns that have been expressed about this project. I wonder if I could --

Hon. Mr. Snow: How about Atikokan?

Mr. T. P. Reid: If the government is going to spend $300 million, that is as good a place as any and better than most.

I will not go over the history of this thing; it has been an albatross and an embarrassment to the government all these years. We hope it will work and will have the effect we have been promised for almost 10 years.

However, I would like to just pose some questions to the minister in the hope that he might be able to answer some of them in his wrapup. I appreciate the fact that all the specifics are not known at this time, but I hope the minister will have some idea in the back of his mind, or perhaps on paper, as to what is involved in this.

For instance, can he tell us the specific terms in regard to the $300-million bond? What is going to be in this performance bond? Does it cover everything from an act of God down to a wheel-nut coming loose? Exactly what is involved in this? By the way, I trust, just to add a little levity, that they will not have the minister driving the train, because I do not think we could get insurance for that.

Will it cover the operations of the trains? For what period of time; up to five years? If so, when will it be effective; from the beginning to the end? Will it be when they formally take over the system? Will it be from day one, when the trains start to run? What are the specifics on that?

11:20 a.m.

For instance, again to be specific, if a wheel falls off will the taxpayers of Ontario have to pay for its replacement? If the wheel was supplied by an Ontario company, will that company be obliged to supply the material and labour to replace it on behalf of the Ontario government? Will this be covered under the terms of a performance bond to be submitted by the supplier to whom work was subcontracted?

In other words, is the minister going to require a performance bond from someone else, either the subcontractors or somebody who is going to be doing some of the work under contract to UTDC? What are their performance bonds going to cover and what liability is there going to be for their work by the Ontario government? Let us face it, that is who is going to be responsible. When I say the Ontario government, I am talking about the taxpayers of Ontario.

Who will be responsible for the repair of equipment supplied by a British Columbia company in the event of malfunction of parts, shoddy workmanship or mistakes that can be made anywhere by anybody at any time? Who is going to be responsible for that? Will UTDC be drawing up the specifications for the work that will be done by companies in British Columbia, and will we have inspectors and engineers to ensure that things are built to the standards and design that presumably we have already in Ontario?

In the event of any malfunctioning or damage that might in total exceed $300 million, what liability will rest with the Ontario taxpayers? To take the worst case presumably -- and I am sure somebody would have insurance somewhere -- if there were an accident of some kind, if there were material damage or damage done to human beings by way of accident, how far is this liability going to go? In a project this large, conceivably it could be more than the $300 million. Is that going to be part of the performance bond, or is a separate insurance policy going to be provided?

These are all questions we are concerned about. As one of my colleagues mentioned, we are buying something of a pig in a poke, because we do not know the specifics. I hope the minister will be able to provide some of them here today.

My final question is, if the minister does not know all the specifics -- I presume he does not and will not be able to answer each and every question -- will he guarantee this morning that, as soon as the performance bond is drawn up and the specifics are known, that bond will be tabled in the Legislature so the members of the House and the public at large will be aware of its specifications and qualifications?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to respond to the comments I have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the House. Listening to this debate today, it reminded me a great deal about when I started in the construction business on November 30, 1948. At that time, as a young fellow, I thought it might be a good idea and there might be a future in the construction business in Ontario and, having a total of $600 in working capital to my name, I decided --

Mr. T. F. Reid: You were wealthy even then.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No. I thought I had better get some advice; so for instance, I talked to a number of fathers of friends of mine who I chummed with in those days and I told them I was thinking of starting in the house building business in the town of Oakville. To the last one, everyone advised me this would be a foolish move, after all, this building boom we had in 1948 was almost over, and the demand for houses in the future could not possibly last. If I ever built that house, there would never be a customer to sell it to.

Mr. T. P. Reid: But you didn’t have the government of Ontario backing you to the tune of $100 million, did you?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I did not. I have never had the Ontario government backing me in anything. As I usually did and as I usually do to this day, I got advice from everyone possible and then did what I liked.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Could you have lasted 10 years without government assistance?

Hon. Mr. Snow: All I can say is that it usually worked over the years.

The member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) went into some of the history of the UTDC, OTDC, Krauss-Maffei and so on. He discussed something about a meeting of the Premiers of Canada when there was some agreement amongst them to have a co-operative effort with other provinces being shareholders of a corporation. I must say there was some planning for this type of arrangement shortly prior to my taking over responsibility for this ministry. It was considered and discussed with the federal government.

It became the Urban Transportation Development Corporation because the federal government and others did not want to be shareholders in anything called Ontario, which is understandable. When I got into the thing and when there were so many strings being attached by other possible shareholders, mainly the federal government, I recommended to my colleagues in cabinet that we not proceed with other shareholders in the corporation. The Urban Transportation Development Corporation has remained a wholly owned Ontario government company. It was not a case of people backing out.

I met in Edmonton with Dr. Hugh Horner, who was the Alberta Minister of Transportation at that time, and we discussed UTDC. Dr. Horner said to me: “We have a commitment with you. If you want us as shareholders, we are still with you. We will become shareholders of the company.” As I say, we did not proceed with bringing in other shareholders.

Mr. Cunningham: Did you put out a big press release saying that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I did not, as a matter of fact. I do not want to go into all the history. We all know the discussion on magnetic levitation. The proposal did not work. We happened to be astute enough business people that we could see that proposal was not going to proceed. As soon as we found out the problems, the German government withdrew its support of the program on the other side of the Atlantic. Through the very excellent negotiations by my predecessor and Mr. Foley Ontario was paid its total costs on the project. The papers were tabled in the Legislature which members have seen, I know. The total costs were paid by Krauss-Maffei when it cancelled the contract.

11:30 a.m.

The honourable member for Wentworth North stated the private sector had the technology, that it could have done all these things. We all know that is a lot of claptrap. It is not true. There is no technology in the world today like the technology we have now. There is no doubt in my mind that UTDC is looked upon around the world as having the best technology in transit today.

It was very interesting to hear the honourable member say Hawker Siddeley Canada could have built the streetcars cheaper, designed them cheaper, and so on. It was very interesting that in the bids on the streetcars for Buffalo, the low bid was $34,780,000; UTDC $35,771,000; Siemens was $37 million; Bombardier was $39 million, and Hawker Siddeley was almost $43 million. So they certainly are economical when it comes to bidding.

Mr. Nixon: We put $100 million into our firm and Hawker Siddeley has to find its investors.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is absolutely a total fabrication.

Mr. Nixon: We put $100 million into UTDC, did we not?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have not.

Mr. Nixon: How much did we put in? What were the total ball park figures initially?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have invested $6 million capital in UTDC. My ministry has had a development contract on the intermediate-capacity transit system program for something in the neighbourhood of just over $60 million. That has nothing to do with Hawker Siddeley and their price on streetcars.

Mr. Cunningham: You would have to reflect that in your cost. If UTDC got the contract, who would they have build it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There would have been numerous subcontractors.

Mr. Nixon: Hawker Siddeley --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Hawker Siddeley could have been one of them for a portion of it. There are many other companies that were involved in the subcontracts.

Mr. Cunningham: What are the names of them?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can give you the names of every one. There was Garrett Manufacturing Limited, SPAR Aerospace Limited, IT and T, Dominion Foundries and Steel Limited -- how many more do you want?

Mr. Cunningham: The shell game.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member would not know how to play shells.

Mr. Cunningham: I cannot afford to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacBeth): Mr. Minister, this is all very entertaining but I think we should ignore the interjections. This is second reading. Get on with your remarks.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The honourable member is concerned about the assessment of the viability of this product. I would like to draw to his attention the fact that UMTA, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the federal government of the United States --

Mr. Conway: I am with UMTA.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is obvious the member does not know what he is talking about. It is obvious he does not want information.

Mr. Kerrio: Where do you have one running that is carrying people?

Hon. Mr. Snow: In Kingston.

The UMTA organization did a complete study of the UTDC technology, and approved it as one of the four suppliers of this type of technology for projects funded by the federal government in the US. I think that has to be one of the greatest pluses. The Los Angeles technical committee, made up of their transit authority, their engineers, their specialists, did an evaluation of the proposals put in for the Los Angeles system. As I announced the other day, they recommended to the Los Angeles council that the UTDC proposal was the best for their system based on a number of factors.

The member wanted to know whether we were going to recover the $60 million to $70 million that we invested in developing this technology out of the one contract in Vancouver. I would have to say no, and we would not expect to. When one develops a technology like that, one does not expect to recoup development costs on one job. The member for Niagara Falls is nodding his head. He knows that.

When Boeing developed the 747 at a cost of God only knows how many million dollars, it would probably have to sell 400 to 500 747s before it would have its development costs back in its pocket. Similarly with any such product as that: de Havilland, in developing the Dash 7 and Dash 8, will have to sell 200 or 300 airplanes before it will recover its costs -- that great crown corporation owned by the federal government. Canadair spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing the Challenger, which has been very successful and sold more than 125 airplanes, I believe, although they have not got their final certification yet. The company will not recover those development costs until it has sold a couple of hundred airplanes, I am sure.

Mr. Kerrio: You did not get the Arrow money back.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No. That was all spent in Ottawa by the Liberals.

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Snow: We know who spent it; we know who stopped it too. Those are two different things.

I am told that the development or installation of these transit systems, as far as jobs are concerned -- and jobs are one thing we are all concerned with -- will provide something over 300,000 man-years of work for each $100 millions of contract. With a little bit of new or old math, whichever one wishes to use, with the Vancouver project and the Los Angeles project, if they both evolve into contracts, we have something like $800 million worth of contracts there. That comes out to something like 24,000 man-years of employment over the next five years. That comes very close to 5,000 man-years of work per year for five years. That, of course, would be spread out in the manufacturing end, the civil engineering end and all aspects of the contract. However, it adds up to a lot of employment.

It has been suggested that private bonding companies should be bonding this contract. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is the proposal, that a private bonding company would bond UTDC to the British Columbia government or to the greater Vancouver transit authority or whoever the final contract is signed with. That would be a performance bond to guarantee the performance of the contract.

Mr. Kerrio: If Ontario went broke. Because we keep paying as long as we can pay. That is what that does.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am trying to explain it, Mr. Speaker, and I will try to disregard that. Comments coming from the other members of the House who are not as familiar I could understand, but not from the member for Niagara Falls.

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Minister, please disregard their comments. Sometimes I think you invite them.

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, when someone gets a bond to bond him on the contract, the bonding company issues a bond, which is a standard form that guarantees the fulfilment of that contract by that company, in this case by UTDC. But that bonding company also will ask the principals behind that company for their guarantee. The member for Niagara Falls states he got a lot of bonds in his construction business and never gave a personal guarantee to the bonding company. I would have to doubt that very much.

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, yes I did.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I know, I went through it for years. I had to sign guarantees; my wife had to sign guarantees. I had to sign over my life insurance policies and I had to tell them how many bats I had in the belfry and how many pigeons in the loft. Those bonding companies want to extract every bit of blood they can out of someone before they put their name on the line. In this case my wife and I did, as owners of our company. We put our money where our mouths were and we guaranteed that our company could perform that bond.

11:40 a.m.

Mr. Kerrio: You were limited in your assets, so when they were gone the bonding company would finance completion of the contract.

Hon. Mr. Snow: All the bonding company would do would be to take everything I had, except my wife.

Mr. Kerrio: That is my point.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The thing is that in this particular case the government and the people of Ontario are the owners, the shareholders of UTDC, so all the bonding company is asking is for the principal of UTDC, which is the Ontario government, to stand behind its company in the same way it would ask me to stand behind mine or the member for Niagara Falls to stand behind his. That is exactly the way it is and I do not know what is so difficult to explain about that.

Mr. Kerrio: You are putting the taxpayers of Ontario on the book.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is right, but unless one is going to go and bury one’s head in the sand some place with the ostriches, one has to be on the hook some time.

I am not sure where I was, but there have been a number of questions asked as to who the contractors will be. There will be many subcontractors to UTDC on any one of these projects, whether it is the project in Hamilton, Vancouver, Los Angeles or wherever. I cannot tell the members who every contractor will be. Obviously, the civil engineering work, the construction of the guideway, the installation of the transformer banks, the transformer vaults, the installation of the rails, all those things that go together to installing that part of the contract, will be tendered and will be with contractors probably based in British Columbia.

It is impossible to construct a guideway in Ontario, construct guide piles in Ontario and transport that pile foundation to Vancouver, but that seems to be what I am being expected to do, which is crazy. We estimate that roughly 50 to 55 per cent of the total value of the contracts will be in the civil engineering structure and that type of work, whether it is Los Angeles, Hamilton or Vancouver, and will be done at the site of the installation. Surely we can understand that.

That leaves probably about 45 per cent of the value of the contract in the rolling stock, the engineering, the linear induction motors, the control systems, the signals system and so on, which will basically be built by contractors in Ontario. UTDC is not going to become a manufacturing company, UTDC may be assembling and testing the components once they are assembled into the car. It will be responsible for that end of the project and for the total engineering design, supervision of the overall transit system, wherever it will be.

I cannot tell the House who is going to supply every nut and bolt in the project. There are many capable manufacturing companies with capacity in Ontario to manufacture the car bodies, to manufacture the trucks. The number of companies that can manufacture the linear induction motor is limited. SPAR is the expert in the linear induction motor. We have Westinghouse Airbrake for the braking systems. I do not know whether that is for this or whether that is for the streetcar, but these are the type of Canadian manufacturers. Garrett Manufacturing was one of the big manufacturers for the streetcar, not for the ICTS, but those are the type of companies that will be doing the manufacturing of the many different components that will go into the actual system itself.

I do not knew where the member got the idea that the steel rails were going to be bought some place else. Where was that? I cannot tell the House where the rails would come from for Los Angeles. Obviously there are rail rolling companies in the US. I understand the Japanese market supplies rails to the US. I cannot say they are going to go from Ontario. That will depend on bidding and so on.

I would certainly expect that rails for any project in Canada would come from Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie. The honourable member talks about Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Corporation. Some years ago I used to be a shareholder of Ipsco and I surely never understood it was a company manufacturing railroad rails. It may have gone into that. Maybe he knows something I do not; that is possible. But the major company that manufactures rails in Canada is Algoma Steel and it would be very likely Algoma would be the supplier. This. of course, would supply jobs in Sault Ste. Marie, in transportation and in many other spinoffs. One cannot trace the jobs to where they end up.

I would point out there have been comments about the Premier’s visit to Vancouver last week, about his peering into somebody’s eyes and coming up with a vision. I do not know where that came from. I would tell the House, this project has been negotiated for many weeks and months. On November 25, 1980, there was a press release from Mr. Edward Lumley, the federal Minister of State for Trade. He has been working with and had many discussions with UTDC about its technology and is most interested in seeing it developed and sold offshore. His press release stated the federal government was prepared to assist in the funding of a transportation system in BC, developed by UTDC.

The minister said federal assistance would be on the condition a Canadian system was used. He also said “a contribution would be directed primarily towards engineering design and prototype work, with vehicles and control systems being developed by the Ontario corporation,” referring to UTDC. That announcement was made by the federal government long before Mr. Vander Zalm, British Columbia’s Minister of Municipal Affairs -- who I might say was in the gallery here about two weeks ago when he visited Toronto -- made his announcement last Saturday morning.

Mr. Cunningham: Two weeks before the feasibility report was completed.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not know where you got that idea. I will not comment on it. It sounds ridiculous.

Mr. Cunningham: The Globe and Mail.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Globe and Mail is not the fountain of all knowledge although it seems to be the fountain of yours.

I have probably answered most of the questions from the member for Cambridge while replying from the notes I have for the member for Wentworth North. I think the member for Riverdale summed up as well as I could the good reason, or probably better, for section 2 of the bill not setting aside the corporation as a crown agency.

The member for Cambridge again discussed lost jobs to the province that were never here. If there are 25,000 man-years of employment created by this $800 million worth of construction and if 60 per cent of those are in Vancouver, Los Angeles, Hamilton or wherever the structure is built, it supplies jobs in those areas, but that leaves about 45 per cent of those jobs mainly in the manufacturing sector in Ontario.

11:50 a.m.

There may be some subcontractors involved in the development of the car, and some may be from Quebec, BC or wherever. In the manufacturing industry, there are many specialized products that one has to buy where they are produced. There will still be a tremendous number of high technology jobs provided in Ontario. I cannot tell the House exactly how many there will be, but I have given you my best estimate.

I was most interested to hear the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk enter the debate. I have heard that same speech several times. When I first came to this House in 1967, my former colleague Mr. Simonett used to sit just behind me and hear that speech and answer questions about the nuclear generating station at Pickering. The honourable member mentioned he had great doubts, and was perhaps his severest critic. He used to suggest to the government and to Mr. Robarts at that time that we were leading the Ontario taxpayers down the garden path.

Mr. Nixon: No, no. You are misquoting me.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am quoting the intent, as I recall it from when I was sitting over there in -- I hate to say it -- the seat now occupied by the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip). I used to look with longing eyes at these front benches on this side. I well recall the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and his sceptical attitude towards research and development: why were we spending this money on nuclear power, why was a certain boiler delivered last week with some damage done to it, and how much was this going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario?

Mr. Nixon: Who is going to ask those questions if we don’t ask them? By the way, how many of those have you sold outside Canada? How much money have you made on any one of them? Not a heck of a lot.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about Candu reactors, we are talking about the federal agency that is responsible for the selling of Candu reactors.

He talked about the record of UTDC and how bad it was. I have to say I am 180 degrees away from the member on that. I know he really did not mean that, because I know that member and he is a rather sincere, nice sort of fellow. Usually he takes a rather equalized approach to these things, so I take that comment with a grain of salt. I think UTDC’s records of performance, of development and of achievement to this day have been unequalled by any other organization I can think of.

Maybe the member should read the article in Popular Science magazine last month which stated what great accomplishments UTDC has made. I will see that he gets a copy. Again, I refer to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration and its evaluation of UTDC, to the Los Angeles people and their evaluation, and to the BC people who were down here.

Mr. Nixon: Why can we not evaluate it? We are paying for it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Over the last five years as this technology has been developed, members of this Legislature have been invited on numerous occasions to take advantage of the chance to visit and be briefed on it. Nothing has been hidden. Members of the legislative committee, including the members for Wentworth North and Etobicoke, have gone to Kingston to be briefed on the development as it progressed.

Mr. McClellan: In a few years the public accounts committee will go out and look at it too.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We hope you will.

There is a problem in trying to explain how a contract of this type is developed. It is not like us designing a bridge where we design specifically what has to be provided. Contractors who are prequalified by the ministry bid on that bridge; they do not bid options or alternatives. They all have to supply the same bridge. When the tenders are opened, unless there is some imperfection in his bid, the low bidder in 999 cases out of a 1,000 is awarded the contract and the contract document may be signed within a week, allowing that contractor to proceed.

In this type of business, going back to when we bought the double-decker GO Transit cars, I recall an announcement was made by my predecessor of the contract. I signed the contract probably three or four months after the actual contract was awarded but after all the evaluation and details of that contract were worked out. Before I actually put my name on those contracts, it was three or four months after the announcement that the contract was awarded.

The tenders on the Buffalo streetcars went in six weeks ago or two or three months ago, I am not sure. They are being evaluated. Some people bid on four-axle cars and some bid on six-axle cars. The Japanese car may not meet the specification. We are the second bidder. I am not saying we are out of that contract now. It is not like bidding on a bridge when one knows he is out when he is not the low bidder. We do not know where it stands at this moment. They are evaluating those bids. They may scrap the whole works and recall it. We do not know what they will do.

When they evaluate the bids, as Los Angeles evaluated the intermediate-capacity transit system bid and made its recommendations, the technical committee in Buffalo may come back to city council and recommend that the UTDC bid, after taking all things into consideration, is the lowest. What we have at this time is a proposal that has been put to Los Angeles and a proposal to Vancouver and these have been evaluated. Now it has been recommended that these proposals be accepted. The detailed contract will be worked out. The performance bond will then be provided and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, the performance bond will be tabled in the Legislature. One request was that the order in council be tabled. As you know, Mr. Speaker, orders in council are posted after every cabinet meeting. I do not think it is necessary to table it in the Legislature.

I regret that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- this hurt me a little bit and I would like to look at Hansard -- referred in a somewhat derogatory manner as far as promotion goes to my predecessor. I happen to think that my predecessor, the late Honourable John Rhodes, was one of the finest members this Legislature ever had and a fine Canadian. I wish he were still with us and I regret he was brought into this debate.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If the minister is under the impression that I do not agree with him about the qualities of the late John Rhodes, then I certainly want to say very clearly that I do. He was a personal friend of mine and I admired him. I was talking about the minister’s predecessors who go back for quite a while. Some of them did make some mistakes. I do not know any of them who was perfect.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I certainly understood the member to refer specifically to myself and my predecessor.

Ms. Nixon: Predecessors.

12 noon

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member for Riverdale discussed open-ended liability of the power that is granted in this act for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to guarantee performance of contracts. I really do not know how to deal with that matter because I do not know how it would be possible to put a limitation on it. I suppose some limitation could be put in the bill, but things move very quickly. I would hate to see a situation wherein the corporation had an opportunity for a contract and, because of the limitation in the bill and because the Legislature was not in session during the summer recess, we were not able to take the contract because the Lieutenant Governor in Council was bound by a limitation as to the number of guarantees that could be outstanding at any one time.

We can almost expect that any contract for a transit system will be something over $150 million to $200 million and rise. As we see the Vancouver contract, eventually, taking into consideration inflation and escalations, by 1986 it will probably be $650 million.

I assure the House it is the intention of the corporation to ask only for the necessary guarantees from the Lieutenant Governor in Council to guarantee the outstanding bonds at any particular time. Of course, a great many of these bonds will be offset by performance bonds that we will receive from subcontractors. If we are calling for tenders in the Hamilton project, for instance, for the construction of the concrete guideway -- and that may be worth $10 million or whatever -- then we would be obtaining a contract performance bond from that contractor, whether it be Piggott Construction, McNally and Sons, KBM Ready Mix Concrete, or whoever might make the successful bid. They would give a bond to UTDC that they would successfully perform that part of the contract.

Then you call the electrical contract for all the major substations, and so on. That contractor would, no doubt, be providing a bond. I am not going to say that every time we want to buy $100 worth of nuts and bolts we are going to ask a hardware store to bond us. Obviously, that is not going to happen. But a considerable portion of the overall liability will be offset by subcontract bonds to the corporation.

The member for Niagara Falls referred to airplane manufacturing companies testing their planes before they sold them. I would like to draw to his attention that that is exactly why we developed the Kingston test facility: so we could develop this technology, test it and have those three vehicles running around that track. I do not know how many thousands of kilometres they have put on. Very extensive testing has been done. It is very similar, basically, to the testing that is carried out in the development of a new aircraft. The only difference is that you do not end up with a final certification from some bureaucrat to say it is all completed. That is about the only difference.

The member for Erie made a great many comments about our borrowing money. He asked us why we did not go to the Ontario Transportation Development Corporation. As far as I know, OTDC is an arm of the government. To borrow from OTDC is to take money out of one pocket and put it into another. I would point out that we are not borrowing money. What UTDC is asking is that its shareholder, myself and, through me, the Legislature, guarantee its performance bond as any other company would ask its shareholders to do. The corporation runs on a normal basis and does normal bank financing just as any other company would do. I would remind the member for Erie that the first system I expect to see running with the ICTS technology will be in Hamilton. That is fairly close to the Niagara Peninsula.

The member for Rainy River had a number of specific questions. The terms of the bond, as I said, will basically be a standard performance bond. It will be tabled. The member heard the Premier give that commitment. If he wants to see the bond, that is fine.

The bond will cover the performance of the contract. There will be subcontract bonds. UTDC will be the prime contractor. UTDC will be responsible for the specifications and the supervision of the contract. I am already committed, as is the Premier, to the tabling of any performance bond the Legislature requests.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.

House in committee of the whole.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ACT

Consideration of Bill 190, An Act respecting the Urban Transportation Development Ltd.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I have been interested in the debate as to why it was necessary for the House to declare that UTDC, which is wholly owned by the government of Ontario on behalf of the people, is not a crown corporation. I listened to the information put forward by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and the minister, but it seems to me if we have to convince the people with whom we are doing business that we are not unnecessarily protecting ourselves as crown corporations, we could write into the specific contracts any protection the buyers might possibly require. It just seems ridiculous for this House, having set up this public company with the Minister of Transportation and Communications as the single shareholder on behalf of the government and the people of Ontario, to pass section 2, which says this is not a crown corporation.

As a matter of fact, I rather resent being asked to give up any protections crown corporations normally have that might be there. Those protections have been established over many years of tradition and enactment for the very purpose of protecting the taxpayers against some bad corporate judgement that might be entered into by individuals no matter how extensive their experience in using their wife’s life insurance for bonding purposes.

There is no way I would ever question the minister’s motives, credibility and responsibility, but this is or should be a crown corporation. If we cannot sell what the crown corporation has developed, technically and with hardware, then I suppose we could consider permitting a contract that divests us of specific protections. I resent section 2, and I am not convinced it is necessary.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how much more I can say. It is a way of clarifying the corporation. It is not a crown corporation. It is a business corporation incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act. The member and I could go out tomorrow -- maybe this afternoon if we could pull a couple of dollars together -- and incorporate a company under the Canada Corporations Act. This is what this is. It is a business corporation. It so happens that Ontario is the shareholder for that corporation. To remove any doubt as to the fact that it is a business corporation rather than a crown agency, I have been asked by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) to clarify that point in this bill.

12:10 p.m.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to prolong this, because we have gone on a long time and I know there are other matters that the Legislature would like to consider, but in view of the fact that it is quite clear that as of October 1974 this is a corporation under the Canada Corporations Act, this really is redundant. The corporation’s standing is quite clear.

Why would the Attorney General ask the minister to come here today and, basically through this item of legislation, indicate that UTDC is not a crown agency. It is very clear that it is not a crown agency. UTDC is a corporation under the Canada Corporations Act, 1974. Is this not superfluous? What are the reasons that the Attorney General has asked the minister to do this?

Possibly to stimulate the minister here, is it so that the corporation does not have to come to the estimates? Is it so that the corporation, when it is bidding for these projects, can say that it is not related to the province and is an entity unto itself?

I am having a difficult time understanding this. The minister was asked this question specifically in debate by the member for Cambridge (Mr. M. Davidson), by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and latterly by my former leader, and we have not heard any answers on it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Chairman, it has nothing to do with the estimates. The relationship of the corporation to my ministry and the committee studying estimates will not change. I believe what it does is it limits the liability to the taxpayers of Ontario to the investment that the taxpayers have put into the company and the guarantees given to the company. In other words, the government does not need to be brought into any third-party action in a case of a dispute with the corporation.

Mr. Cunningham: The next section indicates that the province, through the cabinet, will allow a guaranty, covenant or indemnity in connection with any contract the separate corporation enters into. Frankly, I am doing the best I can to understand the minister, but I am having a very difficult time understanding the relationship of this company to the government and the potential pitfalls for the Ontario taxpayer.

The minister has made reference to a Buffalo project, we have read about Los Angeles and now we are talking about Vancouver. There could be a myriad of others. Quite frankly, if the worst happened -- and sometimes it does, especially in Hydro projects -- we could be in for a lot of money. I am just wondering to what extent sections 2 and 3 are in conflict.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have explained the reason. I cannot understand why no one can understand it. I feel it is clear anyway but, by clarifying the fact that it is not a crown agency, we have said the employees will not be civil servants; the changes of statute of limitations make the corporation subject to the Planning Act and Labour Relations Act The employees of the corporation have the protection of the Labour Relations Act and all those types of things but it limits the liability of the province to the investment that we have put into the company and the value of guarantees given to the company.

Mr. Cunningham: Through the minister’s explanation I think I have developed an understanding of it. It does not limit the liability; it limits the time in which somebody ostensibly could recover some moneys as a result of the failure in the corporation. If I am wrong there, let the minister tell me. If UTDC is a crown corporation, then legally -- and I am not a lawyer -- there is a time limitation during which one can attempt to sue the crown to recover moneys that one feels the crown owes one. I believe that, under the act, notification must be within six months. This being separate and unique from that, the provisions of common law would apply. I think that is the reason. Is that not the reason?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not really. That is one of the things it does, I believe, under the statute of limitations. Someone who was going to bring action against the corporation, if it were a crown corporation, would have to do it within six months. This would give them six years or some such period to do that. But it limits the liability the taxpayers can be put to. We have invested, as I say, $6 million or whatever in shares in the corporation; so we have an investment there. The corporation has assets if it makes money and what not. It has its own assets. If we guarantee $300 million for a bond, the maximum is the liability. Just as if one buys shares in any other company, one puts one’s money up as an investment, and the personal guarantee one puts up in this case is a guarantee of surety for the bond.

Mr. Cunningham: If this private corporation operating pursuant to the Canada Corporations Act is involved, let’s say hypothetically, in some negligence and 400 people go off one of these embankments or whatever and there is a tremendous loss of life, would the province’s liability in that regard be limited in the context of common law?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, as I understand it. That is a specific reason. If some disaster happened, the suits would be against UTDC, their insurers and so on, but they would not be able to bring in Ontario as a third party to the action.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, so that we might better understand the potential liability we may have in the event of a failure, is the minister prepared to undertake today to table the presentation he has made to Los Angeles and to Vancouver -- I see his lawyer shaking his head --

Mr. Nixon: That’s not his lawyer; that’s his best friend.

Mr. Cunningham: -- and to inform us generally what projects he is in so that we might understand what the very minimum downside would be in the event there was a failure? Is he going to give Hamilton the same guarantee he has given these other areas?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes. Hamilton would be the same thing. Because it is one of our municipalities, I expect the contract will be between the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and UTDC for the installation of the system. The fact that the money is coming from the ministry by way of grants is the same as their buying from UTDC instead of buying buses from General Motors or whomever.

I cannot give the honourable member a guarantee or a commitment to table documentation of tenders and specific contracts that include much information. It is proprietary information, and no company could continue to do business if that type of information were being made available to their competitors, to the Japanese and French companies we are bidding against in this type of system.

As far as the bonds are concerned, normally when one gives a performance bond for the performance of the contract, it is either a 50 per cent bond or 100 per cent bond for the performance of that contract.

Mr. Cunningham: We are being asked, through section 3, to grant the power to the cabinet to provide and enter into those covenants, agreements of guaranty, bonds and so on. I would like to know from the minister whether they have attempted on any occasion to go to the private sector, to private surety companies such as Lloyd’s or United States Fidelity and Guaranty or whomever? Have they gone to the private sector to attempt to obtain these very same indemnities possibly to lessen the liability of the people of Ontario in the event that something does go wrong?

12:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I tried to explain several times, that is exactly who would be supplying the bond. I do not know about Lloyds; maybe they are in the bonding business -- they are in almost everything. United States Fidelity and Guaranty, Canadian Indemnity and different other bonding companies supply performance bonds. I would fully expect that one of those companies would be writing this bond for UTDC.

What we are saying, as I have tried to explain and I have discussed with the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), is that what we are doing is giving a guarantee to the bonding company, the same as he would give a guarantee to a bonding company if he were getting a bend for his company to build a bridge or whatever.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, the bond actually does nothing for the corporation. The bond is being insisted on by the buyer. It does nothing for us because, in reality a bond does not protect the selling agency. We have guaranteed, through the consolidated revenue fund, just to keep pouring money in there to do what has to be done. So the only demand for this kind of guaranty is from the buyer. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is right, Mr. Chairman. It would be the bond provided, just as, when I used to be in the construction business and we bid on a new school or something like that, the specifications would call for either a 50 per cent or 100 per cent performance bond. I would have to arrange with United States Fidelity and Guaranty to supply me with that bond if I were successful in obtaining that contract. In the bond document itself, the contract for indemnity would set out the limits of the bond’s liability.

The bond I said we would table in the Legislature would set out the limit of the liability of that bond, and the guarantee for the bond cannot be more than the limit of the liability of the bond.

Mr. Cunningham: I understand it is a little difficult to tell us to what end we might obtain a percentage return on this project with regard to development costs but, in the context of our responsibility as it relates to funding this potential liability, to what end does the province recover development costs or profits from this corporation? Does the money go back to the UTDC or will it ultimately come back to the province?

Hon. Mr. Snow: They should be one and the same. If UTDC makes a $50-million profit out of this $650-million contract, or whatever, that is a profit to UTDC. The corporation can use that money for increased working capital, for new research and development or for working capital for other projects, or it can declare a dividend and pay a dividend to the shareholder; as I am shareholder, they cannot declare a dividend without my approval.

Mr. Cunningham: I am not entirely certain whether this relates directly to section 3, or either to section 1 or section 2, but I would like to ask the minister to table the evaluation he made reference to from UMTA, in view of the fact that we are going to be doing a fair bit of business with them.

While he considers that, I would also like to ask whether he would table the Buy America agreement so that we might have an idea, especially with regard to American projects, of the extent to which Ontario corporations under that policy will be able to participate, and whether Ontario people will lie able to get jobs through this.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Do we have a document from UMTA? They have done an evaluation and have approved the use of technology that qualifies for their funding by Los Angeles, Miami and Detroit.

Mr. Cunningham: Do they do it over lunch, do they issue a statement, or what?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The message I got here is that we will table the summary results. I presume that is a summary of the evaluation. I was hesitant on what I could table because of what UMTA gave us. They have approved our system for installation in those cities, but they may not have given us all of the very technical evaluation they have done.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

Bill 190 reported.

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

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 188, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; there was a change in schedule. I was not anticipating proceeding with Bill 188 this morning. However, a number of the sections involved in the bill relate to the reciprocity agreement and the provision of all the details for legalizing a CAVR cab card that would take the place of a licence when a vehicle from another province is operating on our roads. The main section provides for an appeal on the medical standards, as I announced on first reading of the bill.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, we have taken a lot of time on an earlier bill which was a very technical bill and one that has either great benefits for the people of Ontario or possibly some great problems some time down the road. I would like to restrict my comments on this bill very briefly.

I want to commend the minister for bringing in these amendments. We all are very supportive of less duplication of regulations, especially in the transportation industry across Canada. Quite frankly, I am very keen to admit that in Canada I think the extent of our regulatory process is somewhat less than what is seen in the United States, that is, after one gets a licence. In the United States when one has to travel from state to state one just about has to be a lawyer to maintain a firm grip on the different fuel regulations, weight restrictions, length restrictions, insurance restrictions, indemnity restrictions, et cetera. Many of those states are in conflict. The reciprocity agreements here help facilitate a more orderly movement of goods across this country.

Section 16, with regard to the responsibility of drivers when directed by officers to proceed to scales, is a rather important section relating to enforcement. I want to go on the record again very clearly as stating that, if we are going to have a regulatory system of the movement of goods in Ontario, it is fundamental to improve our enforcement system. This is a step in that direction, as is section 22.

It is very distressing to people who obey the law, who go through the regulatory process, make applications to the Ontario Highway Transport Board and, more important I suppose, pay the licence fees to know that others are not going through that process but are skirting the law and sometimes avoiding the law where they can and are able to obtain benefits from that. It is very distressing to people who obey the laws to see that as a reality here.

I know we cannot have a Green Hornet, as the people in the industry refer to some of our enforcement officers, at every corner or every mile on the highway. But if we are going to maintain the system we have, and it is not a bad system at all, we have to step up the vigilance on the enforcement, especially as we contemplate the movement of dangerous goods and commodities in Ontario.

I hope section 22 can be broadened in time to permit some expansion of authority in that regard.

12:30 p.m.

My final comments relate to the provision for appeals and a re-evaluation of the ability of some of our people, who heretofore have been looked upon as being disabled, to drive on our highways. I knew the minister is a fairly decent individual and I suppose is as compassionate an MPP as any of the rest of us. He gets the brunt of a lot of calls from members of all parties with regard to drivers who have been disfranchised and denied their right to drive certain trucks or buses after a heart attack, another medical condition or, as many of us are aware, diabetes.

Frankly, the blanket application of some of the policies contained in one of our regulations, in my view, is somewhat unfair. I think this amendment will go a long way. It is a step. My personal preference would be to see drivers evaluated on their individual merits, not withstanding any regulation we may have, and to have a medical advisory committee, complete with an appeal process, judge the efficacy of an individual’s licence. With the large number of drivers we have in Ontario, it is not an easy job and I am totally sympathetic with the ministry and the task it has in determining the right of an individual to drive a vehicle carrying other people that would be sufficiently heavy to do a lot of damage to somebody if an accident occurred.

I can think of a situation in my own constituency, if I may elaborate briefly. A gentleman came to me. He had had a coronary blockage. He had not at that time had a heart attack, or an infarction, as the regulation would have it. He went through the operation and, by way of law, the medical practitioners were required to notify the ministry that this operation had occurred.

The long and short of it is that, after the operation, the individual was a healthy man again and the blockage had been corrected. Ironically, this man was far healthier than he had been for many years. His licence, unfortunately, had to be removed. We negotiated and worked very carefully with the assistant deputy minister for safety and regulation, who was extremely co-operative in this and wary at all times of the possible danger to the public. Ultimately it was determined that, as a result of this operation, this individual was healthier than he was before the operation and really was not a danger to anybody.

Often that is the case with coronary patients, especially with people who may have had a lifestyle or conditions of living that would contribute to a heart failure, rather than a congenital situation. Many of them, as we read in the paper, moderate their living habits, take up jogging and do what they can to improve their lifestyle. After a heart attack or an infarction, they may be far healthier than they were for many years and at no great danger to the rest of the driving public.

The same, I suggest, applies to people who have diabetes. As we approach 1981, which I understand will be the International Year of Disabled Persons, we should be reflecting with a little more insight upon the problems of many people who have, through no fault of their own, such an affliction as diabetes. It is not a disability, but it is often perceived to be such. It is such a common disease, unfortunately, that I am sure almost every one of us has had contact with someone who is affected by diabetes. My grandfather was so affected and was able to function for the larger balance of his life. Ultimately, he did not die of diabetes.

We are having problems right now, and I have raised the matter with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). I am quite confident that he will endeavour to look into this situation in great detail, but prospective employees and current employees of Brewers’ Retail are now required to obtain licences that would allow them to drive Brewers’ Retail trucks, notwithstanding the fact that only probably 15 to 20 per cent of them would ever have to drive a truck on any occasion.

The blanket application of this policy by Brewers’ Retail ostensibly means a diabetic cannot work for that company. It is a rather silly situation. I raised two specific examples with the Minister of Labour on this. I think he tends to agree that it is a discriminatory type of proposition, and it is a situation that may not see current changes or current regulations affecting a change. Conceivably, if a young man or young lady was affected by diabetes at age 13 or 14, naturally he or she would not have had a licence and naturally would not be able, in a retroactive fashion, to have a licence returned. I commend the minister for the amendments and we support them.

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, we, too, in the New Democratic Party will be supporting the amendments that have been placed before us today. While the entire bill as amending the Highway Traffic Act is a good one, we are particularly pleased with sections 9 and 13. Section 9 is the one where an appeal process is now going to be allowed for those who have lost their licence or had their licence downgraded as a result of some form of medical disability, and we are pleased to see that the minister has included that in the amendments before us today.

I say that because the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) is absolutely correct. I doubt very much if there is a member in this Legislative Assembly who has not at one time or another had someone from his own riding approach him with the fact that he has had his licence taken away for medical purposes or downgraded so that the person can no longer perform the job he had been doing. It is a situation where in many cases there are corrective surgeries or various other treatments that can make this person capable of returning to the health he once had, at least in a controlled situation. Such people should be given the opportunity to have the decision of the registrar reviewed and perhaps have their licences reinstated.

I point out just one case. There is a Mr. Gourgon of Ottawa who had been a transport driver for most of his working life. He is a gentleman in his forties. He had his licence downgraded as a result of an angina condition. But in 1980 he went through corrective surgery to the heart and apparently, according to the information we have received from his doctor, his cardiologist states he is less likely to suffer heart problems now than previous to the operation and his health is better now than it has been for years. This is a prime example of a gentleman who probably will take advantage of the appeal process once it is put into effect in an effort to get his licence back so that he can go back to doing the work he was doing previously.

Section 13 deals with the handicapped, and my colleague from Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) will be speaking to that section a little more specifically than I. We in this party are pleased to see that the minister has included this amendment in the bill, given that over the years there have been very serious accidents and implications resulting from the transportation of handicapped persons. I hope passing this amendment will make that a little bit better for those people.

We do not want to hold up passage of this bill. I do not want to spend too much time with it, other than to say that we are in agreement with the bill. We have no intent to amend any section of it.

12:40 p.m.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 188. I intend to speak on only two sections of the bill. One is section 9, which deals with the downgrading of a licence because of a heart condition. I speak on this because three different constituents have contacted me within the past month and made mention that their chance for continuing in their employment had been completely eliminated as the legislation had been until that time. With the inclusion of section 9 in the bill, they can see there is the opportunity, if they provide medical evidence, that their licences can be restored to them once again.

Under section 9, an individual by the name of Russ Collins has contacted me. I brought his problem to the attention of Mr. Mackie in the ministry office. He was extremely cooperative as far as obtaining information was concerned and in advising me as to what I could pass on to Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins is the gentleman who appeared in the Legislative Building last Thursday and actually intended to demonstrate because he was losing his employment. He was a bus driver with the Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway Company, or Transit Windsor as it is now called, in the city.

Because of a medical operation he had in May 1980 and because the licences are re-examined every three years -- and they noted he did have bypass surgery -- the legislation was such that he would automatically not be allowed to drive a bus. In coming down here, Mr. Collins realized it would be better to approach the problem in a rational manner. He did so, spoke with the officials in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and left, satisfied that something would take place that would once again restore his privileges to drive a public transit bus.

In the introduction of section 9 and the setting up of a Licence Suspension Appeal Board, the minister leaves the door open for Mr. Collins to present the report from his medical doctor, Dr. K. K. Wong in the city of Windsor, who indicates in a letter which has already been transferred to Mr. Mackie that the operation he had was for preventive surgery to prevent myocardial infarction resulting from coronary obstruction. The outcome was as good as we can expect. The patient has never had any myocardial damage in the past. Since the operation, the patient has recovered extremely well. As a matter of fact, he was walking at least a mile a day and doing all sorts of physical activities without limitation.

He returned to work driving a bus in September but, unfortunately, was relieved from his work in November because he had cardiac surgery, without the consideration that the surgery was preventive and to how excellently he recovered from the surgery itself. The patient is on no medication at present. Clinically speaking, the doctor writes that Mr. Collins has fully recovered from his cardiac problem and the doctor has no reservations in recommending that the patient can go back to his original occupation, unless other diseases arise. He will be no more dangerous behind the wheel, the doctor writes, than anyone without cardiac surgery, with stable or unstable angina and definitely much safer if compared to people who had actual myocardial damage in the past.

The setting up of the Licence Suspension Appeal Tribunal opens the door for individuals as Mr. Collins and the two others who approached me. I am very pleased that Mr. Collins may have the opportunity to drive once again. At least his case will be heard.

As one who has been interested in the physically handicapped, especially when the handicap did not interfere with the performance of one’s employment, I am very pleased to see section 13 included in the bill, because the physically handicapped once again will have the opportunity to drive vehicles.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the principle of one part of the bill, and that has to do with section 13, which permits the ministry to pass regulations governing the use of vehicles for the physically handicapped. One would not know it from reading the section, but that is what I understand the section is designed to accomplish. This is something that is very long overdue. The failure of the government to act sooner on this matter has had serious and, in fact, tragic consequences.

What we are dealing with in section 13 is the implementation of a recommendation of the coroner’s inquest into the death of Linda Anne Pyke, who died while riding in a van that belonged to a network of private van services for the physically handicapped in Metropolitan Toronto. The coroner’s inquest verdict recommended that legislation should be introduced to amend the Highway Traffic Act to regulate vehicles carrying wheelchairs, and then made a number of specific recommendations.

I am in the difficult position of not knowing what the regulations are going to be, because all we have before us is the power given to the ministry to pass the regulations. I want to stress the seriousness of the problem and make a number of suggestions to the minister which I hope he will incorporate in the regulations when they are promulgated.

To give the members an idea of how serious the problem is, we have only to look at the Ministry of Transportation and Communications inspection reports with respect to the Wheel-Trans-Service for the physically handicapped here in Metropolitan Toronto. The minister has been very kind to share those reports with me in a very full and complete manner, and I want to express my appreciation to him for having done that. Those inspection reports reveal serious defects in what is supposed to be a public transportation service for the physically handicapped within Metro Toronto.

The report for the period from November 1979, when the service started, until April 1980 indicated the ministry had discovered that 20 of the Wheel-Trans vehicles, which were apprehended through a process of spot checks on the road -- these were vehicles that were in service, actually carrying people -- were in violation of the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act. In fact, three of them were found to be so unfit for use on the road that they had their plates removed. Other vehicles were found to be in a state of disrepair, not on one occasion but on numerous separate occasions. There is the instance of the Dodge van that was found to be in violation of provisions of the Highway Traffic Act on November 11, 1979, on December 17, 1979, and on March 4 and 9, 1980. Each of these were separate and different violations of the Highway Traffic Act.

12:50 p.m.

There are a number of vehicles operated by the Wheel-Trans-Service that had no safety stickers. This appears to be an ongoing problem. Vehicles that are on the road carrying handicapped people as part of a public transit service that is run by All-Way Transportation Services under contract from the Toronto Transit Commission, are running without safety stickers, running in violation of the Highway Traffic Act and in such bad repair that some of them have to be pulled off the road.

It is not as though the situation has been corrected, because the minister has been kind enough to provide the vehicle inspection checks for a subsequent period. I wrote to the minister in September, and he was good enough to send me the summary of vehicle inspection reports from April 1, 1980.

Another case involved Wheel-Trans-Service’s vehicles owned or operated by All-Way Transportation Limited; again, I am talking about vehicles under contract to the TTC to provide transit for the physically handicapped. On April 9, a van was pulled off the road and had its plates removed. On April 14, a second van was pulled off the road and had its plates removed. On June 6, a third van was pulled off the road and had its plates removed. On July 22, a fourth van was pulled off the road and had it plates removed.

Mr. Mancini: What is going on with those vans?

Mr. McClellan: That is precisely the question. What is going on with the All-Way Transportation Services? I have a brief from an organization called Transportation Action, which is an organization of users of the All-Way service in Metropolitan Toronto. They raised a number of concerns, the kinds of things I have been talking about, that are very distressing. They point out something that is flabbergasting: The penalty clause in the contract between the TTC and All-Way has never been invoked.

Here is a company that has been providing unsafe vehicles as part of a public transportation system for a year and a half and nobody has done anything about it as far as I am able to determine. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications has given them a few slaps on the wrist. The TTC, with a degree of irresponsibility that I find absolutely appalling, has failed to invoke the penalty clauses of the contract to discipline All-Way. As a matter of fact, there is not the slightest shred of an excuse why All-Way should have the contract. If we were dealing with responsible public officials, that contract would have been taken away from the ripoff artist who runs it and assumed directly by the TTC or re-awarded to a responsible operator.

What we are talking about is handicapped people using a public transit service and being at risk of serious injury. The records of the personal injury rate, which were also included in the reports given to me by the Minister of Transportation and Communications, give no grounds for reassurance at all. Between November 1979 and June 1980, I believe, there were 11 personal injury accidents registered on All-Way’s vehicles under contract to the TTC. The accident rate was down somewhat in the subsequent six-month period, and we can only hope and pray it stays down.

I would like to know from the minister how his regulations intend to deal with this situation. I would like to know why he continues to tolerate the fact that Ontario taxpayers’ money is going to the service provided by the TTC for a fleet of vehicles that are flouting the Highway Traffic Act and regulations and flouting the terms of the contract between the TTC and All-Way. I would like some answers to those questions, because we are playing a kind of Russian roulette. There has already been one death and one inquest.

The situation has not been cleared up. The new vehicles that Comsca is required to bring into service -- paid for at public expense, by the way -- are not all in service, as I understand it. As a matter of fact, the brief submitted on September 22, 1980, by Beryl Potter of the Transportation Action group makes reference to nine wheelchair vans operated by the All-Way fleet which are more than five years old. The minister probably knows that the operating life of a wheelchair van is between five and six years. We are talking about at least nine vehicles in the fleet that are probably unsafe. I think it is safe to assume they are unsafe in the light of the kind of inspection material we have in front of us.

That brings me back to the bill and the recommendation with respect to regulatory powers. I have been advised through a copy of a letter from Mrs. Beryl Potter of the Transportation Action group to Mr. Levine, who is a project officer with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, that a draft of the proposed regulations was made available to the Transportation Act group. Personally, I commend the minister for taking that initiative. I think it is a very wise course of action, to allow the consumer group to participate in the process of developing the regulations.

I wish to express concern, however, if it is the intention of the ministry to include in the regulations some kind of blanket exemption or even a partial exemption for wheelchair van operators that would be coterminous with the operating life of a wheelchair van. In other words, we do not want to see an exemption of something like five or six years before the regulations apply to an operator by virtue of the fact that operators are going to be arguing that they need time to make the adjustments.

What we are talking about is a number of unsafe vehicles that are currently on the road. We are talking about a situation where the TTC is unwilling to act in a responsible way to protect its handicapped passengers. In this context and situation, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has a clear and unequivocal responsibility to pass regulations that will apply as quickly as humanly possible. They must not contain loopholes or exemptions that will permit operators to continue to operate unsafe vehicles or vehicles that have passed their life expectancy.

I will conclude on that note. I would be grateful if the minister would make available to the transportation critics in the opposition parties copies of the draft regulations. We may have something constructive to say to him with respect to those documents.

Finally, the government’s program of subsidization of a public transportation system for the physically handicapped was applauded by all members of this House when it was introduced. We said then it was a generous and wise course of action for the government to take. But what has happened in the past year is, in my view, a major scandal with respect to what has happened in Metropolitan Toronto. I do not know what has happened in other communities but, if it is not any better than what has happened in Metro Toronto, the government has very little to be proud of.

1 p.m.

This government has a responsibility to make sure that transportation service for the physically handicapped is first-rate, not second-rate, and certainly not the fourth- or fifth-rate service we have been saddled with because of the irresponsibility of officials at the TTC or in Metropolitan Toronto.

The minister is paying a good portion of the shot. He has some leverage by virtue of those dollars he is putting forward and by virtue of his responsibility for the administration of the Highway Traffic Act. He should inspect the entire fleet of All-Way Transportation Services. Never mind the spot checks on the road. Maybe they will catch some of them and maybe not. He should be doing systematic examinations of the entire fleet until this matter gets cleaned up once and for all. The minister should insist that the TTC enforce the terms of its contract, which is paid for with Ontario dollars in part, and he should put forward regulations sufficiently tough that they will protect handicapped passengers from unscrupulous operators like Mr. Comsca and All-Way Transportation Services.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words regarding Bill 188. Sometimes -- and we have been doing it for a number of years -- regulations are passed after a bill is passed. I know three or four members on the government side who go through regulations when they are passed.

I want to draw the attention of the House to a regulation I found this week, Ontario Regulation 906/76, which deals with sections 7(1) and 7(3). It relates to a person who received two tickets for speeding while driving an automobile and lost eight points. He also held a class B school bus licence. He was notified by registered mail to send in his class B licence. Section 7(3) says: “A holder of a class B or E driver’s licence shall not have accumulated more than eight demerit points on his driving record.”

He was obliged to return his class B licence which he had for 27 years. However, he told me on the telephone that he was issued a class C licence. According to my reading of the licensing table, this is for a semi-truck and a Greyhound bus. If he is capable of driving a Greyhound bus safely, I cannot understand why he is not capable of driving a school bus. Is one not as important as the other? That sounds rather strange to me. He was not called in for an interview: he was just notified to send in his licence.

This happens through the regulations and many of us do not really read them. I know they are put in the Ontario Gazette, and we all get that very important paper, but not too many of us read it on Saturday or Sunday afternoon when we should have some free time. I hope someone can explain how that regulation came about.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments on this bill. My colleagues have talked about section 9. I subscribe to the comments made by members of all parties. I think we all know of people who have been affected by this downgrading of licences. I am extremely supportive of that section. However, I do want to ask the minister a couple of questions in relation to two other sections of the bill.

Section 16(7b) of the bill provides a penalty for refusing or failing to follow directives in relation to weigh scales and people who obstruct “any weighing, measuring or examination authorized by this section.” Considering the amount of money involved in Ontario’s trucking industry, I wonder whether these penalties are adequate. In this section, a driver refusing or failing to redistribute his load or obstructing any weighing, measuring or examination “is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $100.” Considering the extra money one can make in relation to the payload or by refusing to subscribe to laws in relation to measuring, the penalty seems, in my respectful opinion, out of proportion to what one may gain by obstructing or not following the law.

There may be circumstances where a fine of not less than $50 is adequate, but that is not the part I am looking at. I am concerned with a court’s discretion to impose a fine of more than $100 on a driver who disobeys the law in relation to weighing. I ask the minister whether he considers in these circumstances that this is an adequate deterrent and gives the court or the tribunal sufficient powers to have people respect the law.

I put it to the minister that on both that section and subsection 6, where it is $500, the maximums appear to be somewhat small considering what is involved. Careless driving on our highways, which may be something even less than what is involved in this, has a minimum fine of $100 today. I want that matter to be given some consideration. I may be wrong, but I put that proposition to the minister.

Another matter that interests me is section 21, which tells people using school buses to cover up the wording “do not pass when signals flashing” when they are not transporting children or mentally retarded adults to or from school or a training centre. Why would the minister want that happening? Why would the minister want to say, as stated in subsection (5), that the words shall be covered or concealed when the school bus is not being used for transportation to or from a school or training centre. if the bus is not being used for that purpose, it strikes me that it likely would not be stopping and starting as it is when it is picking up and letting off students or retarded adults or other people who are protected under the statute.

I am wondering what the motivation is for asking this. People often rent these buses for a junior hockey team that is going to play some place. Is the bus starting and stopping all over the place? I do not understand why it would be necessary to do that if the vehicle is not used for transporting students to or from a school or training centre.

1:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the questions that are in my mind at the moment. I cannot agree with the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) in his concern for the penalty section in section 16. This is a penalty for a driver who refuses to unload some material. If he goes back on the road again, the truck is fined for overloading the second time. These things bring about pretty tough penalties. We are not talking about the truck owner or the transport company; we are talking about a driver who drives off while trying to set up a portable scale or something like that. He can be fined up to $500. Until this time, I do not believe we have had any penalty for this section.

There are many other penalties involved in this type of process. I have looked over this and thought about it since the honourable member was talking and, taking into consideration the other penalties that go along with the same action, I do not think we are being too lenient.

With regard to the school bus matter, certain provisions apply when a school bus is being operated as a school bus. When it stops to pick up or drop off passengers, it must turn on its flashing lights. However, when that bus is being operated off season for charters and so on, and not on school trips, the bus carrying a charter does not need to have that sign. These lights are to be covered when it is being used other than as a school bus. A normal bus does not have those signs. This is to clarify the act that those flashing school light signs shall not be used other than when transporting school children.

The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) was wondering how regulations come about. We have a lot of them. What was the specific regulation the member was concerned about?

Mr. Ruston: Section 7(3)/regulation 906, 76; the holder of a class B or E driver’s licence.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I recall it now. With regard to the school bus licence, there are requirements for a school bus licence that are not applicable to other licences. A class B licence is for a school bus; a class C licence is for a regular bus. As far as the number of points is concerned, we have a tougher restriction safetywise on the school bus driver than on the highway bus driver. There have always been tougher restrictions on the requirements of the driver, because we are concerned to try to make sure the school bus driver is a good driver.

Mr. Ruston: The Greyhound bus is going 70 miles an hour and the school bus is going 45.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That may or may not be so. I do not agree with that.

Mr. Mancini: That happens every day and you know it. They are the biggest speeders on the highway.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not agree with that remark from the honourable member but, if he wants to make it, that is all right.

With regard to the comments of the member for Bellwoods on handicapped transit, the new regulations that will be passed under the provisions of this act are being developed at the present time. Meetings are being held with groups of operators, the handicapped individuals’ association that he mentioned and with vehicle manufacturers. These regulations are in the final draft stage now and I hope they will be brought in soon after this bill gets royal assent.

Many comments were made with regard to the Wheel-Trans-Service in Metropolitan Toronto. I cannot agree with all the remarks that were made. It is my ministry’s duty to inspect those vehicles and make sure they are safe, and we will do that. If we find any that are unsafe, we will see they are removed from the road. We have an agreement with Metropolitan Toronto for the operation of this system. We fund Metro Toronto for this on the same basis as we fund them for the TTC and their road-building and maintenance program. They are a responsible level of government and it is up to them to see that the system is run properly, other than to say it is up to us to inspect the vehicles and see that they are safe.

The new regulations will help in terms of making sure that there are safety devices available in those buses, that there are proper tie-down or hold-down facilities and many other things. The selecting of the contractor by Metro Toronto or the TTC is their responsibility.

I thank the members for their comments and support of this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

HEALING ARTS RADIATION PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Turner, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Timbrell, moved second reading of Bill 177, An Act to provide for the Safe Use of X-ray Machines in the Healing Arts.

Mr. Turner: Mr. Speaker, to introduce this debate on the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act, I would like to outline the background to this legislation and indicate the importance of the measures it contains.

The Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act, which was introduced by the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) on November 3, will establish standards for the installation and operation of X-ray equipment, including the establishment of training standards for operators and the setting up of a Healing Arts Radiation Protection Commission to oversee these matters.

Existing legislation does not adequately deal with the issue of X-ray safety. Currently, regulation 721 of the Public Health Act addresses the issue of safety but primarily for the protection of the X-ray worker. It does not address all aspects of patient safety, nor does it set standards for the training of X-ray operators.

To put this whole matter in perspective, I think it would be worthwhile to remind ourselves of the origin of this legislation and of the way in which those affected have been consulted as the legislation was being prepared.

As a result of some concerns expressed about the matter of X-ray safety in our province, the Minister of Health last year established an advisory committee on radiology. It was headed by Mr. Brian Holmes, who was at that time dean of medicine of the University of Toronto. Also on the committee were three radiologists, two radiological technicians, two medical physicists and two hospital administrators, as well as two representatives from the Ministry of Health and one from the Ministry of Labour.

Each member of the committee had been nominated by a key organization affected by the issue of X-ray safety. Involved in the selection of members were the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Society of Radiological Technologists, the Board of Radiological Technicians, the Radiological Research Laboratories of the University of Toronto and, as I have mentioned, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour.

1:20 p.m.

The 13-member committee was formed in July 1979 and submitted its report in March 1980. At that time, the Minister of Health announced that he accepted in principle the advisory committee’s report. Its recommendations included the following:

1. A new Healing Arts Radiation Protection Commission to oversee and co-ordinate an X-ray safety program for Ontario;

2. New legislation requiring a safety code for all X-ray facilities and equipment, and registration of all facilities; and

3. Mandatory peer review programs for all groups of operators and mandatory audit programs for all facilities.

Over the next few months, the report of the advisory committee on radiology was circulated to associations and professionals in the X-ray field as well as to other interested individuals and groups. More than 60 groups and individuals responded to the report with comments and suggestions that have been taken into consideration in the drafting of the legislation.

To give some idea of the nature and scope of this consultation, let me briefly outline the types of organizations involved in responding. There were four universities and colleges, eight different associations, four governing bodies of professional groups, nine hospitals, 25 individual practitioners and technologists, five public health units, as well as the health ministries of Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and the Department of National Health and Welfare.

When completing its report, the advisory committee outlined several unresolved issues. However, the committee also recommended a structure for dealing with these figures and any new ones that may arise. That structure was the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Commission whose job it would be to oversee and co-ordinate the X-ray safety program for Ontario, The Health Arts Radiation Protection Act contains several provisions that will make a significant contribution to improved X-ray safety for both operators and patients alike.

One section will require the registration of X-ray machines, their location and the names and addresses of their owners. Other sections determine who may operate an X-ray machine and under what conditions. Specifically, operation is prohibited by an unqualified person. The qualifications required will be prescribed by regulation. There will be a transitional period of some three years to enable any unqualified operator to achieve the prescribed qualifications.

X-ray machines will only be permitted to be used on humans under the prescription of a medical practitioner, dentist, chiropodist, chiropractor or osteopath.

Another section of the act will prohibit the operation of substandard X-ray equipment, and another requires the designation of a radiation protection officer in a facility and sets out the responsibility of such an individual. Also, provisions for peer review programs and inhouse audits of quality have been established under this act. Other sections deal with the powers of a director of X-ray safety and X-ray inspectors. An appeals mechanism regarding approvals and orders made by these officials regarding X-ray safety is also included. Another section establishes the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Commission and sets out its functions.

As I have mentioned, the commission’s role would be to oversee and co-ordinate a program of X-ray safety for our province. The commission will also have the responsibility of having studies carried out to tackle the unresolved issues identified by the advisory committee on radiation. These unresolved issues include the question raised by the Consumers’ Association of Canada as to whether chiropractors should take X-rays. Other issues the commission will deal with include the suggested use of a patient X-ray record card, the transfer of radiographs from one practitioner to another to avoid unneeded X-rays and the propriety of non-radiologists owning X-ray facilities.

Included in the commission’s responsibilities will be the development of an X-ray safety code, the approval of courses in X-ray safety for operators, undertaking appropriate studies and advising the Minister of Health on all matters pertaining to X-ray safety.

The Healing Arts Radiation Protection Commission will consist of five members, none of whom will be a health professional. However, the lay members of the commission will be supported by professional and technical committees. These committees, as outlined by the legislation, will be advisory committees to assist it in all matters relating to X-ray safety in each of the disciplines: chiropody, chiropractic, dentistry, medical radiology and radiological technology.

As the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) mentioned in his introduction of the legislation earlier this month, the draft act itself was reviewed by the key professional and technical organizations whose members would be affected by this legislation. As a result of that consultation, it was clear there was general agreement on the content of the act. This is what the new act will provide for: a peer review mechanism to maintain the quality of expertise among operators; in-house quality assurance programs; clearly delineated responsibilities for the individual responsible for the X-ray equipment in each facility; formal training programs for all X-ray operators; and the opportunity through the healing arts radiation protection commission to identify new initiatives in the area of X-ray safety.

As a result of consultation with the professional and technical groups I mentioned earlier, we have identified two concerns that will be addressed by specific regulations. The first is the problem of filling the role of the radiation protection officer in hospitals and medical radiological clinics where no radiologist is available. A new regulation will provide for the designation of a registered radiological technician as the radiation protection officer if a medical radiologist is not available.

The second concern is that some, though not all, dental assistants have had adequate training in X-ray safety and should be allowed to operate X-ray machines. We propose to recognize by a regulation those dental assistants who meet the qualifications prescribed by the commission of being capable of running X-ray machines. The safety code will be based on the code that has been developed by the federal government. The federal model is designed to provide for consistency of regulations across the country. Thus, the Ontario regulations themselves will be consistent with those that may eventually be developed by other provinces. This legislation will place Ontario in the forefront of developments in X-ray safety compared to ether jurisdictions.

As we are all aware, X-ray equipment constitutes an extremely important diagnostic tool for those who practise health care in Ontario. However, the misuse, inappropriate use and over use of X-ray technology can have an adverse effect on the health of individuals. This legislation is designed to afford maximum protection for the patient and the operator without interfering with the value of X-ray technology as a diagnostic tool. I, therefore, urge the adoption of the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act in order to provide the fullest possible protection from X-ray radiation through adequate training and effective operating standards for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to agree with my friend from Peterborough in saying that Bill 177 is an extremely important and, from my point 0f view and that of my party, eminently supportable piece of legislation. Having said I stand happily in my place to tell the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health that my party is very supportive of Bill 177, I want to review briefly in a somewhat different fashion from the previous speaker some of the background that brings us to this bill on this date.

In a sense, words fail me in describing the indifference of this government over many years with respect to an urgent and pressing concern that has been identified by many in the health care community for at least the last 15 years. The negligence of the Ministry of Health and the government of Ontario on this vital matter of public interest and concern is inexcusable, if not worse.

1:30 p.m.

How did we come to this situation? We heard a very interesting, but equally incomplete, analysis of the background from my good friend the parliamentary assistant, who, I suppose, not surprisingly, represents the government on this occasion. I am sure the minister, as a responsible minister of the crown and of the government in this case, would be ashamed to come here today and share with us some of the background to this very important and eminently supportable piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall in your experience here in the past year or 18 months how the public debate in Ontario really got under way on this particular issue. It was not because this government brought forward a discussion paper on the subject. It was not because the Ontario Medical Association initiated in a public way, on behalf of its radiological section, a major public discussion on the subject. It was not because of any such august body, public or private, that we came to the debate. It was rather because Dr. Gifford-Jones, writing in the Toronto Globe and Mail on May 10, 1979, had the courage to report on a private memo growing out of a private study done by, among others, Professor Kenneth Taylor of the University of Toronto.

There might be those who chuckle and laugh about this situation, but I am angry because when one looks at the background to this legislation, one is alarmed at just how many other and similar situations might be occurring out there that we do not know about. We are so often and so casually reassured by the government not to worry in the opposition, that all is well. Until Dr. Gifford-Jones wrote in the Globe and Mail on May 10, 1979, we had been told much of that about this very important subject.

What did Dr. Gifford-Jones tell the public of Ontario about the Taylor et al study of a situation that the government had known about for some months and of conditions about which it had been warned since at least 1964? Writing in the May 10, 1979, Globe and Mail, Dr. Gifford-Jones wrote as follows:

“It is being said that even the street dog has had luckier days. Good fortune also happened to me while researching a column. I came across a February 6, 1979, memo from the radiological section of the Ontario Medical Association to all radiologists in Ontario. Its contents were hard to believe, and it kindled shock, dismay and anger. The memo indicates a massive coverup about the dangers of diagnostic X-rays in Ontario.”

How many times have we listened to the sanctimony from the Premier (Mr. Davis) on down to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) about our unjustified concern about coverup, to use that heinous phrase. Here is an interesting example of an important public policy that is being alleged by this particular doctor to have been covered up in this particular article.

He goes on: “There is every reason to suspect that other provinces and the United States are not immune to this hazard” -- a wonderfully reassuring footnote. “The memo from the radiological section of the OMA indicates that patients in one hospital may receive 60 times the radiation exposure given patients in another hospital.” Can you believe that? Sixty times the dosage possible in one hospital over another. That is a very reassuring commentary on the system over which this government has had a thirty-seven and a half year administration.

Dr. Gifford-Jones goes on to report: “For example, measured radiation exposures for a barium meal examination vary between 1.6 roentgens and 90 roentgens.” That is very encouraging, isn’t it? And on it goes.

One of the things he pointed out and one of the reasons why I have a personal interest in this subject is that, at the very time this was being discussed, the headlines of the national media were carrying stories, which were being discussed in this place, about the hazard afforded to two Hydro workers at Bruce who had received, as I recall, seven or eight rems of radiation, a couple of rems over the dosage allowed under the regulations in Ontario.

We were properly worrying in this province, not more than 15 months ago, about the negative consequences of seven or eight rems at Bruce. That same Hydro worker might well have walked into a public general hospital or other place where an X-ray for diagnostic purposes might have been administered and have received a blast, not of seven or eight rems, but of 90. God only knows how many times he or she might have received that kind of dosage.

This government and this Minister of Health tell us, through hundreds of thousands of dollars of public advertising, that we are our own liquor control board. We have an individual responsibility to look after our own health. This business about the use of X-rays for diagnostic purposes proves to me that one is not only one’s own liquor control board but, whether one knows it or likes it, one is one’s own radiological protection board. Think about that and the personal health related consequences that flow from that.

I invite all members to read the articles in question. The good doctor goes on to say in the article: “Why are faulty X-ray machines in use? There is an astonishing reason. Radiologists admit they must crank up the radiation dosage on faltering machines to obtain a good picture, yet the units are checked only every five years. One technician said a machine had not been inspected for 12 years. Others stated you had to call the government to request an inspection.”

To the degree there is inadequate and imperfect inspection the government, from my good friend the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) on up or down, has to accept full responsibility and blame. Later in the same article, Dr. Gifford-Jones says: “The Minister of Health has been well aware of the dangers to the public from radiation. In 1977, an X-ray standards committee filed a report expressing concern about the operators of X-ray equipment.”

It may be this legislation, and the flurry of activity that preceded it and came after May 10, was a predictable flow from the government and bore no relationship to this highly interesting and controversial article, but I am more than passingly suspicious.

1:40 p.m.

Then this story gets worse. My friends from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Wiseman) and Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck) had better listen. God only knows what parts of their anatomy have been deleteriously affected by this government’s indifference and inaction. They had better pay attention.

The report and the comments that followed the report of the Taylor study are truly frightening and concern me, as I indicated, more than words can express. What did Gayle Moffat, president of the 2,700-member Ontario Society of Radiological Technicians, say about all this? Among other things, she is quoted as having said anyone in Ontario can operate a piece of X-ray equipment.

She continues: “With grade eight, you can walk in off the street and with no knowledge of anatomy or physiology you can have a secretary show you how to push the buttons and to get to it. That is the way the law stands now and there is nothing to prevent it.” This is the kind of information that inspires ever so much confidence in us about the creative capacities of this dynastic government.

The president of the Ontario Society of Radiological Technicians says her organization has been trying since 1964 no less to have the province introduce training requirements and licensing provisions for the operators of X-ray equipment. She says, “I definitely think they have been lax, perhaps because they did not feel the problem was widespread.

“Since 1964 we have been trying with the various means at our disposal. We do not have a big lobby; there have been subcommittees and reports on the problem and somehow it always gets shoved aside.” It is clear to me and any other reasonable, objective observer of events that not until that article, damning as it was, appeared in the national newspaper of this country did this government find the resolve to move forward in a way that it had been told to do for at least 15 years.

Sometimes it is a case of the public sector being relatively pristine and leading the way, whereas the private sector operations in a similar field are really the derelict ones. In this instance again, we are so encouraged by the evidence given at the time of this controversy a year and a half ago.

It was learned at that time, May to June 1979, that fewer than one third of the Ministry of Health’s X-ray equipment operators working in chest clinics around the province are registered radiological technicians. Fewer than one third of the Ministry of Health’s own operations were, in the view of some, properly qualified.

Here is more evidence. In the spring and early summer of 1979, about 66 of 1,732 pieces of X-ray equipment in Ontario hospitals still needed adjustment to lower levels of radiation. They were 30 to 60 times what they should be, according to University of Toronto radiation expert, Dr. Kenneth Taylor.

My good friend the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), the plenipotentiary of all Ontario Toryism, strides in here to say, “Who paid for the study?” Who created the mess that the study pointed out? Even when she was being a Liberal, the Tory friends she now sits with, the Tory friends that have been governing this province for over 37 years in the tradition to which the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) has long been accustomed, have created an outrageous, impossible environmental hazard in this area. Now she sits and preens herself, saying, “Who paid for the study?” What an enlightened thing for the Minister of Education to say. I have always wondered about her.

I am sure opted-out physicians like my friend the member for York Mills will be interested to know that the public’s reaction to this was one of serious concern and alarm. A whole series of reports ensued from the Taylor report, indicating that hundreds, if not thousands of X-ray consumers, if I can use that phrase, were extremely concerned and upset by what had been reported by all kinds of informed observers. That is the kind of uncertainty that has to be laid at the door of the government of Ontario.

I want to say something else about the inspection for which the government has responsibilities in this area. As the use of X-ray equipment increased, as the number of X-rays increased exponentially, I am almost prepared to say the government’s inspection decreased relatively speaking. There was a shifting from the Ministry of Health of some of these people over to the occupational health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Health was left with a very understaffed capacity to oversee its responsibilities in this area. Some of the people involved complained bitterly about the mandate the government had, on the one hand, to see that proper regulation and enforcement was provided and the pitiful state of manpower to do the job on the other hand.

Listen to what Kenneth Taylor is quoted as having said back in mid-May 1979. He laid part of the blame for this situation, for what he described as “a mess” at the doorstep of the Ministry of Health inspection team, which he said at the time was surveying X-ray machines every five years and had been asking “all the wrong questions.” Need we be surprised?

I realize others may wish to speak on this. Today I did want to put on the record some of the background as briefly as I could to show just how serious the negligence of this government over more than 37 years has been. To say the very least, the negligence of this government is inexcusable, if not worse. The health care consumers of this province have, in my view, been put in a situation of serious jeopardy because successive ministers of health for over 15 years knowingly ignored advice that would have provided for this kind of legislation a lot sooner than at this time in 1980.

I would be ashamed if I were a minister of that government sitting here to know that this kind of information had been laid before successive ministers of the crown and nothing was done until Dr. Gifford-Jones wrote an article in the Globe and Mail in May 1979. This is a government that seeks the mantle of managerial competence. If ever anything laid bare an incompetent, indifferent bungling pack of people, it is the background to this legislation.

1:50 p.m.

I say, in conclusion, however overdue, and God knows even the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) knows it is overdue, however overdue and in some ways imperfect Bill 177 is, we in this party, concerned as we are about the safety of the people of Ontario, we who believe that the individual health care consumer ought not to be his or her radiological protection board, we support this bill as an eminently significant step forward for the health and safety of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have just been subjected to a dose of something. I do not know whether it is radiation or not. It certainly was flowing over here. We will support the bill despite the reservations which many members will be able to put.

Mr. Roy: We will accept your resignation this afternoon.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not mind if the member for Ottawa East is here more than one day a week, but would he shut up while he is here?

Mr. Roy: You are just trying to get on the record. Try to make a contribution for a change.

Mr. Breaugh: I yield my place to the member who desperately needs to get on the record about something. What does he want to got on the record about today?

Mr. Roy: Your incompetence.

Mr. Breaugh: My incompetence?

The Acting Speaker: (Mr. MacBeth): The excitement period does not start until 2 p.m. Will the member please proceed with his address?

Mr. Breaugh: That is the mistake we make when we try to do things on Thursday; the member for Ottawa East is here.

I want to speak briefly to this bill. I believe the government has finally recognized the problems that are inherent in a widespread use of a technology which not many people understand and which is one in which the basic machinery which is used, whether the cameras or the films, is changing rapidly. I believe the government has admitted, in presenting this bill, that it is a problem of substantial size and important.

I am a little dismayed that in the course of preparing legislation they did not follow the advice completely of their advisory committee, but rather sought to get the bill through the House in a form that everybody thought was acceptable. There are some problems in that. My hope is that the bill itself, in my view anyway, addresses itself to the principal problems that are involved in the field and provides some mechanism whereby further information can be gathered and some techniques whereby some of the problems can at least be unveiled.

I want to read a short quotation from a book entitled, The Confessions of a Medical Heretic, by Dr. Robert Mendolsohn, an American physician. He says, “I confess that I believed in the tradition of irradiation of tonsils, lymph nodes and the thymus gland. I believed my professors when they said that of course radiation was dangerous, but that the doses we were using were absolutely harmless. Years later, around the time we found out that the absolutely harmless radiation sown a decade or two before was now reaping a harvest of thyroid tumours, I could not help wondering, when some of my former patients came back with nodules on their thyroids, why are you coming back to me, to me who did this to you in the first place? But I no longer believe in modern medicine.”

He goes on at some length about many of the things which we have assumed for a long period of time to be, as he said in his book, absolutely safe. Somehow the dosages were not of the size or number that people should be concerned. I am reminded, in looking at this bill, that that same assumption was made here for some lengthy period of time. We are now at the point where we will begin to regulate, license and look at who is using X-ray machines in this province, what their machinery is like and what the dosages are like. Then perhaps in a short period of time we will have the kind of data whereby we might make some assessment of those judgement calls.

This bill is not a perfect piece of legislation by a long shot, but it is something which is necessary. I will follow with some care and interest the results of the various advisory boards and agencies which are set up in the course of this bill to see if they can provide us with answers which a number of other agencies have not been able to do to date.

This bill is supportable because it puts in place some mechanisms about the machinery and the people who use X-rays in this province. It provides very little in the way of answers. It offers some hope that we will be able to get some of those answers. It is one very small step, one very necessary step, in looking at a rather large problem.

We will be happy to support this bill because we feel it is necessary. It is marginal in its nature in terms of having an impact, but it does retain in it the potential to investigate an extremely serious problem and to provide us with some information which apparently no one is able to get his hands on these days. It forms a bit of a confession on the part of the government that there had been some areas in the past where assumptions were made that only safe dosages were used and that there really was no problem.

I look upon this bill as an admission on the part of the government that the accusations made by a number of groups around the province, consumers among them, that there were too many X-rays and the equipment was not properly monitored were true. It now allows us the first opportunity to clean house and to provide ourselves with a source of information which will lead us to the large and perhaps more important question of whether there are people using X-rays who should not be doing that and whether those X-rays have a cumulative, long-term effect which is perhaps even more dangerous, even though it is of low dosage, than one short high-dosage exposure to radiation.

We will support the bill.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) spoke eloquently about the background that led up to the bill being presented before the Legislature. I would like to make a couple of brief comments. There are two observations I would make.

One is an observation on the kinds of priorities the government may or may not have in protecting the people of Ontario. I can recall a year ago having to deal with the ministry because of the quality of smoke from a wood-burning boiler that had been shut down because during the first two or three minutes the grade of smoke was not considered acceptable and was doing damage to the atmosphere. I can remember sitting on the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs discussing radiation. Concern was raised over some dosages of radiation received by workers in the generating plants that did not compare at all with the dosages these X-ray machines were capable of delivering to patients who did not know they were getting them. I am very concerned about those kinds of priorities.

Some of the knowledge about what these machines were doing was well-known at least 15 years ago, as was pointed out. It seems this jurisdiction is always the last to act to protect its citizens. We are faced with this kind of thing time and time again. We are probably faced with it when we are dealing with this situation regarding the chemical dump in South Cayuga. This jurisdiction is always the last to move forward to protect its citizens. in my view, it is unconscionable.

Mr. Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly and thank the members for Renfrew North, Oshawa and Halton-Burlington for giving us their support for this important piece of legislation. I want to congratulate the member for Renfrew North on his rather entertaining response. However, he did raise some rather important points. One is the weakness in gaining information on this type of problem from the media. I would like to comment briefly that, as a result of that article which appeared in the newspaper he mentioned, the ministry wrote the doctor in question. From that date to this, we have not had the benefit of a reply. I would like that to be clearly understood.

2 p.m.

Also, Dr. Taylor’s article, which was published in March 1979, was not in any way kept secret, There was no attempt, and I want to emphasize that, at not making that report public. As a matter of fact, the profession was notified immediately of the problems, as the member has already acknowledged, and the minister took immediate action as a result of that and appointed the advisory committee. I would like to clear up any misunderstanding the members of this House or the public at large may have. I would like to caution the members again, and anybody else who is interested in this, that this is not a problem exclusive to this province. This is a problem which is not only international and national in scope, but also global. We in Ontario are in the forefront in taking a leadership role to correct it. How do you like that?

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

CORRESPONDENCE FROM PRISON INMATE

Mr. Speaker: On December 1, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) rose on a question of privilege concerning the opening of his mail. I investigated the matter, and on December 2 advised the House that the member’s mail was not tampered with by any agent of this House. The letter in question was from an inmate of a federal penitentiary, and I had been advised by the Solicitor General for Canada that mail addressed to members of provincial legislatures was still subject to scrutiny and to opening. I am now advised by the federal minister as follows:

“Under section 8a(3) of the Directors of the Canadian Penitentiary Service Commissioners directive number 219, ‘Members of the provincial legislatures are included among those to whom inmates can forward correspondence unopened. In exceptional cases, however, where institutional staff suspect contraband in such privileged correspondence, it may be opened after the commissioner has given his approval.’”

There may have been a breach of this directive, but I regret that I have no ability to enforce a federal directive. I can only suggest that the member for Oshawa raise the matter with the Solicitor General for Canada.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I know it is a little irregular, but I would like to thank you for taking the time and effort to investigate this matter for me, and I want to assure you that I will take the matter up with the federal Solicitor General.

AUDITOR’S REPORT

Mr. Speaker: I would like also to inform the House that the report of the provincial auditor for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, has been tabled today and, in accordance with standing order 91, stands referred to the standing committee on public accounts.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COCHRANE DISTRICT LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing, for first reading only during this session, An Act respecting Local Government in Cochrane District. This legislation will be discussed thoroughly by the residents of the area and, following that, we hope to be able to reintroduce the bill during the next sitting of this House, with any necessary amendments.

This legislation would basically do three things. It would first incorporate the existing town of Hearst and five unorganized townships as a new town of Hearst. Second, it would incorporate the united townships of Shackleton and Machin and part of the unorganized township of Haggart as the township of Shackleton and Machin. Finally, it would change the name of the township of Fauquier to the township of Moonbeam.

The legislation is an outgrowth of the study of local government in the area from Hearst to Smooth Rock Falls. The study, which was undertaken by my ministry, began in 1977 with a final report presented in June 1979.

We conducted the study at the request of some of the local councils. My staff will hold extensive consultation between now and the spring with the local people affected. Copies of this bill in both English and French will be made available to the municipalities and residents. We are looking forward to hearing their comments and suggestions.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to amend sections of the Environmental Protection Act, the Pesticides Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act. These amendments will clarify, update and expand our powers to control pollution, especially in the area of liquid industrial waste.

Briefly, the amendments cover the following: They extend from six months to two years the time period during which we can take legal action against polluters under these three acts. For the first time, there will be minimum fines for offences under the Environmental Protection Act. In addition, there is an increase in the maximum fines to provide more effective financial deterrents.

The amendments to the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act will empower the ministry to seize permits and licence plates of vehicles in connection with offences involving liquid industrial or hazardous wastes.

Under the Environmental Protection Act no minimum fines were set. Instead, it provided for a maximum flee of $5,000 for a first conviction and a maximum of $10,000 for each subsequent conviction. Our experience with liquid waste offences clearly indicates the need for tougher fines to act as a more effective deterrent to potential polluters. Therefore, we are setting in the Environmental Protection Act a minimum fine of $2,000 and a maximum fine of $25,000 for a first conviction. For subsequent violations, there will be a minimum of $1,000 and a maximum of $50,000.

The third amendment empowers the ministry and the police to seize permits and licence plates of vehicles if there are reasonable and probable grounds that those vehicles have been or are involved in committing an offence that involves hauled liquid industrial and hazardous wastes. Where there have been a conviction and a penalty, the ministry is authorized to hold the permits in place until a fine is paid.

These new provisions in our legislation will give our courts even more authority to crack down on polluters in Ontario.

DURHAM REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I would take a brief moment to do as I promised, namely, to provide an update on the Ajax treatment facility. I advise the House formally that the region of Durham has withdrawn its proposal.

PLANT CLOSURES AND TERMINATION ENTITLEMENTS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on October 14 I made a lengthy and comprehensive statement concerning the important issue of plant closures and the detrimental effect of such closures on the economy of the province and, more particularly, on the employees who are affected.

At that time, I announced a five-point program designed to deal with these problems in a variety of ways. At the same time, there was all-party agreement to establish a select committee to deal generally with the question of plant closures, to hear submissions from all interested parties, to study legislative and other policy initiatives in other jurisdictions and in due course to report to the House.

The committee has now been sitting for some weeks. I have appeared before the committee, as have my colleagues the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea). In addition, the committee has heard testimony from employers and employees involved in certain specific closures that have recently occurred. It has not yet had the opportunity to hear from major employer and trade union groups in the broader range of policy issues alluded to in my statement on October 14.

However, as evidenced from the resolution passed by the committee yesterday, reaffirming an earlier resolution to the same effect, it is clear that committee members place a high priority on the question of severance pay, as I do. It is to that specific issue that I wish to direct my remarks today.

2:10 p.m.

As I said on October 14, the government is not opposed to the principle of severance pay. However, I took the position then, a position which I reiterate in the clearest possible terms today, that it is fundamentally important we have the benefit of the considered views of all interested persons in the industrial relations community, through the fullest consultative process envisaged when the select committee was established, before we arrive at a final decision on the precise details of any severance pay legislation.

It is obvious, and I hope all committee members would agree, that the consultative process, while it has begun, is far from completion. I understand the committee will resume its deliberations early in January and I hope and expect it will be prepared to turn, immediately upon resumption of the hearings, to this topic and to hear from the major interest groups, with particular attention being given to the various substantive and technical problems associated with severance pay to which I referred in my statement of October 14.

In order to reassure the committee of the government’s announced support of the severance pay principle, I can give to the committee and to the House the following assurances. The government is prepared to introduce severance pay legislation by way of amendment to the Employment Standards Act at the earliest possible time in the next session of the Legislature, Moreover, for those who are understandably concerned that some employees may be in jeopardy between now and the time such legislation is passed, I can also say the government will he proposing the amendments be retroactive to January 1, 1981.

In the meantime, the select committee will have completed its deliberations and will, I assume, have prepared its final report. We will then have had the benefit not only of the committee’s recommendations, but also of the views and submissions of the various groups that will be testifying before the committee as well as the views of the persons and groups with whom I shall continue to consult in the interim period.

I would sincerely hope that, with these clarifying assurances, the consultative process now under way before the select committee, to which we all agreed, can be resumed and completed so that the legislation on this important matter can reflect the legitimate interests and suggestions of the industrial relations community at large.

Mr. Cassidy: This is a victory for the New Democratic Party.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is a victory for common sense that is not always reflected in that party.

SPEAKER’S CHRISTMAS PARTY

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we get to oral questions, on behalf of all members of the House and all of the staff who participated in last evening’s festivities, I would like to thank Santa and his elves, Pat Girouard and her associates, all of the house officers, all the committee chairmen, the Ministry of Government Services and our dining room staff for the excellent job they did in providing us with the service. Would you please thank them on behalf of everyone.

Applause.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTEREST RATES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the provincial Treasurer. Given that the United States banks raised their prime lending rates to 20 per cent yesterday, there will undoubtedly be increases in Canadian interest rates as well. Could I ask the Treasurer what case he will be putting to the meeting of finance ministers in Ottawa next week, which I believe he will attend?

Up to now the Treasurer has said Canada should allow its interest rates to remain considerably lower than the American rates, even if it means the dollar would fall. The dollar is now at 83 cents, May I ask the Treasurer whether he will be recommending the dollar be allowed to fall further and, if so, what floor he would recommend for the dollar? Could he tell us in summary fashion what Ontario’s position will be with regard to whether interest rates should be kept even lower in comparison to the American rates than they are now and whether the dollar should be allowed to fall further and, if so, how much further?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, most of what the honourable member said is correct. I believe what I have said in the past that interest rates in Canada could be independent of the American rate instead of traditionally being about one per cent higher, using the value of the dollar as the control mechanism and not necessarily implying that the dollar should fall.

The 84 cent level which we have hovered around for some time seemed to be relatively stable, relatively well received and one we have become accustomed to. Just as the member’s question was coming to me, I received today’s “good news”: the Canadian bank rate at the federal level just went up 1.38 per cent. This will undoubtedly trigger reactions in the banking community within the next day.

Mr. Cassidy: Good news?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I put that in quotes -- the 1.38 per cent increase in the Treasury and Bank of Canada discount rates.

Of course we suggested the position last year at a time when arguments were being made that Canada could not be independent of the United States, and that our rates had to be kept one per cent higher. I have been very happy to see that, for most of the year, we have pursued the very policy we recommended: something lower than the United States. We are still running three to four per cent below the American rates.

I would hope the Canadian dollar does not have a run on it. There appeared to be some indication of that yesterday with about a 0.03 cent drop and I have not seen today’s figures. I would suspect the change which I just mentioned, the 1.38 per cent, would stem that and would keep us relatively in balance.

Whether the American rates need to be in this historically high position of 20 per cent can be argued; that is academic. The fact is they are at that level and about the best we can hope for is 3, 3.5 or perhaps four per cent better than that in Canada, hoping that our basic energy resources, current balance of payments, and other improvements -- they are not good yet, but they are better -- will help us.

Mr. S. Smith: I take it then that the Treasurer will not this time be recommending that the dollar be allowed to fall further. I take it from what he says that he feels it is at the right level now, and that the interest rates will have to stay at whatever level is necessary to keep it there. That is what I take from the Treasurer’s comments. I think that is a fair inference; if not, I hope he will correct it, Mr. Speaker.

May I ask the Treasurer, since that would seem to mean we are going to have to put up with these crushing high interest rates for some time to come, would the Treasurer be willing to tell this House, after many questions in this line, what programs the government of Ontario is prepared to undertake to prevent the rash of bankruptcies of small businesses that we can expect this winter, and to protect people from losing their homes when they are facing 50 and 55 per cent increases in their mortgage payments each month? Will the Treasurer introduce something either right now, or by order in council later on, to protect those elements in our economy that are so sensitive to this crushing burden?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, this kind of questioning has gone on many times in this House. Ontario has never tried to duck actions it could take. It has always stressed that these things were best fought by co-operation at the federal-provincial level. We have also tried to stress that we had worked long and hard at bringing our budget into some semblance of balance to give us some room to have the manoeuvrability in times of stress.

We took action several weeks ago and, in my first budget, I took a number of actions aimed at helping small business people. We have had the farm interest subsidy programs. We did look at the problems of mortgage interest assistance. I would argue that those can really only be afforded at the federal level, where tax measures such as Mr. Crosbie introduced last year are put into effect.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that just in the past month the increases in interest and mortgage rates have increased the income that a family needs in order to afford an average priced home in Metropolitan Toronto, from an annual family income of $37,000 to one of $44,000, which is an increase in family income requirements of $7,000, just in the course of the month?

Will the minister undertake to bring in a plan to protect families on low and modest incomes from these suicidal increases in costs, or is it the government’s intention that home ownership should now be the preserve of the rich?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this often. The question of somebody buying a brand new home in today's market is one in which at least they have some degree of discretion as to whether they do or do not.

What I am simply saying is, the decision to enter into the purchase of a home is one that is discretionary. Where there is no discretion, of course, is where somebody already owns a home and is rolling over a mortgage. Those are the people who have the greatest problems.

2:20 p.m.

However, I think it is a problem of adjustment to a large degree. Say one takes the 25 per cent level of income as being a fair amount to be spent on the gross costs of a home. If one looks at a home purchased five years ago, takes the percentage of income it had to be at that point to justify the purchase, takes the increase in salaries that have occurred in most cases in the meantime, even the present changes in the mortgage interest rates are generally keeping the new mortgage rate at no more than 25 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: A new question. We have spent seven minutes on this question.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, just two seconds on this question --

Mr. Sargent: This is one of the most important things we have to talk about.

lnterjections.

Mr. Sargent: How can you make that decision not to talk about that question?

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Grey-Bruce please sit down?

Mr. Sargent: You can’t make those decisions not to talk about that.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear it.

Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By way of supplementary, how can the Treasurer possibly argue that he cannot afford to bring in some kind of interest rate subsidy? He has just dissipated $260 million on a sales tax scheme, at least $100 million of which is going to support imports into the province. We are facing an emergency situation now. He could at least resurrect some scheme like our $100 million plan to help out small businesses in emergency situations and for mortgages. How can he possibly argue that he does not have a responsibility, that he cannot afford it, when the government has dissipated so much other money in irresponsible ways? There is a crisis in Ontario now. The minister has an obligation to respond.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the righteous indignation of my colleagues on the Liberal benches is always just that. The member knows darned well we are in trouble in this country because of Ottawa’s mismanagement of the economy.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part supplementary to the Treasurer. First of all, he did not respond to the Leader of the Opposition when asked what his position was going to be at the meeting of finance ministers next week.

Second, why does he say the province cannot afford it? If he would take a look at the proposal we put before him last spring, it would not have been a particularly expensive program. To provide relief to people whose mortgages were rolling over would have cost the province in the neighbourhood of only $20 million. Did the Treasurer think that is an outrageous cost?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. I will go back and carefully review the words on the record. One of the great advantages of Hansard is that I will be able to see exactly what I said.

First, it is a Canadian problem; it is not an Ontario problem. It goes across all 10 provinces. I think the members will accept that. Second, it is best handled on a cooperative basis. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) and I did go to Ottawa on March 17 of this year, our first visit to the new regime. We had every reason to believe the federal Liberal government was willing to look at some kind of assistance program. Mr. Cosgrove made some suggestions that he was willing to do so. I have to argue with my friend that when they are getting much greater access to the tax revenue of this country and are allegedly in control of the monetary process of this country, the programs have to be shared.

What am I going to do in Ottawa next Wednesday? Obviously I will be listening with great interest. We are preparing our papers right now and will be prepared to discuss the matter. I know that at least one province has sent a telegram to the Prime Minister and to Mr. MacEachen to make sure this will be on the agenda. I have been told it is on the agenda, so I know we will be discussing it.

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment on the South Cayuga matter, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to determine what the difference is between an environmental assessment hearing and the hearings which the minister has unfolded before us as something we will have.

The minister has said there will he hearings and that the hearings will be into the appropriateness and the suitability of South Cayuga as a site for the proposed facility, looking at the technology, design, location on the 740 acres, the construction and operation of the facility, and that there will be a hydrological and geotechnical study conducted on the site. Given that all those things will happen under the hearing he proposes, may I ask him what would be the difference if the hearing was under the Environmental Assessment Act? What would be heard under the Environmental Assessment Act that would not be heard under his proposed hearing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: One point of correction to begin with, Mr. Speaker: It is not 740 acres, it is 100 acres. I think that is important. It will be for the site --

Mr. J. Reed: How big is the buffer zone?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think we are talking about the use of that land and it is important that we keep those things accurately on the record. The difference would simply be a matter of format in the sense that in the first instance, as I am sure the leader knows, there is the normal process of establishing the proposal, then the review of that proposal and that consideration that would be put forward. Someone must be that proponent.

In this instance we are asking the board to make those necessary hearings on the safety of the site and on its suitability for the technology that will be there. It is a very direct way to deal with the South Cayuga site in a full and complete manner. There has never been any doubt that the hearing will be totally and completely limited to that site and its suitability.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister has not made clear what the difference would be. I take it what he is saying is the only difference would be that in an environmental assessment hearing there might be evidence presented as to other sites that might be superior, whereas in the hearing he is suggesting the evidence would have to pertain to the site that has already been chosen. Is that correct? If I am not correct, will he please explain what the difference would be? What would be heard in an environmental assessment hearing that will not be heard in the hearings he has already agreed to?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, one very significant difference would be the discussion on need. I think the leader of the Liberal Party would be the first to recognize there is a tremendous need for waste treatment facilities in this province. The fundamental part of the environment assessment process is that we must, first of all, establish need, and that has to be done. I think that is a given in this province. It was a given some time ago. It is a given all over North America. It is a crime that we have not worked more towards this end at a much earlier date, but that I think is a given, that in an environmental assessment one must go through all of that to have a full and complete assessment. That is, I am quite sure the member would agree, not pertinent.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister has said the decision about the suitability of the site will be made by the crown corporation so that the decision is made independent of the ministry, could the minister explain why it is he has suggested that the crown corporation’s board of directors travel with the minister on a cosy trip to Europe to look at waste disposal facilities over there? Is this not an attempt by the minister to seduce the board of the crown corporation before it is even established and to compromise their independence, independence they should surely have if they are going to make an independent decision about whether or not the facility is to be located in South Cayuga?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned that the leader of the third party should talk about seducing a very independent board. I do not think many people would like to have that said about the Ontario Federation of Agriculture or the elected municipal representative, be it the mayor, and those are the very people he is talking about. I have also suggested, and I think with some great logic, that there should be more than just that group go. Indeed, the media should go.

I welcome that opportunity because I think it is about time in this debate that we start focusing en the prime objective, which is that we have for this province the best facilities we can find. We have said that many times. I am going to continue to say that. I think it is important that not just the board, but the media, the local people, you name it; and the committee -- and I have proposed to the committee that they go and see the best facilities in the world. I do not think he would suggest that I could seduce his representatives by taking them to see the best facilities in the world. That is what we are trying to build in this province. Nothing short of that will satisfy us and I think he is dead wrong if he thinks that board can be seduced, the mayor or her representative can be seduced, or his members can be seduced. I do not think that is the way it is at all and I think he should recognize that.

Mr. S. Smith: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) was on his feet.

Mr. S. Smith: He was not at all. I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: He was, and unless you have eyes in the back of your head --

Mr. S. Smith: I wish to ask the minister, to be absolutely clear about this, if the only difference between an environmental assessment hearing, or the major difference --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I did not say that and the member knows it.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: I have asked the minister what is the difference twice. I assumed the answer about the major difference was in the two answers he gave me. If the major difference between an environmental assessment hearing and the hearings he is proposing is that there would have to be a discussion of need at the environmental assessment hearing, does the minister think it is worthwhile setting aside the existing legislation in the province for an environmental assessment hearing?

Is it really worth all the uproar just to avoid a discussion of need? I would be prepared to go as a witness and say there is a need. I do not know of anyone who would say there is not a need in the province of Ontario. Does the minister think it is sensible to set aside the legislation that exists in favour of this ad hoc arrangement of his simply because of that, or is there some other reason why he does not want to have an environmental assessment hearing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I gave that as an illustration. I can stand here in my place for some time and tell the member other significant differences. Let me give him one.

Mr. S. Smith: Well I asked the minister three times.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it is hard not to respond to some of those interjections. There is one very major difference if an environmental assessment was heard and a decision was made by the board. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that the very act, under which so much discussion has taken place, clearly gives the cabinet the right to amend the decision made by that board. What have we said to the contrary in this instance? We have put the right to make the final decision, the Premier (Mr. Davis) has said and I have said, that the government will not overrule --

Mr. S. Smith: The minister can make the same statement about the Environmental Assessment Act, but he will not amend it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: All of a sudden the Leader of the Opposition wants to be very picky about which part of the act he wants to apply. It is a very interesting, subtle point, but I am saying to the Leader of the Opposition in this particular instance we have said it will be an independent board. That may be what the member opposite does not like about this. He wants it to have the connotations that somehow or other we will carry that responsibility. I do not mind doing that. We have tried to do that very consistently, but I think it is time we realize what the people of this province have been saying pretty consistently, and that is they agree completely with the concept of a corporation to run the liquid waste facilities of this province. That is what we are establishing here. We are establishing a very broad spectrum. I think there are major significant --

Mr. S. Smith: The minister is a failure. That is what he is establishing.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Not half as much as the Leader of the Liberal Party in his role. He will find that out in about three months.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the board of the crown corporation comes back to the minister in 12 months and tells him it has discovered that the site is not suitable for this kind of facility, then we will not be just 12 months behind but 24 months behind, because we will have wasted a full year and be a full year further away from finding a solution than we should be today. Why does he not put the hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act so that all the options can be reviewed and we will be assured that, at the end of those hearings, we have not just a yes or no decision but a decision on what will be the best facility of Ontario and in the world?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We have spent two years, indeed most of that two years and have been taking the advice of the standing committee and we have made many advances in the last two years in dealing with liquid industrial wastes. We had a very brief time to put that on the record about two weeks ago.

We have also scrutinized very carefully what was said during that emergency debate. After scrutinizing it to the nth degree we find that in the two and a half or three-hour period the opposition parties of this province were not able to come forward with one single, positive suggestion of how or where. There was not a single thing. It is nice and easy to be a critic when they never have to face the reality of knowing what it is all about, or where and how. They will always want that nice, comfortable position. That is why they failed to come to grips with the problem.

USE OF ASBESTOS IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Education, who assumed responsibility for questions with relation to asbestos in schools. Can the minister assure the House that in response to the directives on asbestos in schools, which she issued in July 1979 and in January 1980, the ministry now is aware of all possible asbestos hazards in the schools of the province and that no school children or school board employees now are at risk as a consequence of exposure to asbestos in our schools?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that full commitment at this point, because I am not convinced right now that every single board has completed all of the investigation it should have. I believe there may be one or two boards that have not completed the investigation. It is my understanding that all of the remaining boards have.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain to the House why the Ministry of Education has not actively and vigorously pursued the Windsor Board of Education? In May of this year, it reported not a single inspection having gone forward to the ministry, according to the ministry’s own records. Despite assurances to the board trustees by the board officials, it now has been discovered that there were 26 schools with asbestos out of 44 that have recently been inspected. Board officials have been maintaining that they were not required to follow directives about asbestos inspection issued by this ministry because those directives were not law. Why has the ministry not been going after the Windsor Board of Education and how has it tolerated a situation where that board has been thumbing its nose at the ministry’s directives?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We most certainly have been asking boards to complete the examination as rapidly as possible. It is my understanding that the Windsor board has completed its examination.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Where the caretaking staff and the union request a second opinion because they do not have confidence in the first opinion concerning asbestos in the schools, will the minister look into the request of the union for a second opinion to clarify whether asbestos in the schools is a hazard?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that in the circumstance described by the member the union itself has taken under its own responsibility the acquisition of that second opinion.

Mr. Cassidy: What action is the ministry now prepared to take in view of the fact that some schools in Windsor have shown asbestos as present and that in some schools in Windsor asbestos has been discovered. which was exposed in the gymnasium hanging from pipes and behind the backstop? When the asbestos problem in that community continues to be of that severity, what action is the minister now taking or prepared to take to protect both the school children and school board employees from what is a very clear present hazard?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would remind the honourable member that the responsibility for the provision of facilities for education at the local level is that of the board of education, duly elected by the local people. We have done a great deal to assist, encourage and persuade boards to carry out their responsibilities for the investigation of potential asbestos problems. Some of the boards have been a little slow to respond and we have tried to encourage them to speed it up. We have done that. I believe we are now almost at the completion of that activity.

Most certainly we have been encouraging boards by telling them there was provision for funding to ensure that they completed the solution of their asbestos problems. In fact, most of the boards have done so. The local board of education, however, must take responsibility for that part of the activity which is theirs.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, who is responsible for the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Can the minister tell the House whether the reports that emerged from the meetings of members of the Conservative caucus with people from the escarpment on Monday of this week are correct, and in specific terms can he say whether the statement by a former minister. the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr), “Let us get rid of the commission” is an expression of government policy, or is it still government policy to support the Niagara Escarpment Commission in its work of preserving the escarpment as a continuous natural environment?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party knows very well that the Premier (Mr. Davis), myself and others have said we have a commitment to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. They are now ending their phase one hearings and the plan has been submitted to it and the plan is proceeding very satisfactorily. That is on record and there is no doubt about that. If the honourable member has a poor memory, I will be glad to send him copies of those commitments made in the Legislature and outside of the Legislature.

Mr. Cassidy: If that is the position of the minister, can he explain why it is that ministries of the crown have been acting directly contrary to that position with respect to the multimillion-dollar luxury condominium development at Epping Common in Euphrasia township?

In particular, can the minister explain why, after an initial rejection by the Niagara Escarpment Commission hearings, a representative of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism appeared at the appeal to support and express his ministry’s support for the Epping Common development?

Can the minister also explain why it is that, despite the fact that the Niagara Escarpment Commission has phase one hearings under way, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) used a back-door route to take official plan consideration of the Epping Common development before the Ontario Municipal Board without even informing the minister responsible for the Niagara Escarpment Commission? When are the two of them going to get their act together?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I believe the honourable member was in the Legislature on October 21 when the member behind him asked that question of my colleague the Minister of Housing, who replied. If the member does not have a copy of that reply, or if he was not here, I will be glad to send it to him. That was fully answered by the Minister of Housing. Under the Planning Act he referred it to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I say to the leader of the third party, in my estimates I made it very clear to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), and to all the members in the estimates committee over the last couple of weeks, that in no way did my ministry do anything in the name of back-dooring amendment number 33 to the Beaver Valley official plan. We were asked for advice. We gave the advice of the ministry and we proceeded from there.

The third party in this House constantly believes everybody has to be working in some back-door attitude, when they are trying to secure for the taxpayers of this community at least a fair opportunity to present their point of view.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How can the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development say he is still preserving the escarpment when is it not true that he admitted in committee that the Minister of Housing had never even discussed with him a referral to the Ontario Municipal Board when that minister referred it with special instructions that the Ontario Municipal Board was to proceed with the hearing even though the Niagara Escarpment Commission hearings were in process, and that the Epping Common scheme, this massive development by friends of the government, is the only case where he has given that special instruction?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, there was no special instruction. During the estimates, the honourable member asked me if I had received a copy of the letter that the Minister of Housing had sent and I said I had not. I do not get copies of all letters that the Minister of housing sends.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister give assurance to the House that he will not do in the Epping Common matter what the Minister of Housing attempted to do in the Cantrakon matter, which was that once it was rejected by the Niagara Escarpment Commission and once it was rejected by the hearing officer, the minister then made a unilateral decision which he was forced to rescind by the opposition? Will the minister simply give his assurance that they will not attempt to do the same thing on the Epping Common matter that they did on the Cantrakon matter?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in this particular case the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the matter is being referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. The OMB is a very objective and competent body; I am sure it will give the matter full consideration and will make its decision according to the presentations made to them.

ONTARIO HYDRO LAND PURCHASES

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier and in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), I wish to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

What action is the government prepared to take with Ontario Hydro to see that a Dufferin county farmer, Mr. Ken Peterson, gets justice from Hydro’s property division, which set up a committee to assess Mr. Peterson’s case and then vetoed the committee’s decision when it was not satisfactory to them?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, that matter will have to be referred to the appropriate minister. I have no answer to that.

Mr. J. Reed: I am surprised the minister is not aware that this injustice to a citizen of Ontario has taken place. Will the minister recommend action to see that these kinds of dictatorial methods on the part of Ontario Hydro cease immediately, understanding that the second corridor out of Bruce has yet to be located and hopefully will undergo environmental assessment, and that settlements will be made with the land owners? If this is not settled now, the people who are going to face expropriation in the near future are going to face the same kind of thing.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The honourable member knows full well this is not an area of my responsibility. I will see that the question is raised with the appropriate minister.

COMMUNITY SERVICES CONTRIBUTION PROGRAM

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Housing. It concerns the community services contribution program which the federal Liberal government terminated arbitrarily, thus ending a series of community projects around the province and the country. Has the minister received a telegram from the mayor of Toronto in which the mayor asks the province to continue its aid and to expand the provincial commitment to fill the gap left by the federal government? If so, what are his plans to make sure this program continues to have, as he said on December 13, a good effect on the economy of country?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have received a copy of the telegram. The Premier, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Cassidy) received copies of the telegram from the mayor of the city of Toronto. It requests our support in the continuation of the program that was unilaterally cancelled by the federal Liberal Party. That program had contributed $130 million to the economy of Ontario in neighbourhood improvements and in water and sewage treatment and purification operations.

We understood the program would have a longer period of life than two years. I have to say frankly that the Liberal government of the day hoodwinked all the provincial ministers in designing that particular agreement with the understanding it would go on for some period of time thereafter when all the problems were worked out.

In my statement to this House some weeks ago, when I announced the decision of the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Cosgrove, and his federal Liberal friends in cancelling this program, I said this province would review the situation closely with Mr. Cosgrove. The Minister of the Environment and I met with Mr. Cosgrove on Monday past and we reviewed it in some detail without any assurances from him that there would be any consideration about its extension, regardless of the Canada-United States agreement on water quality control being disregarded, regardless of all the indications to the municipalities in this province and in this country that they were going to be assisted in improving their water and sewage treatment plants, and regardless of the renovation and upgrading of the housing stock in this country. All these things are passé.

I said at the same time that, while we would review that with the federal government, we were not going to accept the entire responsibility to supplement those cancelled federal programs out of the public treasury of Ontario. Obviously, if the federal government finds it easy to cancel this program for some $100 million in the coming year, it can well move into other social fields and cancel them as well, in anticipation that Ontario will pick up the entire cost. That is not our intention.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I agree the minister has been hoodwinked, I have little doubt about that. But, as he knew at the beginning of his participation in this, it has to be a continuing program. As he knows, there is at least $10 million worth of plans already in process in Toronto for the next number of years. Is it not the minister’s responsibility to step in and share on a new basis with Metro Toronto? It is my understanding Metro will look at increasing its share if the minister is willing to co-operate. Is it not the minister’s responsibility to commit himself and his government to protect jobs in this province, to protect environmental projects that are under way and to ensure that local planning, which has been under way for a number of years now, is not undermined by both the provincial and federal levels of government?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I answered no very positively to the question that was originally asked as to whether we were going to fill the void that was created by the federal government. That is not to say we will not continue, as a provincial government, to contribute to the program what we did on a partnership basis before.

I realize the importance of this program to many municipalities and more specifically to communities with populations of 20,000 and less. These are the communities that will be damaged very severely by the cancellation of this program -- not Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, London or Windsor. The small municipalities are the ones that are going to feel the financial pinch in this program.

The Minister of the Environment can give the member a very clear and concise position on what the added costs will be to the smaller municipalities. In some cases they will be completely devastating, and in most cases the programs will not be able to take place at all because the financial resources are not at their level.

I want to assure this House that the Treasurer and I, along with the Minister of the Environment and others, will continue to pursue the federal government to get them back into the program. But I emphasize it is not this government’s intention to fill all the void left by the federal government.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to redirect my supplementary to the Minister of the Environment.

It is my understanding the federal minister has stated he will honour all provincial approvals until December 31, 1980. Since the village of Bobcaygeon will be opening tenders on December 18 for a sewage disposal plant and pumping station, will the Ministry of the Environment make every effort to lock over these applications with a view to assisting this village to make sure they are approved by the end of the year?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, that was one of the significant points we raised with Mr. Cosgrove at the meeting referred to by my colleague the Minister of Housing. We think at the very least that date should be extended.

One wants to do these things properly, and all of a sudden there are only 13 days, must of which are holidays, to make all of those determinations. I think it was grossly unfair, to tell us those things without notice. But we will bend over backwards to assist them. The greater assistance would be to have that deadline extended a little bit to give a reasonable amount of notice. That is the best that could happen.

I urge the member, in the spirit of the season, to phone Mr. Cosgrove and ask him to give some reason and rationality to that deadline.

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. For 16 days we have been sitting with the 42-page MacLaren report on the siting of liquid hazardous waste facilities. For the most part it is a brief overview of the material to be found in the three appendices to the report. Seventy-five per cent of the November 1980 report is identical to the August 1979 interim report.

Since we have heard that the consultants are still compiling some graphs and tables for the appendix and that they have not yet got to the presses, can the minister tell us when we will get the material? It is the meat of the $425,000 study.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think the meat of that study is already on record. But those appendices are important, and I understand they will be available before the end of this month.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), I will ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development a question.

As a response to the Ontario Council of Health’s documentation on problems in our mental health care system and a further report by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union documenting problems with the mental health system, will the minister now seek to have the government call a royal commission into all the problems that are in our mental health system? I ask for this so there will be no more Aldo Alvianis die by therapeutic misadventure and no more Henry Kowalskis incarcerated for more than 10 years, even though they have never committed a crime.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, those reports are under consideration by the ministry. At this time I see no need to call a royal commission.

Mr. Breaugh: Will the minister take as sufficient reason the fact that we have had 538 deaths in our psychiatric institutions since 1978? It seems to me that is reason to call a royal commission. In our Community and Social Services institutions we have guidelines for psychotropic drugs, and in our psychiatric institutions we have none. Patients are dumped out of psychiatric institutions into Parkdale, into Sutton, into one locked ward with 60 people in Windsor with no nursing care. Is that not reason enough to look at it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I have already indicated we are looking very carefully at those reports.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: About a year ago, the government’s own illustrious Ontario Council of Health produced a damning indictment of mental health services in Ontario. At this point, what specific redress and policy statement is the provincial secretary prepared to make on behalf of her government to deal with the countless cases and instances pointed to, as I said earlier, in that perfectly damning report about the state of mental health services in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the members that the reports are all being given a great deal of attention.

AID TO PENSIONERS

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) asked a question the day before yesterday with respect to tax grants for senior citizens, whether the computer check on applications, which was designed to prevent payments to deceased persons or to ineligible persons or to possibly fraudulent applicants, had been suspended and whether anyone was auditing the applications before payments.

The computer check on applications has not been suspended. All applications received are computer-checked against the computer tape of Ontario recipients provided by the old age security office in July. Anyone on that tape is eligible to apply for and receive a property tax grant if he pays rent or property taxes and does not reside in an institution. If they subsequently pass away, if deceased, the estate is entitled to receive the grant.

It has happened that a grant was paid to a deceased person rather than to the eligible spouse. This is a result of the manner in which the federal OAS computer tape is constructed. Our systems are being refined to reduce this occurrence to a minimum. If the individual does not appear on the OAS tape, the grant is not paid until it is thoroughly investigated.

PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education and Minister of Colleges and Universities, if I can get her attention.

In view of the fact that in 1975 the Canadian Medical Association declared its support for increased physical activity in the school curriculum, in view of the ever-increasing costs of health services, and in view of the fact that physical education is not a compulsory subject in our secondary school system, in the interests of a better physically fit youth will the minister once again make physical education a compulsory subject in our schools?

I am interested in physical education for the masses and not the classes, because the classes are being taken care of by the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the matter of physical education as a mandatory or choice subject within the secondary schools is one that has been discussed, as the honourable member notes, for the past several years. There is not any doubt that there are medical evidences that increased physical activity does provide some prophylactic support for the human condition and may serve as therapy for many of the ills of young people and these of elder years.

That matter has been referred very clearly as a specific problem and one to be resolved to the secondary school education review project. I am aware that four committees are taking this matter very seriously. I anticipate it will be included in the recommendations that will comprise the totality of that project’s report when it is made in 1981.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the ministry developing or has it developed any testing procedures so that comparisons can be made and will be able to be made in the future as to the physical wellbeing of our youth?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There are a number of agencies, groups and expert organizations that have developed testing procedures. Many of these have been looked at by those involved in physical and health education. I believe we have a series of those available to us at this point. I am not at all sure that the ministry should be reinventing the wheel at this stage of the game but utilizing what has been developed by experts in other areas.

3 p.m.

One of the questions I would like to have answered by secondary school students and by teachers is whether we might increase their physical fitness if we allowed them to walk a little more rather than putting them on buses quite so frequently.

Interjections.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Well, what is wrong with that?

SUPERMARKET PRICING SYSTEMS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. First, I would like to send him a petition with 106 names on it, relative to computer checkouts, concerning errors and objections to the removal of price tags. Has the minister been doing any comprehensive monitoring of the computer checkout systems in supermarkets to determine the degree of price errors and overcharging to consumers? If he has, what are the results and will he explain his monitoring system?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member can hear me but I cannot hear him.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps I should put the question again then. I am not usually accused of having too low a voice. My question to the minister was, has he been doing any comprehensive monitoring of the computer checkout systems in supermarkets to determine the degree of price errors and overcharging to consumers? If so, what are the results and will he explain his monitoring program?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I want to make sure I understand what the member is talking about. I will answer the question tomorrow and give him all the papers in advance.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have anything he wishes to add to his initial question? It has been taken as notice.

Mr. Swart: Yes. Will the minister particularly check the experience of the Consumers in Action group, which has been doing this kind of a study? For example, a Mrs. Dorothy Hill of 24 Camberley Crescent in Brampton kept track for one month --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are getting into a specific question, rather than something general you want the minister to take as notice. Can you associate it with the initial question?

Mr. Swart: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, put it forthwith.

Mr. Swart: There was overcharging on the scanner. I am asking whether the minister will check out the case of Mrs. Dorothy Hill, 24 Camberley Crescent, Brampton, who kept track for one month of checkout slips and found she had 11 errors. She bought groceries worth $214.69 and she had an $8.70 overcharge. Other members of Consumers in Action out there have had similar experiences. It is serious. Will he start monitoring and checking it out?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I took the question as notice. I said I would provide the member with information. Quite frankly, I had some difficulty following the first part of his question.

On the second point, I do not know whether I have that particular case but, if I do, I will say two things: One, she will get her money back --

Mr. Swart: You have the information there.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Why, if the member just handed it to me, would he ask what I was doing about it?

UNIVERSITY ADMISSION

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities, with respect to the new admission requirements of the University of Toronto which will affect students making their course choices in January 1981.

Is the minister aware of the University of Toronto’s decision to restrict the use of some grade 13 credits, including family studies, accounting and marketing? Is the minister concerned that subjects approved by her Ministry of Education now are being rejected by the University of Toronto for admission?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the answers are yes and yes.

Mr. Sweeney: Given that the minister has launched a secondary school review program, does she not think the timing of the University of Toronto’s decision is inappropriate? Will the minister not request the university to delay its decision, or its implementation of that decision, at least until the report of the secondary school review panel is in, since they may be making decisions in that very same area?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this is a recommendation of a committee which has not as yet been accepted by either the senate or the governing body of the university. The honourable member may be interested to know that some discussions are going on right now between representatives of the university staff and my ministry.

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food; I hope I can rescue him from behind the benches there.

In a recent speech to a group of 150 farmers down near Kingston, the Minister of Agriculture and Food is reported to have told them that, within three decades, Kingston and Brockville will have small nuclear generating stations. Then the report adds, “The nuclear stations will make use of Ontario’s ample uranium deposits, while waste cooling water will be used to heat cities and possibly create a new domestic industry, shrimp farming.”

Since the minister, in all fairness, said this was not government policy but his own personal view, may I ask him whether he is aware of any -- I underline “any” -- planning with the Ministry of Energy or Ontario Hydro for fulfilment of his rather fanciful proposition? Second, is it possible the minister is trying to develop an industry to replace all the commercial fishing in the Great Lakes, which experts now tell us is likely going to be killed off by dioxin?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacDonald: No to what?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Both. The honourable member asked two questions, and the answer to both is no.

Mr. MacDonald: In other words, there are no ideas backing the minister’s?

Hon. Mr Henderson: The member qualified it off the hat. It was my statement, and not the government’s; it was my own idea.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on government advertising for the Treasurer. I was thinking of asking it of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), but I think I will direct it to the Treasurer since he controls the funds. Will the Treasurer indicate to the House whether the government of Ontario has any special program designed for the advertising of its various ministries and programs from now, when the House prorogues, let us say, until March or April, and will he assure the House that he does not intend to allow an undue amount of money to be spent on advertising when we in the House are not here to reprimand the government for this practice?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The effectiveness hurts, does it not? No, Mr. Speaker. We never permit undue advertising.

Mr. Bradley: Will the Treasurer assure members of the House that there will not be a reallocation of funds from one specific area in a ministry to another so that more emphasis is placed on advertising in the next few months than on programs which might be useful to the people of Ontario?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am totally lost at this point, Mr. Speaker. The changes of moneys between votes often occur, but they always have the stoney eye of the Management Board of Cabinet to make sure we are getting value. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that our so-called advertising programs in the main are factual information required by the people of this province.

3:10 p.m.

ALGOMA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Is the minister aware of a report that has been prepared for the Algoma University College board of trustees and will be discussed at a meeting of that board this Saturday? The report says: “There is no doubt that if the college is to survive an accommodation will have to be reached with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. The only alternative is closure.”

If the minister is aware of that, is she prepared to give favourable consideration to any request for funding to put Algoma University College finally on a footing that will allow it to operate at cost levels where it will be able to meet its program obligations to Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma without having continually to seek special funding on a short-term basis?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that there are two reports to be discussed at that meeting on Saturday. I do not know the exact content of either of those reports. It is the responsibility of that board to make decisions and recommendations. I anticipate when they do that they will be considered very seriously by both the ministry and myself.

URANIUM CONTRACTS

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. In view of the most recent news that the bottom has fallen out of the uranium market and the price of uranium has dropped well below $30 a pound, in view of the fact that the Premier personally rushed the select committee into signing a $7.5-billion contract on behalf of Hydro, as I found out, at $30 to $60 a pound with Denison, and in view of the fact that he had been informed by the reports of the committee about massive new discoveries and deposits, will he, facing this shocking indictment of himself, his government and Hydro, which is paying 40 per cent more now for Denison’s uranium --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And in conclusion --

Mr. Sargent: You smart ass. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell the people of Ontario why he will not take immediate steps to call for an opinion or a full-scale inquiry to show cause why we cannot renegotiate this scandalous contract, which will cost us hundreds of millions or billions of dollars before its completion?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is I did not rush the select committee into anything. i have learned around this house never to rush a select committee into anything. They take their own time and proper deliberation and assess those contracts very carefully and very thoroughly. That is my recollection.

Mr. Sargent: It is a matter of record. There is a letter from the Premier to the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), the chairman of the committee, giving him a date to hurry it through, because he had a deadline.

I want to ask the Premier, in view of the fact that to save its life, Westinghouse of the United States, a multibillion-dollar corporation, had to renegotiate through the Supreme Court of Ontario billions of dollars’ worth of contracts to get out of their uranium contracts, is there any reason why he cannot do the same thing here on behalf of the people of Ontario? Why can he not do that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the answer to that is very simple: I cannot.

COMMENT BY MEMBER FOR OAKWOOD

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) took exception to a comment made by the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande). I have checked the record to confirm what was said by the member for Oakwood in question period yesterday afternoon. The member for Oxford said in part --

Mr. Nixon: He should withdraw too.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Oakwood. This is my own writing.

The member for Oakwood said in part: “Has the Premier talked to the federal Minister of Immigration? If he has, what was the response? If he has not, does he realize he is allowing Stuarts-come-lately to exploit the issue for political purposes?”

As all members know, there is very little that goes on in this chamber that is not of some political significance. But to suggest that the words or the initiative of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) are less than honourable in the Italian earthquake tragedy is unbecoming of any member of this House. I would therefore ask the member for Oakwood to withdraw the remark without equivocation.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, if you deem it necessary, and you have deemed it necessary, for me to withdraw, I shall do so.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member very much.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: As is the custom in this House when we have a group of pages serving with us who are about to leave, as it is hoped they will tomorrow -- not because I want them to leave but because I want to leave -- I am going to read their names into the record.

They are as follows: David Allan, Sarnia; Geoffrey Atkins, York Centre; Denyse Cousineau, Cochrane South; Russ Dobie, Muskoka; Kathleen ffolliot, London North; Chrisandra Firth, Wellington-Dufferin-Peel; Jane Gelberg, Wellington South; Peter Hajmasy, Welland-Thorold; Janet Harding, Oshawa; Drew Hasselback, Huron-Middlesex; Klara Kuchar, York West; Scott Losee, Cambridge; Donna Le Madill, Simcoe Centre; Shivon Mason, Nipissing; Margot McKinnon, St. Andrew-St. Patrick; David Milne, Grey; John Pawluk, Huron-Bruce; Michael Ross, Eglinton; Susan Sheridan, Durham-York; Mark Smithyes, York North; Colin Umbach, Carleton East; and Theresa Vanhaverbeke, Durham East.

Will you please thank them for their service.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Mr. Gaunt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I may: I have an inquiry of the Minister of the Environment listed on the Order Paper listed as question 317. It was indicated the approximate date of the information being available was November 30. Since we are presumably going to prorogue tomorrow, can I assume that information will be available tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I have been sending back answers to questions pretty routinely for the last two weeks. I am not familiar with that one, but I will give the member every possible assurance we will make a 100 per cent effort to do so.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of questions on the Order Paper that were originally supposed to be answered on October 21, particularly relating to the advertising budgets of the various ministries. I wonder whether those will be answered and whether the government House leader can give us assurance that all the questions on the Order Paper will be answered before we prorogue tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult assurance to give but as many as possible will certainly be answered.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, in particular, will there be an answer to question 433 from the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman)? If it is not ready, will he send it to my home? I think everyone in Ontario wants to know whether he is considered a shirt-and-tie person?

PETITION

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL W4STE

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to hear this petition.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I herewith present on behalf of my constituents in the Haldimand-Norfolk area the attached petition with at least 12,000 names, which have been solicited in the past few days. The petition reads:

“Whereas representatives of the government of Ontario have acknowledged that an area of the former township of South Cayuga, now part of the town of Haldimand, in the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk is under study as a possible waste disposal site” -- that is an understatement; the decision was made--"and whereas it is clear that the area under consideration is agricultural land and for this and other reasons is not suitable for a waste disposal site, we, the undersigned, are absolutely opposed to any area in the former township of South Cayuga being used or considered for use as a waste disposal site, and we are tabling this today before the House and before the government of Ontario.”

Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious petition. I hope the government responds to the democratic system so that the people in my area are treated fairly and responsibly.

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PLANT SHUTDOWNS AND EMPLOYEE ADJUSTMENT

Mr. McCaffrey from the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment presented the committee’s second interim report and moved its adoption.

Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression, and I want my colleagues from the committee and in the assembly to be equally aware of it, that tonight at eight o’clock, we will have one hour to speak to this interim report. I would encourage any people who feel there are still some matters to be dealt with to do so at eight o’clock when we will have an opportunity.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Leluk, on behalf of Mr. Cureatz, from the standing committee on general government, presented the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Management Board be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981: ministry administration program, $163,606,400; policy development and analysis program, $5,903,300; management audit program, $440,000; employee relations program, $861,100; and government personnel services program, $448,000.

STANDING COMMIITEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Williams from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee’s second report and, pursuant to standing order 30(b), requested that this report be placed on the Order Paper for consideration.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, if I might, I would simply like to take a few moments to highlight the current report before you by pointing out that there were five matters addressed in the report on this particular occasion.

The committee received the interim report on the first Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation, which the chairman of the committee had the opportunity to attend and report on on an interim basis. This is setting the ground work for future consideration as to the comparative systems that exist throughout the Commonwealth which will be discussed in depth at the next sittings of the committee.

With regard to the major thrust of the responsibilities of the committee, that is, the vetting of the regulations, I would advise that through the good offices of our legal counsel to the committee, Lachlan McTavish, QC, we can now report to the House that the regulations are current up to September 30, 1980. The 750 regulations that were enacted during 1980 up to that point have been vetted and considered by legal counsel and/or the committee. Those regulations which the committee felt should be cited for particular consideration are set out in the report and will be addressed at the time that this report is considered in greater depth in debate in this Legislature.

The other two matters I wish to bring to your attention are that the committee is requesting special consideration to meet at the call of the chair to hold hearings between sessions of the Legislature. We feel there are circumstances under which it could be justified, and chapter four of the report indicates the circumstances under which we would ask favourable consideration for this extended authority.

The report highlights the work in progress. There are three matters receiving specific attention from the committee. One is consideration of the use of the notice and comment procedure, which has also been the subject matter of the recent report of the Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy.

Second, the committee will be reviewing in further depth the comparative procedures and activities of the other Commonwealth regulatory committees which attended at the Commonwealth conference I referred to a few moments ago.

Last, but not least, the committee will continue the vetting of regulations to ensure that they are kept current and that this House is informed accordingly.

Having highlighted the report in this fashion, I conclude my remarks on behalf of the members of the committee, thanking, again, Lachlan McTavish, QC, for his careful attention to the regulations, and the clerk of the committee, Mr. Forsyth, for the manner in which he was able to produce this report so quickly for us so we could table it today.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that private members’ business will not be taken up today, the time to be used for government legislation.

Motion agreed to.

PRWATE MEMBERS’ BALLOTS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding the prorogation of this House, private members’ ballot business in the fifth session follow the order of precedence for the fourth session.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on social development be authorized to sit this afternoon for consideration of the annual report of the Ministry of Health for 1978-79.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on general government sit tomorrow morning, December 12, 1980, for consideration of supplementary estimates referred to it.

Motion agreed to.

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Mr. Mitchell be appointed to the standing committee on general government.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Parrott moved first reading of Bill 224, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, it is not likely to be possible to have second and third reading of this bill. I hope the committee, in its deliberations in the new year, will look at it and give it the benefit of their consideration.

SUCCESSION LAW ACT

Mr. S. Smith moved first reading of Bill 225, An Act respecting the Succession to Estates of Deceased Persons in Ontario who have Beneficiaries residing in Designated Countries.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that payments from the estates of persons domiciled in Ontario at the time of death are not made to foreign beneficiaries who are unlikely to receive, for their whole benefit or use, substantially the full value of any payments made under the estate, and who reside in certain countries designated by regulation.

The bill provides for an application to Be made to a court for an order permitting payments to a foreign beneficiary. The court may also order that no payment be made to a foreign beneficiary, in which case the court shall make an order disposing of the estate in accordance with the rules of succession contained in the Succession Law Reform Act, 1977, with necessary modifications.

NORTH COCHRANE DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 226, An Act respecting Local Government in the District of Cochrane.

Motion agreed to.

INSURED HEALTH SERVICES ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 227, An Act respecting Insured Services under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, the bill is self- explanatory.

ENVIRONMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Parrott moved first reading of Bill 228, An Act to amend certain acts respecting the Environment.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 367, 401, 409, 420, 430 and 433 standing on the Notice Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I thought I might outline to the House the order of business for this afternoon, this evening and tomorrow, subject to changes.

This afternoon the House has dispensed with private members’ business and we are proceeding with government legislation as on the Order Paper. There is to be a slight change in the order as printed on the Order Paper. The order is to be Bill 205, followed by Bill 192, Bill Pr36 and Bill Pr18. Then we will go into committee of the whole House for Bill 172, followed by Bill 193, Bill 201, Bill 204, Bill 214, Bill 215, Bill 221 and, if time is still permitting, Bill 216.

It has also been agreed that tonight, between the hours of eight and nine o’clock, there will be a short debate on the report that has just been tabled from the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment. Legislation will commence again after nine o’clock and go until adjournment.

Tomorrow morning, following routine proceedings, we can clean up any legislation that is still on the list, followed by concurrences, budget windups, supply bill and prorogation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DENTURE THERAPISTS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Turner, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Timbrell, moved second reading of Bill 205, An Act to amend the Denture Therapists Act.

Mr. Turner: Mr. Speaker, denture therapy is a relatively new practice that is governed by an appointed board. However, there are several members of a board who are coming to the end of their appointments. Under the Denture Therapists Act, 1974, they cannot be reappointed because of a six-year membership restriction.

Since the present members are so familiar with the issues that affect the practice of denture therapy, on behalf of the minister I am moving an amendment to the act to permit members to serve more than six consecutive years and to be reappointed for one-, two- and three-year terms.

We believe this amendment will enable the board of denture therapists to continue to discharge responsibilities in an effective and knowledgeable manner.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in the parlance of Parliament, I recognize this as a housekeeping bill to which my colleagues and I take no exception. Notwithstanding my ongoing desire to have these kinds of boards investigated at some considerable length by our esteemed standing committee on social development, I am pleased to give my support and that of my caucus for its speedy passage here this afternoon.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, we agree.

Mr. Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the season, I just want to say thank you on behalf of the minister and myself.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

TORONTO HOSPITAL STEAM CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 192, An Act to revise the Toronto Hospital Steam Corporation Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of this bill today, the Toronto district heating bill. This House is aware that this bill is a product of several years of consultation resulting in consensus among numerous parties. This bill is permissive. It enables the parties involved to enter into agreements to effect integration of their steam heating systems.

3:40 p.m.

The Minister of Interprovincial Affairs (Mr. Wells) has written to some 35 interested parties in the past several weeks, including the city of Toronto, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the labour unions involved, the participants to integration and several government ministries to solicit comments on Bill 192, which was introduced about a month ago.

The ministry has received comments on the bill from the city of Toronto, Toronto Hydro, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the hospitals, the Ministry of Treasury arid Economics, the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Government Services, and the University of Toronto. All of them have expressed general satisfaction with Bill 192, and we have had no criticism from other interested parties. The government is of the opinion that all those affected by this bill are in fundamental agreement with it.

This bill had its beginning in a Ministry of the Environment control order, which found the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commissioners plant at Pearl Street to be below air pollution standards. Two options were given to the commission: either to build a taller stack or to shut down the Pearl Street plant and to integrate the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission system with the university system, the hospital system and the Queen’s Park system. The latter route was chosen and an agreement was reached to integrate the four existing steam systems.

The Walton Street plant, which currently supplies steam to the hospitals, will be the flagship supplier of steam to the system. The Pearl Street plant will be used only as a peaking plant. The university will be a trading partner in the new steam corporation and will be physically linked to the system. The Whitney plant at Queen’s Park will be shut down because it is antiquated.

The cost of interconnecting pipes to integrate the four systems will be covered by the higher steam rates to the present downtown customers. It is in their economic interests to pay the higher cost of integration rather than to pay the even higher costs for a taller stack or relocation of the steam plan.

The corporation’s affairs will be managed by a board composed of representatives from the city of Toronto, the province of Ontario, the University of Toronto, and the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission steam division. The proposed legislation enables the participants to make contractual arrangements and will take full elect when the contracts are agreed to.

Physical integration of the four existing heating systems will create a higher level of security of supply and, eventually, lower rates for all participants. Furthermore, integration will reduce air pollutants in the downtown area, save energy and eventually help to solve the solid waste disposal problem of Metropolitan Toronto.

The long-range objective of this integration will be to create a large enough demand for steam in a single system to make a refuse-fired district heating plant economical. This bill is permissive, allowing the new corporation and/or the city of Toronto to construct such a plant.

This Toronto district heating bill is part of a government policy to encourage municipalities and private institutions to get involved with waste recovery and district heating systems. There are ongoing studies related to refuse-fired district heating plants in Ottawa-Carleton, North Bay, Sudbury, St. Catharines, Niagara, Thorold, and London.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House that the Metropolitan and Toronto waste management master plan for Metropolitan Toronto has shown that waste recovery systems are economical when elements of normal waste disposal costs are factored into the economic analysis. This reinforces the thinking of a number of people over the past decade, that waste recovery and district healing systems are the way of the future.

As I indicated, this bill is permissive and will allow the parties to enter into agreements and to get on with the job. I ask for support from the house for this legislation.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, our party has no difficulty in supporting the principle of this bill and, in fact, commends the ministry for bringing it forward.

What this bill does is to integrate a system of heating involving some sizeable players; namely, the University of Toronto, Queen’s Park, the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission and the Toronto Hospital Steam Corporation which, as we all know, includes several sizeable hospitals.

The city of Toronto, which provided the impetus and the incentive for this, should be commended for its leadership role. I am surprised that it was not the government, which has indicated from time to time that it is in favour of preserving and conserving Ontario, but the city of Toronto that took the leadership role in this respect.

The system, through which important changes can dispose of up to 25 per cent of Metro’s refuse by burning it, thereby generating both heat and electricity, must have a lot going for it. Not only that, but the proposed system will provide more flexibility in using cheaper or more available fuels such as coal, gas and oil.

We are told that the burning of garbage rather than other fuels, such as the ones I have mentioned, could save the equivalent of 418,000 barrels of oil per year, equal to heating about 1,400 homes. This obviously is a step in the right direction. Not only does it help to provide that additional heat, but also it is a form of decentralization.

We were also told a greater security of supply will result and that the air quality will improve. We know that businesses adjoining the various pipes that are going to be laid or are in the ground right now will be able to connect into this particular system and will be able to benefit from the system. This project has the support of various organizations, as the parliamentary assistant has indicated, particularly, we might note, of the unions which have been closely associated with the formation of the new system. We hope, once this legislation is passed, the details will be worked out quickly and the improved Toronto district heating system will become a reality.

I also wish to pay tribute to the members of the various organizations, the hospitals, the government, the city of Toronto and the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission who have played an important part in bringing this to the attention of the government and in the reality of the new system which will benefit a lot of people in the years to come.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill and to speak briefly, I promise, in that support.

We have been waiting a long time for the bill to come forward. We have waited a long time for it to be introduced after we knew all the agreements had been worked out. We have been waiting to get ourselves on the Order Paper for quite some time as well. I am pleased it is here today and I have no intention of delaying it even for a second.

What we have before us is the end result of some unique co-operation between a number of institutions in terms of rationalization of their services and their physical plant. The interaction by the unions involved has also been positive. The role played by the city and city staff can only be commended in this whole matter. The experiment that is undertaken through this bill, of jointly working to have more heat efficiency at a cheaper price for these major institutions in a geographical area of the city of Toronto, is an excellent example of what can and should be done in a lot of jurisdictions.

I compliment the minister for having brought in the bill. I am glad we finally got to it before the House ended and it can now be made law.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable members opposite for their support.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

TOWN OF MIDLAND ACT

Mr. G. E. Smith moved second reading of Bill Pr36, An Act respecting the Town of Midland.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Roy moved second reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

3:50 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

TOWN OF MIDLAND ACT

Consideration of Bill Pr36, An Act respecting the Town of Midland.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can make some brief comments on the sections I wish to amend. I might note, for the benefit of the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), that I put the amendments on his desk.

The bill is very similar to a private act obtained by the city of Barrie in 1961, and it will permit the town and public utilities to recover a portion of the cost of various works from land owners who subsequently receive the benefit when those land owners apply to connect to the works. The moneys that are recovered will then be paid to the person who originally paid for the works. This proposed legislation will meet a real need in the town of Midland. I am pleased that the honourable members have supported it on second reading, and I hope they will support my amendments.

Since the bill was reported by the standing committee on general government, further discussions have taken place between the town and the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and certain changes have been agreed to. As a result of these discussions, I will be introducing three motions in committee.

The first motion will amend section 1(1) by substituting the word “metre” for “foot” in the last line; this will make the bill consistent with all other legislation in the use of metric measurement.

The second motion will add a new subsection to section 1 which will allow the town council or the public utilities commission to reduce the charge to a land owner where the council or PUC considers the charge to be excessive. This will add flexibility to the legislation and will provide relief to a land owner in a situation where it would not be equitable to apply a per metre frontage charge, given the kind of development proposed for his lot.

The third motion will add a new section to the bill which will, in effect, require the town or PUC to register in the proper land registry office a copy of this act and of its bylaw containing a description of all the lands affected. This will ensure that future purchasers of those lands will be made aware before they complete the purchase that their lands are subject to a charge under the legislation.

On section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. G. E. Smith moves that section 1(1) of the bill be amended by striking out “foot” in the last line and inserting in lieu thereof “metre.”

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. G. E. Smith moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) Where upon the application of an owner of a lot to which subsection 1 applies, the council of the corporation or the public utilities commission of the town of Midland is satisfied that the charge as determined under subsection 1 is excessive, having regard to the proposed development of the lot, it may reduce the charge to that owner.”

Mr. G. E. Smith further moves that subsection 2 of the said section 1 be renumbered as subsection 3.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. G. E. Smith moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“3(1) Where the corporation or the public utilities commission of the town of Midland intends to require the owner of a lot to pay the cost of a work according to the extent of the owner’s frontage pursuant to subsection 1, the corporation or the public utilities commission of the town of Midland, as the case may be, may before passing the by-law that requires the person in the first instance to pay the entire cost of the work, register in the proper land registry office a copy of this act and a copy of the proposed bylaw containing a description of all the lands affected sufficient for registration.

“(2) Sections 1 and 2 do not apply to any lot or the owner thereof unless a copy of this act and a copy of the proposed bylaw containing a legal description of the lot sufficient for registration has been registered prior to the passing of the bylaw.”

Mr. G. E. Smith further moves that sections 3 to 5 of the bill be renumbered as sections 4 to 6.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, as renumbered, agreed to.

Bill Pr36, as amended, reported.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the honourable members for supporting the amendments.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Consideration of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

The Deputy Chairman: Where is the first section that anybody has any comment to make?

Mr. Rotenberg: Section 10.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall sections 1 to 9 carry?

Ms. Gigantes: No, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move an amendment. If I understand exactly the process we are following here, the bill we are dealing with now is one that came out of committee with simply two sections.

The Deputy Chairman: I am sorry; I did not hear your question.

Ms. Gigantes: I am sorry; I see what we are doing. It’s section 10.

The Deputy Chairman: Section 10 is the point that you wish?

On section 3:

Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 10. I would like to move that section 10 of the bill have sections as printed in the original bill, which I will have to renumber as I go along.

The Deputy Chairman: Do you have a copy of your amendment there?

Ms. Gigantes: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is going to take me a couple of seconds to get it together, because I had not understood the procedure to be able to add those items.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I most confess it is probably my error, but what was section 10 in the original bill now is section 9 in the bill that came out of committee. I think you had indicated that sections 1 to 9 were to be carried. I think that should be changed to sections 1 to 8, because it is the new section 9 which the member wishes to address. Section 9 is the one she wishes to address, and I think she should be allowed to do it. Section 9 of the new printed bill was section 10 in the old bill.

The Deputy Chairman: Agreed?

Mr. Roy: No.

The Deputy Chairman: We do not have agreement and we have already carried section 9 of this bill. If we want to go back, I must have unanimous agreement.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, if the member will speak on third reading, I think we should do it in committee of the whole and get it over with.

Mr. Roy: I only wish to say this, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration. First of all, the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) as far back as the month of October advised us that she had an amendment to bring forward to this legislation. Given those circumstances, I would have thought the member would have produced copies of her amendment as is stipulated in standing order 58 of this House which states:

“When time permits, amendments proposed to be moved to bills in any committee shall be filed with the Clerk of the House at least two hours before the bill is to be considered, and copies of such proposed amendments shall be distributed to all parties.”

I would have thought, having in mind that the member went on television in Ottawa two months ago to say that she was going to bring forward amendments, she should at least have copies.

The second thing I would bring to your attention is that Bill Pr18, which you have before you, is a bill as reprinted and amended by the standing committee on general government. It is my understanding that all sections inclusive of 11 to 91 have been passed and that we are dealing now with section 10.

Given those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I do not see why we should change. It is clear to the member; she has had the bill before her. Sections 1 to 9 have been passed, and I do not see any reason for changing that view.

4 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: I agree with the member for Ottawa East. We have carried section 9. I do not have copies of any proposed amendments before me. I clearly asked the committee what the first question was and it was suggested it was section 10. If I do not have unanimous consent, we must go on to the next section.

Ms. Gigantes: I hope the member for Ottawa East is pleased with his technical victory on this point.

Sections 10 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill Pr18 reported.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 172, An Act to amend the Municipal Affairs Act.

On section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“1. Subsection 3 of section 49 of the Municipal Affairs Act, being chapter 118 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1970, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“‘(3) If land is redeemed by any person entitled to redeem the land other than the owner, such person has a lien thereon for the amount paid to redeem the land and the lien has priority over the interest in the land of any other person to whom notice was sent under subsection 4 of section 47’.”

Mr. Rotenberg further moves that the present sections 1, 2 and 3 of the bill be renumbered as sections 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, when we dealt with Bill 172 previously in this Legislature some of the members opposite objected. They were objecting not to those matters in the act we were amending but to the fact that section 49(3) at present is not too clear as to where the priority of that person who pays the tax in the lien system would go.

The suggestion was made to us that we have a look at that section. We have looked at it and we agree with the suggestion of the members opposite, that the person who pays the taxes, either before or after the end of the fourth year, should apply both before and after for the case we are discussing in the bill and the other cases which were not previously covered in the bill. We deem it to be fair that the person who pays the taxes should take the same position as the municipality had; that is, that he have first right on that amount only. Therefore, we have brought forward this section.

I would like to thank the members opposite, particularly the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan), for drawing this to our attention. I hope with this amendment they will find the bill now is acceptable.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for bringing forward this amendment. This matter first came up in the House by way of Bill 172 some four weeks ago and we had some discussion about the mailer at that time. Our concern was for an individual lien holder, someone who had received notice under the act that there were arrears of taxes and that he was an interested party. After listening to my colleagues the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) and the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), I urged on the parliamentary assistant that the person who redeemed the taxes should have a lien for that amount which he paid before any body else. In other words, if someone is third in priority on title and redeems the taxes, then he has a lien for the amount of taxes paid over anyone who may appear before him in order of priority.

I wish to thank the parliamentary assistant for bringing forward this amendment. I think it makes it a better bill.

Mr. Charlton: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment and we will support it.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant has had a very good example of the role of a watchful opposition in what appeared to be a rather innocuous little bill that was going through. My colleagues, especially the member for Nipissing, and the member for St. George, and other members of the opposition here felt that if the bill were to work the priorities should be reviewed if we want somebody to be paying off the taxes on a piece. I want to emphasize the contribution made by my knowledgeable colleagues, and you will understand, Mr. Chairman, that they brought their great experience to bear on the mechanics of this legislation. The government is to be congratulated for having responded to very helpful and constructive suggestions on the part of the opposition.

Mr. Rotenberg: I would like to thank the members opposite for their support of the bill as amended. I would like to put it to the member for Ottawa East that the government is always willing to listen to and consider constructive criticism.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, as renumbered, agreed to.

Bill 172, as amended, reported.

On motion by Mr. Rotenberg, the committee of the whole House reported two bills with amendments and one bill without amendment.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 193, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a number of amendments to update the Municipal Act. It proposes to remove a number of archaic provisions, to replace certain specific provisions with more general ones, to remove many of the distinctions now being made between municipalities of different status, and to relocate a number of provisions within the act. These proposals have been discussed with the municipal liaison committee and with solicitors of regional and local municipalities, and to the best of our knowledge we have received no objections.

The bill also provides for the removal or modernization of a number of rather odd or outdated provisions of the act. For example, it will repeal the municipal powers “for regulating and controlling children engaged as express or dispatch messengers, vendors of small wares and bootblacks” and “for providing for keeping open the highways during the season of sleighing in each year.” It will repeal municipal authority “for requiring the owners and occupants of buildings to have scuttles in the roof with approaches or stairs or ladders leading to the roof.”

The bill contains a number of amendments that are intended to provide broad general powers to municipalities and replace a number of very specific provisions. An example is the proposed new granting provision that is being expanded to include grants in aid. This new general granting power will replace a number of specific provisions. Several other new powers also included in the bill are a general power to regulate markets, a general power to join associations, a general power to give prizes and awards, and a general power to provide scholarships.

At present, a number of bylaw powers are given only to certain types of municipalities. This bill proposes that all municipalities be enabled to pass all types of bylaws. For example, in future, all local municipalities will be able to pass bylaws regulating safety devices for window cleaners, At present, township councils do not have this authority.

The bill also proposes to renumber several of the sections in the Municipal Act. In some instances, this is being done so that the provisions will be in the part of the act that deals with all municipalities. In other instances, the purpose is to relocate provisions in sections that deal with similar matters.

4:10 p.m.

Finally, the bill contains provisions that deal with the filling of vacancies on municipal council, the destruction of documents of joint local boards, the making of agreements with the province, the regulation of sandblasters, and appeals for the cancellation of the reduction of taxes.

There are many separate provisions of this bill, I will be prepared to deal with individual sections about which honourable members may have questions in my summing up on second reading.

I commend the bill to the House.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to indicate that my party will be supporting this bill. I think it is an important piece of legislation in that it clears up a lot of the archaic language that has been in the act for many years. I think it is more appropriate for the 1880s than it is for the 1980s.

If we look at some of the archaic language that is used, one of the amendments has to do with section 3.51. This section says, “The council of a city having a population of not less than 50,000 may establish, erect and maintain within the city an institution for the reclamation and cure of habitual drunkards.” Subsection b provides, “The mayor, provincial judge, or any justice of the peace having jurisdiction in the municipality may send or commit to such institution an habitual drunkard, with or without hard labour.”

Having been the mayor of a municipality of about 50,000 I was not aware of this piece of legislation, but I still do not think anyone in that position should have the power to put away a habitual drunkard -- I presume they are talking about alcoholic beverages -- and give hard labour for whatever period they might deem.

Another section which is somewhat archaic is section 354. Paragraph 38 requires the owners and occupants of buildings to have scuttles in the roof. Most members may know what scuttles are, but I had to look it up in the dictionary. It means, “With approaches or stairs or ladders leading to the roof.” That is somewhat outdated and must be taken out of the bill, as has been proposed.

Section 442 says, “The Canadian Wheelman’s Association of the Dominion of Canada has the like power as it conferred on the Ontario Motor League by section 441, and all the provisions of that section apply to guideposts, distance posts and danger signals erected or maintained by the association, but where either the league or the association has exercised the powers conferred upon it upon any part of a highway, the other does not have the right to exercise its powers thereon.”

Again that is very ridiculous. I sometimes wonder why it has taken this long to get some of these sections out.

Here is still another section, section 459: “The council of a township may pass bylaws for granting a prize not exceeding $10” -- $10 is not very much; I do not know whether it is talking about Monopoly money or good Canadian money -- “for the best-kept roadside, farm front and farm house surrounding. in each public school section in the township. and for prescribing the conditions, upon which such prizes may be” -- it is so archaic, I can hardly read the language -- “competed for and awarded.”

Section 376 refers to a number of items. Subsection 12 says: “For requiring the overseers of highways or the pathmasters to make and keep open the highways during the reason of sleighing: (a) Such overseers and pathmasters may require the persons liable to perform statute labour to assist in keeping open such highways, and shall give to any person so employed a certificate ... ”

One would almost think the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) was here giving out his certificates and his money. The section continues, “... a certificate of his having performed statute labour and of the number of days work done, for which he shall be allowed on his next season’s statute labour.” Section 386 of the said act reads:

“(1) For regulating and controlling children engaged as express or dispatch messengers, vendors of smallwares and bootblacks.

“(2) For regulating the hours of labour of persons employed in livery or boarding stables as drivers of motor vehicles, cabs, carriages or sleighs kept for hire, or by the owners of horses, carts, trucks, omnibuses and other vehicles kept for hire.”

Still another section, 453, subsection 4, reads: “For setting apart so much of any highway as the council may consider necessary for the purposes of a bicycle path or of a footpath. (a) Any person who rides or drives a horse or other beast of burden or a motor vehicle, wagon, carriage or cart over or along any such path is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $1 and not more than $20.”

The last one I want to read is section 460, subsection 7: “To provide for placing, regulating and maintaining upon the public highways traffic signs for the purpose of guiding and directing traffic; provided that no bylaw shall authorize the placing of such signs upon that portion of any highway that lies between the double tracks of a street railway constructed upon such highway known as the devil strip.”

These show that this act is long overdue to be overhauled by taking out some of the archaic sections as well as clarifying some of the other sections and rearranging it. I think one of the important things that this will hopefully bring about is the printing of a new Municipal Act which will incorporate all the changes that have been made to the Municipal Act and we all know that they are numerous. Every year we came in with two or three or four bills clarifying or changing the Municipal Act. As a result when we are looking at the act trying to find some section, it makes it very difficult. One of the things we will have as a result of this umbrella bill, which is taking a lot of the archaic sections out among other things, will be the printing of a new Municipal Act.

The other section that is very interesting has to do with the municipal election and what happens if a vacancy is created after March 31 of the year in which a municipal election is held. I would like the parliamentary assistant to the minister to indicate what examples there have been in the province where municipalities have not exercised their authority to appoint somebody to a particular council.

As we know, until now the council was obligated to have an election if a vacancy occurred prior to March 31 of election year, but it was optional whether they appointed someone after March 31. This will now be clarified and obligates municipalities to appoint someone to fill that vacancy. It would be interesting to note how many examples they have had until now and, secondly, what reasons the municipalities have given for not filling those vacancies.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. We are going to support this bill as well. We are very happy to see the sections of the bill which take the time and the consideration that we have talked about on a number of occasions in the past, to extend certain powers which, in the past, have been restricted to large municipalities, to all of the municipalities in the province. We are happy to see the ministry taking this kind of direction.

4:20 p.m.

Unlike the member for Waterloo North, I will not go through all the antiquated sections of the Municipal Act that are dealt with here. But I would like to make a couple of comments about them to the parliamentary assistant and, through him, to the minister. It is a fairly lengthy bill and it took us some time to go through it and understand it. As the member for Waterloo North has clearly pointed out, some of the sections we were dealing with were rather confusing and almost unbelievable when we read them. I think the parliamentary assistant found himself in the same position.

I suggest he has found both the member for Waterloo North and myself particularly co-operative in dealing with this kind of amendment. These are not amendments that deal in philosophical or ideological questions and they are not amendments that deal with hard-line political positions. There is no essential need for us ever to allow this kind of stupidity to remain in legislation which, obviously, some of these sections have, long past the time when they were of use and not even publicly acceptable any more.

I want to suggest to the parliamentary assistant and, through him, to the minister that members of this Legislature can be quite co-operative in terms of dealing with amendments that are necessary as a result of changes through time. We do not need to find ourselves in this position every 25 or 50 years or, as some of the sections in this bill appear, every 100 years. We should be amending this kind of legislation yearly and bi-yearly as our situation in this province warrants.

There is no need not to be co-operative. There is nothing the government has to fear from us in dealing with this kind of antiquated and out-of-date legislation. There is no need to avoid making the changes regularly so we do not get into the silly and embarrassing position of having to listen to the legislative sections that the member for Waterloo North took the time to read into the record. There is no need for it. Let’s make it a regular process in this House. Let’s do it in a consultative way regularly, instead of waiting for 50 or 100 years to clean up our act.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 193, An Act to amend the Municipal Act. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant some questions on certain sections.

On section 3 of the bill, “The purpose of the amendments to section 248a is to expand the existing powers of a municipality to make grants. The proposed amendments -- ”

Mr. Rotenberg: What section of the bill?

Mr. Haggerty: It is the explanatory notes to section 3.

Then we go on to section 3(4) of the bill, “The proposed section 248b confers a general power on municipalities to offer awards and gifts to persons whose actions or achievements are worthy of note and allows municipalities to establish competitions and award prizes.”

I can recall -- I think my colleague mentioned this -- the old legislation, as it related to the Municipal Act, permitted municipalities to get into such a program if they wanted to. At one time, the local township municipalities used to have awards that were awarded to the different school sections for improvements to their grounds and so on. I do not think it was any $10. I think it was up to a maximum of something, but it was distributed evenly across the municipalities.

I can remember on county council we used to have a cemetery committee. That was another area where the municipalities were permitted to allow grants to local cemetery boards for the upkeep, maintenance and improvement of local cemeteries, which was an exceptionally good program. Perhaps much of the money was raised through the local municipality. There was not too much in grants from the province, but then it goes on to section 248c and I suppose they are expanding their program. That is the question I want to ask.

Subsection 1 reads: “The council of every municipality may pass bylaws for providing fellowships scholarships and other similar prizes and for paying all or part costs incurred or to be incurred by any person” -- I suppose that is across the municipality -- “including an office; or servant of the municipality as a result of his attendance at an educational institution or as a result of his enrolment elsewhere in any program or course of instruction, training or education.” Subsection 2 goes on to say, “In this section, ‘costs’ include tuition fees, costs of books and other materials used in connection with a course or program, and costs of food, travel and accommodation.”

I am sure the parliamentary assistant is well aware of the existing programs available now in municipalities where they send members of local fire departments to the Ontario Fire College and some other schools. It is quite a cost to the local municipalities when they have to send someone there for perhaps a six-week course. I do not have to tell members that the wages continue, plus room and board. It is quite a burden to the municipality, and sometimes it is to the benefit of all Ontario that these courses are available.

In this particular area I do not see anything that says there may be a grant from the ministry to assist with some of the cost. I imagine in matters relating to police attending the Ontario Police College there is a grant given to the local police departments in regions or municipalities to assist in the cost of sending them. I was wondering perhaps if grants should be provided for fire departments, as I am concerned about the cost. They may want to send some municipal clerk or somebody working in the municipality for maybe two years to an educational institution. That could be rather an expensive cost to be borne by the taxpayers, and then after the person receives his educational awards, he may be with the municipality for one or two years and then move on to a higher paying job in some other larger municipality. I wonder if we are not opening the door so that this could happen and could cause some further difficulties in the municipalities.

Subsection 3, according to the explanatory note on section 7, “exempts certain bylaws from the requirement for the assent of the electors where a debt will be incurred.” I follow the principle established by our American counterparts that before any major project is entered into by a municipality, there should be consent by the electors in the municipality. Sometimes boards and commissions may be set up that have rather broad powers that incur substantial debts to the municipalities. I draw this to the members’ attention, that as long as there are high interest rates today, there should be something in here to control the present expenditure of local municipalities. I speak for the taxpayers more than anything.

Section 8 has some concerns. The explanatory note says: “Section 351 provides for the establishment of institutions for the reclamation of habitual drunkards and provides for the committal of habitual drunkards to such institutions with or without hard labour.” It goes on to say apparently under this particular section we are going to permit the municipalities to provide some form of treatment centres. I think we can all agree this is a necessity in almost every community in Ontario. But again, as I interpret this particular section, the province is shirking its responsibility in saying to the municipalities, “You provide the facilities.”

Mr. Rotenberg: We are repealing that.

Mr. Haggerty: It is being repealed, is it? I am glad to see that, but then again if it is being repealed, I suggest there should be some provision for halfway houses to be available in communities, but the cost should be borne by the province and not shoved on to the municipalities to pick up.

Is the section on a site for an armoury being repealed? That follows the establishment of fire departments in almost every municipality in Ontario. I suggest in areas where the costs will be rather high to establish fire brigades in local municipalities, there should be some assistance from the Solicitor General.

Years ago, municipalities used to receive some provincial assistance to establish volunteer fire brigades in local municipalities. It should have been included that mutual aid should be a necessity, that where there is a fire, emergency equipment can be moved from one community to another. That is an important area where the words “mutual aid” are not mentioned in the changes to that section of the act.

The parliamentary assistant mentioned section 81a "requiring the installation and maintenance of safety devices for window cleaners, for inspecting such devices and for prohibiting any person from cleaning the outside of windows of buildings on which such devices are installed unless such devices are used.” This is a key amendment to the section. It is a must and should be required. Perhaps there may be some overlapping of jurisdiction as it relates to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The provision should be pretty well spelled out under that act. I know there is a need here. Many window cleaners hang from a rope and do not have the proper safety devices that are required to protect their lives. I notice that on some of the high-rise buildings while walking the downtown streets of Toronto. Hopefully, the parliamentary assistant can give me some answers to those questions, although we will be supporting the bill.

The other area which is important too, and I want to go back to, is the section where the government is proposing establishing fire departments or fire brigades across the province. This covers a broad area for fire departments. The explanatory note opposite page six says, “...the amendments ... will give all local municipalities the same powers with respect to the establishment of fire departments and other fire matters..” I think that is important. I would suggest that perhaps the most important thing that has been forgotten is the introduction and the amendment to the Fire Marshals Act where we are looking forward to a new fire code, particularly as it relates to proper fire inspections, fire alarms and smoke detectors in almost every building in the province. This relates to the sprinkler system.

I do not have to tell members of the high-rise fires in the United States and the loss of human lives there. If they had had the proper, up-to-date amendments to their fire codes this may not have happened. In Ontario, fire departments and fire officials are looking for the moving of that particular amendment to the Fire Marshals Act that would give them the powers to do the fire inspections that are required in high-rise apartments and small apartment dwellings. We should have a standard in fire alarms and smoke detection systems in Ontario.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I will try briefly to summarize the questions.

First, I would like to thank the members opposite, particularly the members for Waterloo North and Hamilton Mountain for the co-operation, not only today in the bill, but over the past few weeks in the discussions we have had together on this bill and on other municipal legislation that we have passed in this fall session. I do appreciate the co-operation from members opposite.

I would point out to the member for Waterloo North that we will be printing a new Municipal Act as a result of this bill. Because, as he knows, the Revised Statutes of Ontario are published every 10 years, the new Municipal Act will go in the new RSOs and therefore will be in shape for the coming 10 years.

As far as the March 31 deadline for the filling of vacancies goes, this provision was passed in 1972. It indicated that before March 31, the council had the option of filling the vacancy either by election or by appointment. After March 31, it could not do it by election. The feeling by some councils was that they still had the option of making it an appointment or not making it an appointment, which was not the philosophy of the legislation that was passed in 1972.

Two municipalities, particularly Midland and Scarborough, had these kinds of interpretations. About a year ago when a member of the Scarborough council was elected to the federal House and resigned his seat, the Scarborough council was somewhat reluctant to make the appointment. Finally, they were persuaded to do so. They felt the legislation was optional and they could have run for eight or nine months with a vacancy. We are, in effect, clarifying what was the intent of the legislation originally -- that is, after March 31, it is mandatory to make an appointment or fill the post by election, unless it is right up against the election time.

The member for Erie has raised a number of questions. I will try to deal with them all briefly. Most of the matters he raised are permissive to council. In other words, these provisions in the bill are not making council do them. They are permissive to council -- such things as paying for courses and the granting of prizes and so on. They do not impose a burden on the municipality unless the municipality wishes to take upon itself that burden.

As for the province participating in a number of things which the member indicated, we passed changes in the unconditional grants several weeks ago. Again they were giving the province permission in a wide range of areas to make grants to municipalities. These will be a matter of negotiation among the province, the various municipalities and the municipal associations where additional grants will be given. But the power is there to give grants if we desire it and we negotiate it with the various municipalities.

The member mentioned the repeal of the section on the institution for drunks. That is now being covered by a general section, section 62c on page eight. We repeal the old section, which was quite archaic, but now the municipalities have permission to establish, erect and maintain an institution for the treatment of alcoholics. But the mayor, as the member’s colleague from Waterloo North says, will no longer have the power to send them to jail.

This bill does not deal with financial matters; it deals with powers that municipalities desire. As far as mutual fire departments are concerned, if the member will look on page seven, clauses b and c, it does give municipalities the power to share fire departments and fire services.

The member mentioned the new fire code. This is a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General and cannot be dealt with in the Municipal Act.

I hope this covers the questions that have been asked by the members opposite. Again, I would thank the members for their co-operation and hope this bill will receive second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 201, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Speaker: I see the minister has arrived.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I gave a comment on the introduction of the bill and I think Bill 201 is self-explanatory. The amendments are indicated in the notes accompanying the bill. The reasons for the amendments are there. They provide an additional $1,000 accommodation allowance for the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party. They also provide for a slightly different way of computing that allowance.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, just one comment with respect to the correction that I think has been long overdue as set out in section 2 of the act. For some years there has been the unfortunate result that upon the issuance of a writ for election, a member who might not be re-elected would have the burden of the accommodation of part of an apartment-lease, or could have for the 37 days of that campaign, whereby that would be his responsibility, whereas a member returning to the House upon re-election would not have had his or her lease interrupted in any way. I think it is clearly the Office of the Assembly’s responsibility not to make that a personal expenditure where it has been an accepted part of the accommodation allowance during the non-election years.

I am glad to see that problem is being resolved so that no one is put unfairly to that additional commitment by the present circumstances. The bill certainly has our support.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I will very briefly comment on Bill 201, section 2. As the previous member mentioned, this change is probably long overdue -- there was discrimination between defeated members and those who returned. Between the day the writs are issued and polling day, the member’s business on behalf of his constituents obviously continues in some fashion at least, by some members of this assembly, up until the time he ceases to be an official member on election day.

We are very happy to see this section changed so that assembly members are not penalized in terms of their own personal finances because they may be defeated in an election. Members, as well, can continue any very pressing business even during an election campaign.

Mr. M. N. Davison: As a footnote, Mr. Speaker, to the brief remarks made by my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain in supporting this bill, I just hope that it is appreciated by the government, the generosity, in keeping with the Christmas spirit, that we are expressing by way of our support of this bill to the many members across the way who will lose their jobs in the next election.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I just might reply to the rather gratuitous comments of the last speaker who I guess found that he had to add those comments. Incidentally, I think it is well to remember that this bill is being brought in by me, not as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs but as government House leader on behalf of all this House and on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy, with representatives of all parties, which has jurisdiction over these matters. The members of the Board of Internal Economy agreed that the things in this bill and the next bill should be brought into this House. They are here because it is believed that they will enable all party members of this House to carry out their functions better on behalf of Ontario people.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 204, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Drea, moved second reading of Bill 214, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think I will rely upon the remarks that were made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) in his statement in October, which contained the intent of Bill 214. The only thing that was not touched upon in those remarks was the question of disclosure, which is contained in this bill.

As the House knows, it was my intention a year ago to bring in the mandatory disclosure; but at that time, because of the continuing work of the Haley commission, it was decided that, meritorious as it was, and noncontroversial as it is, no significant pension legislation would be introduced, pending completion of that very exhaustive, lengthy and comprehensive commission study. So that particular disclosure section was held in abeyance.

It is a very advantageous time to introduce that disclosure. There will be a calendar year before that particular section will be operative, in the sense that an individual in a pension plan will get the full disclosure as to rights, benefits, status of the fund, et cetera, when we are doing interim pension legislation.

I think the disclosure section will really, for the first time, provide individual members or pension plan beneficiaries with accurate, up-to-date data. Of course, they do not necessarily have to read it, but it will be available. One thing the pension commission and I, as a minister, have found out is that a great many pension plan members never anticipate any interruption in the normal process towards obtaining their pensions, either by age 65 or by years of service or whatever qualifications there are, and when there is a plant closing or termination, there is a great deal of confusion, bewilderment and, quite frankly, a sense of frustration. This, indeed, puts an additional and heavy burden upon a person who obviously in the case of a plant closing or termination is already undergoing a rather substantial economic trauma.

There are two other minor housekeeping amendments, just to bring some work of the pension commission a little more up to date, and those obviously were not included in the statement with reference to the Minister of Labour’s Pension Benefits Act.

4:50 p.m.

As I said, this would be interim legislation; I don’t know how long the interim is going to last. Because of the comprehensive review, the recommendations, the ultimate national decisions that will be made in regard to bringing pension plans into the latter part of the 1980s, this particular legislation may be short-lived. Hopefully, it may be incorporated, within as brief a period of time as possible, into extremely comprehensive and long-range legislation.

On the other hand the legislation that will emerge, both nationally and provincially and in regard to government pension plans as well as private pension plans, may mean that this particular type of legislation will not be needed. The omnibus legislation that obviously must come will take care of that. But in the short term, I believe this legislation meets many of the urgent needs of those who have suddenly lost not only their employment but their pension plan. Hopefully, this legislation will never have to be used. I think I would be naive to suggest that there will not be terminations of pension plans, or plan closings, or partial closing in the near future.

In regard to the guarantee fund -- and I think it is a tremendous compliment to my professional staff that they studied the United States’ legislation extensively in regard to guarantee funds, and have avoided many of the pitfalls that have emerged in certain US legislation. Those pitfalls are being remedied. But we were able to take advantage of their experience in this regard.

Mr. Peterson: Could you explain that for us?

Hon. Mr. Drea: In the draftsmanship and in the regulations that will emerge.

Mr. Kerrio: We’re not talking about the bill, we’re talking about what is coming.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In the principle of the bill?

Mr. Peterson: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will do that as a summation. Is that fair enough?

They did extensive work with the pension industry -- although it cannot be measured in time as extensive because they had certain targets to meet -- both on a state and on a national level in the US, giving full credit to the US. This is where the guarantees originated. Within the broad scope of interim legislation, it is not the type of legislation that has been hastily constructed because it is not expected to be here. It is interim in the scope that it is meeting a particular problem.

If it was not for the fact that the Haley commission report, I am informed, will soon be available -- I say that in all candour to my colleague from London Centre. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding in this House that the royal commission is under the auspices of my ministry. It is not; it is under the auspices of the Treasurer -- it would be highly improper for me to be intervening at this particular time. But I am informed by the office that it will soon be available.

Mr. Peterson: Ms. Haley is alive and well?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, and I had a third party in the discussions to make sure that I was not being improper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a two-member debate, if you are dealing with opening comments on the principle of Bill 214.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it really is reflective of this bill. What I am pointing out is that this bill is not hastily constructed, or meant to last for only a short period of time. It is well constructed, but it is based upon the knowledge that there will soon be a most comprehensive document which I am very confident will serve as the basis and the foundation for very much needed improvements in all aspects of pensions in this country.

I will be pleased, because obviously, Mr. Speaker, there are some technical considerations in a bill like this, to particularly deal in a summation with technical concerns raised by individual members.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the Pension Benefits Amendment Act that has been brought in by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

I recall in the statement which he made to the House introducing this bill on December 4 that he resolved and referred to two particular problems which this bill hopes to accommodate. The first is the hardship which can occur to employees who fail to meet a certain time deadline because of a few weeks or a few months and the second, of course, occurs when a pension plan has not been fully funded and liabilities are outstanding in an actuarial sense as the result of the termination of a plan, usually by the closing of an industry.

The minister has referred, of course, to the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario, commonly known as the Haley commission after its chairman, Mrs. Donna Haley, QC. The select committee on company law, over these last several years, has dealt with a variety of insurance matters and as we began the studies last year on life insurance it became apparent that we should certainly not duplicate the work which was being done in the pension field by the Haley commission.

As we will proceed to write our report on accident and sickness insurance in the new year and deal finally with that last portion of the operations of insurance companies in Ontario, we, of course, await as well with great interest the publication and the recommendations which may occur from the Haley commission.

For several months we have been hearing that this report will soon be with us and we are as anxious as I am sure the minister is to see the results of this tremendously complicated study which has been going on. The whole matter of the funding of pensions, the sufficiency of pensions, the fact that individuals are living longer, the fact that interest rates and the traditional approach to actuarial development of pensions are uncertain and are problems which every one of us has to concern ourselves with.

Our senior citizens are concerned about the likelihood of funds being available for their continuing needs and as we look at the funding of municipal employees or provincial civil servants or the various teachers’ groups, I am sure that they, in their middle years, wonder whether there will be funds thoroughly and clearly available for the commitments that they have been given by their employers, in this case employers more in the public sector.

The commitments which individuals receive in the private sector are, of course, every bit as important to us because, unless they are clear and sufficient, the taxpayers generally will have to come up with some of the funds to make up the difference.

I was interested in the reports which appeared in the press immediately following the introduction of this bill. At that point Mr. Bentley of the minister’s staff was reported as saying that there were no particular immediate problems that resulted from underfunding, but there certainly were some plans that had not been fully amortized.

5 p.m.

He cited Houdaille Industries and Bendix Automotive in Windsor particularly as two plants that were going to have pension problems as well as the severance and other matters that have been referred to a committee of this House, the interim report of which is going to be debated for at least an hour this evening.

It should be clear that, as we look at the amendments to this act, we are not concerned in this more narrow focus with the whole matter of plant closings and the other obligations which might occur and to which this select committee of the Legislature has put its mind.

We are also living, obviously, in hope that the Haley commission will make some suggestions on integration of various pension opportunities within the province that may well cause legislation such as this bill to be rolled into a plan and a program that will give the future benefits we all want to see.

One of the problems we are clearly facing, in what unfortunately will be a difficult winter in many of the smaller manufacturing industries and in various parts of our province, is the likelihood of certain plant closures that are going to come upon individuals. Because of problems such as the one this bill will address, they would very much upset those individuals and their whole financial planning.

This bill, as I have said, has these two particular principles, the one dealing with the shortfall of time of some weeks, indeed some months, that might occur for qualification and, secondly, the matter of funding. Our opportunity is now to resolve those particular points recognizing that, from the Haley commission and the select committee’s report and how the government may respond to it, there are going to be more general overview circumstances which will no doubt develop in the next session of the Legislature, presuming time exists to deal with that problem.

However, the problem we are faced with in this bill is set out quite clearly. I hope the two particular points will be attended to for the benefit of the people of the province who, unfortunately, will be affected adversely if these amendments are not in place before the House rises.

There was one circumstance I was interested in, particularly as we looked at the vesting situation. Here we have 45 years of age and 10 years continuous service as the factors on which the opportunity for pension occurs. I was interested in one of the options raised in the minister’s statement. That was the option to transfer a pension benefit credit to the plan of a new employer, provided the terms of the new plan allow the transfer. This to my mind is one of the most important prospects and that is, as would be generally understood, the portability of pensions. Certainly, there are the opportunities to receive a pension at an earlier age at a reduced amount which is well known. There is also the opportunity, among others, to acquire a registered retirement savings plan which, in many ways, may be the best individual opportunity for a person moving between jobs. It may well be the RRSP situation may be the way for many people, not only self-employed but as employees, to protect themselves in an opportunity of developments as no doubt this program will develop in years to come.

I hope the Haley commission in its report will deal with the whole theme -- and I am sure it will -- of the portability of pensions. This is an area that concerns us all as members because of the people we represent. They have concerns and this whole theme of portability is one we must come to grips with in the near future. I hope the Haley commission will deal with that. This bill at least gives the opportunity where transfer is now possible as one of the options that can occur for the new program we are seeing before us.

The other details with respect to the guarantee fund and the other housekeeping amendments are acceptable.

I welcome the bill, recognizing that it will deal with some particular concerns at least in the immediate next few weeks or few months. There are going to be questions asked as various companies find themselves in difficulty, unfortunately, over the next few months with respect to the pension opportunities and benefits which their employees will or should receive. I hope this legislation will have the opportunity of resolving many of those immediate problems so that the guarantee fund will take care of those who particularly have that need and the various options on vesting will benefit persons who, unfortunately, may not otherwise be given the full opportunity to obtain a pension at the usual 60 or 65 years of age, which they perhaps had presumed would occur if the company for which they were working would continue in years to come and that they would be employed there.

The bill, as I have said, does not deal with some of these other concerns, but there will be the opportunity in the Legislature and, no doubt, in the press over these next several months to have these various issues raised. I certainly support the bill and I hope it will resolve some particular concerns for people in the next few months.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, Bill 214 before us is an exercise in something that is frankly less than social responsibility, in my opinion. In the five years since I have been here, one can tell when December finally rolls around, whether one has a calendar in front of him or not, by the kinds of legislation the government brings in. This sort of half-baked Band-Aid approach to what is a very serious problem in the province is a good indication, if the Christmas party last night was not, that it is indeed December and the House is winding down and the government is seeking to bring forward some inadequate stopgap measures to deal with what are very serious problems in our society.

I would have liked to have had the opportunity to have seen this bill go to a committee outside of the House so that workers who have been so badly affected by corporate callousness and by governmental indifference would have had the opportunity to come in and put their concerns across the table to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and his colleagues in the government. I think that would have been a useful exercise, not only for the minister but for perhaps a number of other people in the province, because this bill does not address the real critical and serious problems workers are facing because of the current economic climate in this province.

It is as if Bill 214 was supposed to ameliorate problems of unexpected and unknown origin that somehow in the last few weeks came to the attention of the government. Frankly, the fact is this government has in the past two or three years consistently underestimated the seriousness of deindustrialization in the province. At least I hope it is the case that the government just seriously misunderstood what was happening in the economy. I am confident the government was not an active and willing participant in the kinds of shutdowns and layoffs we have seen, but rather some sort of unexcitable cheerleader.

The workers of this province are at this moment up against the wall. They have been put up against the wall by a number of rather irresponsible companies in this province and by the indifference of their provincial and federal governments. We have seen over the past month or so the government of Ontario trying to deal in some way with the problems it at least has partially caused for workers in the province. We have seen those efforts through things like the plant shutdowns committee. We thought we had seen them in terms of severance pay legislation although, as I understand it, it looks like we are not going to see severance pay legislation before we leave this place.

5:10 p.m.

There is, in terms of pensions, a clear need in this province for major and extensive reform. We have had a royal commission studying this matter since 1977. I realize it is a complex issue, but it seems to me that three years is a considerable period of time. While workers are losing their jobs, losing their incomes, with all the inherent social damage involved in that kind of economic disaster, we have waited three years for this report to come.

Every time we ask the government when we are going to see some major reform in pension legislation we always get the same response, “Wait for the report.” I had expected to see that report in the House early this fall. I had expected to see major legislation in the House this fall. I expected to see a major attack on those problems by the government and by the assembly this fall. I am disappointed that we have not seen that and are not going to see it until at least some time in the spring session or, quite probably, after the next provincial election.

You wonder, Mr. Speaker, about who has power in this society when you look at an issue like this. We look at the lives that have been shattered because of the lack of decent pension legislation in the province. It is clear to me that workers do not have a great deal of power or influence in this province, because they have been trying to get decent legislation and have failed. What are the forces arrayed on the other side in the battle? One of them obviously is our pension industry itself.

In this country we have a $50 billion pension industry. Talk about power. Certainly, in our society, a great deal of power and influence resides in such a powerful lobby group as that. I suppose for that reason, if for no other, it is possible to understand, if not appreciate, the tortoise-like speed with which the government has been dragging along in terms of providing workers with adequate protections. As I said earlier, I would have preferred to see that major report introduced early in this session, and to have had legislation debated, adopted and in place by the end of this year so we could have protected our workers much better than we have been able to.

The government, though, not only continues to come forward with those major reforms, but continues essentially to ignore the root causes of the problems. Not only have they been inadequate in the kinds of Band-Aid approaches they have put forward to try to help working people, but they have totally ignored the fundamental causes of the current economic malaise and refused to act upon those. It seems to me that if the government will not attack the root causes behind our economic problems, then there is a moral imperative that they at least do everything they possibly can to protect the people who are going to be harmed. I am saddened by legislation like this, which shows that the government will once again not do that. This clearly is a Band-Aid approach, Mr. Speaker, and I will have more to say about that during committee debate. It is also, as I said earlier, a half-baked approach.

The legislation is in many ways nonsensical. For example, section 5 of the bill, which sets forward the great new options that are going to be available to workers in Ontario in terms of picking up pension benefits, talks about one option and refers to the normal retirement age. Some pension plans do have something called a normal retirement age. However, other pension plans do not even reference such things as a retirement age. They speak about plans like “30 years and out” plans that some of our unions have been able to win for their workers. What happens to those workers in those situations with “30 years and out” provisions? Are they excluded from even the limited protection that is provided by this legislation? That is a question the minister should address himself to.

There have been a number of other problems raised. For example, section 7 of this bill talks about the vested pension interest as a lien. There is no clear understanding of how high these pension interests stand as part of a lien against the corporation. Even more serious perhaps is the immense jurisdictional dispute between the federal and provincial government that will arise because bankruptcy legislation is clearly something that has been within the federal jurisdiction. If the feds say, “We give first rights of this corporation to the banks and other such companies,” what is the provincial government going to be able to do to make sure these workers who can have a lien in place of their pension against the company are going to have a very high standing? The bill is remarkably silent about that.

One of the most serious aspects, and the one that has drawn the most ire from workers, deals with the 45-and-10 provisions that remain in this legislation. The government can sit there until it falls asleep or dies of its own inactivity but I do not think the government, under the serious circumstances we are in, can say things like: “Oh well, we are going to continue to wait for the coin- mission to report. Then we will think about it over the winter. Maybe if there is not an election, we will bring in some legislation in the spring and maybe that could go out to committee in the summer. Maybe next year we could do something about 45 and 10.”

It is past time we did something about 45 and 10. If the government is unwilling to do it, I am quite willing and will move amendments during committee today to get rid of the 45-and-10 provision. The 45-and-10 provision, Mr. Speaker, is simply that for the pension of the worker to be vested under this legislation, the worker has to be 45 years of age or over, and has to have worked and have been contributing money to that plan for 10 years.

When I was working in the factory, I did not work in a factory that had a proper pension plan. I worked in one that had a profit sharing plan, so I cannot talk from personal experience about the kind of pension I had in my factory days, but I now do have certain rights to a pension. It is a nice pension. It is one that my father is currently collecting. It is one that all of the members of the assembly here will probably one day be able to collect.

Is there a 45-and-10 rule in regard to the vesting of that pension? There clearly is not a 45 rule and there is not even a 10 rule. If a member spends five years around this loony bin, he gets his pension vested. But if a person slogs his guts out in the industrial heartland of this province for nine years and is 44 years old, he is not eligible under the 45 and 10 rule. What happens to the worker who is 44 years old and has worked 20 years, hard years, day in day out? He is not eligible under this legislation. Yet somebody can get elected to this fine place and has a vested pension after five years.

If it is good enough for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) and the member for Hamilton Centre, then it is good enough for the workers of Hamilton Centre. I am quite prepared to move, and I hope the minister will support, an amendment that gets rid of the 45-and-10 rule and substitutes for it a five-year vesting period just as we, members of the Legislative Assembly, have. It sounds only fair to me.

The government has talked about portability and how much it has done to increase portability. In fact, very little has been done in this bill to increase portability.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak longer on second reading because I do want to put seven or eight amendments during committee stage of the bill today. There are essentially two groups of problems in this bill. One, the bill does not go far enough. It just does not go anywhere near far enough. Two, it does not cover or affect enough people. We have a very serious problem out there for our workers and the government has come forward with what is a Band-Aid and half-baked approach, which unfortunately we cannot send out to committee because we do not have the time to send it out to committee, or for workers to come in and tell the government what they think about their legislation and what they think they should be able to do with their legislation.

5:20 p.m.

I will support it on second reading so we can get it into committee of the whole House where I hope we will have some opportunity to offer some amendments to this inadequate bill that will go at least one short step further in protecting workers in the province.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few more things to add to the remarks of my colleague from Kitchener. I come with somewhat mixed feelings. I think if we were prepared to sit down for the next couple of months we could probably collectively draft some better legislation. It is my view, however, that this bill should probably go through unamended at this time as an interim step, as one small step for mankind alone the road to massive pension reform in this province.

We have waited for years now for the Haley commission. I certainly understand the strictures that are on the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. But in the number of fights I have had in this Legislature to bring about pension reform, I say in a complimentary way to the minister that he has evinced not only more understanding but more sensitivity for this issue than any other minister, including the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

It is a complicated issue. I say in a complimentary way, being Christmas time and all that, this minister has a better understanding of the subject. I would just give him a small admonition. When the Haley commission report does come, I hope he will take some personal responsibility in the massive reforms that are going to have to come. Some of them will be under his jurisdiction. Some of the funding aspects of the Canada pension plan and other things he will have to deal with presumably, Ontario’s role therein and the disposition of these massive billions of dollars of funds are certainly under the Treasurer’s bailiwick to some extent.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I trust I have your support to become the lead ministry.

Mr. Peterson: Absolutely. If we get into pension reform, if we got into a committee to study the Haley report, it could occupy the best minds of the whole civil service to come up with the kind of reforms we need. It is going to require a great deal of attention.

I am reluctant to mess around with this bill now in the absence of wholesale reform. In one sense it is almost too bad we even have to do this. We should be looking at the whole question de novo. Because of the political pressures and because of the situation at the present time and the imminent financial problems of this province and plant closures, it is deemed prudent by a number of people to introduce this legislation now.

It has to be understood for what it is. This applies only to plant closedown situations, which in terms of relevant numbers are relatively insignificant compared to the number of pension beneficiaries in this province. We are really only covering a very limited number of people or potentially a very limited number of people with this reform. It is all worth while. Some of it is difficult to justify. I am not very happy about the 45-and-10 rule.

As has been pointed out by other members, inevitably with this kind of legislation there are going to be cutoff points or people taken out by the notch provisions or whatever, that will reap real hardships, for example, the person who is not 45 or who has worked only nine years. There are cases like that. Granted, in all of this legislation one must be arbitrary at some point, but I am one who is going to fight, and I want to put you on notice of this, Mr. Speaker, for far earlier vesting than this and for portability.

There are a number of experts, and these are not the weirdos in the community, who are saying that there are a number of benefits, not only financial benefits to the individual but benefits to the work place, to have higher portability and earlier vesting to create more mobility of labour. Pensions can no longer be used as a device to keep workers in subservience. They must be able to flow freely, as goods and capital do in a country, in order to get the maximum efficiency for that labour.

These are big questions, and they are questions for another day. I would have liked to have seen earlier vesting and, as I said, we will be fighting very hard for that at the time we address our minds collectively to the Haley commission. We have waited three or four years or whatever it is, and I think we should review the thing in total. In a sense, almost every small move we make may have to be recovered, undone or amended in another six months or a year. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, we will support this in the short term.

The minister evinced some sensitivity to the problems of guarantee funds. There are a lot of potential abuses in those funds. They can be administered poorly. They can end up as a situation where the efficient subsidize the inefficient, where the well run company subsidizes the sleazier company which may want to make a last minute deal before it bails out. The attempt to provide against those kinds of abuses by having a three-year cutoff period seems a reasonable one. It could have been four or five years.

Ideally, the guarantee fund, as attractive as it sounds, is not always the best approach. Perhaps another approach to these problems is tougher funding requirements. In a sense, the minister compensates for that because the people who are fully funded will not have to contribute to the guarantee fund. Personally, I would rather have seen it approached from the other end, not using the guarantee fund because it probably will not benefit many responsible people. We should be tougher with those who are irresponsible.

For example, if a massive automotive company in this country went belly up, which some people think is possible, we could end up in a situation where we had a number of basically responsibly run plans subsidizing a massive shutdown or layoff of that type. My approach would be towards tighter funding obligations, more disclosure, earlier vesting and probably a loosening up of the pension investment rules so the pension fund managers can seek the highest rate of return possible in the marketplace today.

We are almost on the verge of a new economic era. Who would have predicted five years ago, two years ago, one year ago or six months ago that we would have a 20 per cent prime interest rate today? With double-digit inflation, to achieve a real rate of return after inflation we need incredibly high rates of return on that invested capital. If we cannot guarantee that and if we do not allow that kind of flexibility between competing fund managers, we are going to erode the integrity of some of those funds.

Historically, that has been one of the problems with pension funds that are conservatively invested and are not growing, in real terms, as fast as they should be and are not keeping up with inflation. These are profound problems, not only in this jurisdiction but with the federal rules as well.

Frankly, I am ambivalent about the guarantee funds. I tend to think the minister is setting up an unnecessary apparatus that will solve few social evils, at least the ones he wants to correct. He should probably have gone at it a different way. I do not feel strongly enough to vote against it, and the minister may have some arguments to convince me my perceptions are incorrect.

It has always been my view that when we talk about pension reform the first place we start is with disclosure. I can think of no subject that is more complicated or where fewer people have any knowledge of their own rights, entitlements or assets than in the pension area. It is a known fact that, generally, young people do not care about pensions. They are interested in a higher disposable income. They are not interested in contributing to someone else’s retirement. As people get older and start contemplating their own retirements, as they start investigating their own assets and entitlements, they tend to be a little more sensitive.

They wonder: “My goodness, what has been happening to my money? Why have I only a four or five per cent rate of return on those moneys? Why am I not entitled to the employer’s contribution? I thought he was putting away money for me and now I have found out he was not. All I get is my money and four or five per cent. I could have had it in the bank. I could have bought gold or real estate.”

5:30 p.m.

If we force disclosure, that is the first place to bring up the general level of knowledge. Every employee must have an absolute right to go to the manager of his pension fund and know the instant status of that fund and the integrity of the portfolio. He should have the right to make his own judgements thereupon, and compare it with other portfolio managers, should he so desire. But he also should be able to know his own personal entitlement. I welcome anything that starts with that move. But this is only the first step along a difficult, long and complicated road.

There are going to be a number of very broad issues that are going to have to be addressed. This legislation will affect an almost insignificant number of people in this province. It is a decent step; it is a step on the right road. Some of the protections inherent herein are going to have to meet standards on a broader base across this province. They are going to have broad macroeconomic effects -- the disposition of those funds, who uses them, how they are used, who can borrow from them and who can not.

Any time we talk about pension legislation, by definition we exclude those people who are not included under pensions today. That is a disturbingly high percentage of the population. When we discuss the whole private sector and pension plans, we are going to have to discuss their relationship with public plans, and what really are the highest obligations of the government leaders to look after people in their retirement, and looking at the relative cost and relative benefits one can purchase and who should best administer those. Those are very difficult public policy questions.

It is a known fact, for example, that probably the best single pension buy in Canada today is the Canada pension plan. It is a terrific buy. The fact it is going to be bankrupt by the end of the century and taxpayers are going to carry the can for that brings into account some other questions that have to be discussed. But in the short term, at least, it is the most significant and best pension buy in Ontario, and indeed in Canada.

I look forward to a full and wholesale discussion of those major issues some time in the future. It is my hope it is sooner rather than later. It is my hope the government will not just shelve the whole Haley commission findings and have an internal review committee for another four years. We in the opposition are waiting for the very basic kind of reform. They are not that hard to do. Saskatchewan has done it; Quebec has done it. They have taught us that we can move quickly in some of those areas.

I look forward to that important and major discussion, which will occupy the minds of the majority of the members of this House some time in the immediate future. In the meantime, I would urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to get this through as quickly as possible.

I have given my reservations. That being said, I think we should support it now to solve a potential evil over this winter. We will look forward to the real work which is to come, I hope, in the near future.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Hamilton Centre indicated, we are supporting this bill, but it will be a much better bill after he has put his amendments. I expect they will be supported by all sides of the House because of their eminent good sense.

Every time I think of pensions I think of what is happening not just when a plant closes but out there in society as a whole. I can see what is going to happen as the years go by. As the population ages, as the demographic bump moves through Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, it is going to become a bigger and bigger issue.

It is like the situation we used to have in medical services, and to a certain extent we still do -- a hotchpotch of programs and plans that will eventually self-destruct. I predict the day will come when the whole pension field will be so complicated, and it will get itself in such a mess, that the inevitable will then occur.

With Canada pension plan already in place, that will be expanded so that the people of this country have an appropriate level of pension; have a pension that is completely portable; have a pension that applies to everybody, not just people who have paid into a contributory plan. That is the model. It is already there in something called the Canada pension plan.

We now have the old age pension, we have Canada pension plan, and we have a plethora of pension schemes out there. Some day, I say to the minister, somebody is going to come out with a report. It will not be Donna Haley with her report, because she understands that the kind of recommendation where we put in one comprehensive, completely portable scheme would not be brought by this government at this point. She knows that very well, and the minister knows he would not be prepared to take that kind of courageous step at this point either, even though he knows it is the way to solve the pension problem out there. Whether that pension has to do with the plant closing or whether it has to do with someone reaching the age of retirement, that is the direction we simply have to move in.

The minister is unable, or unwilling, or afraid to take big steps; that is why he takes mincing steps.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Small.

Mr. Laughren: Mincing. The minister heard me correctly. When it comes to any kind of reform, this minister takes only mincing steps. He is not willing to take the kind of courageous large step that would really get to the root of the problems and solve them once and for all. I just want to serve notice to the minister that there is a path down which he should be going, in the direction of a comprehensive public pension scheme based on the model of the Canada pension plan which is completely portable. No matter where a person lives in this country or where he or she works, he or she has an adequate pension.

I would predict that as the demographics change in this country that is where we will end up, but there will be a lot of agony, a lot of thrashing about, and a lot of debate before we get there. That day will come and I am precisely the age of a person who will get the main benefit when that day actually does come. So I am saying to the minister -- I will not ask him to do it for me, but I ask him to think seriously about the mess there is out there in pensions and whether he can solve the problem by putting a patch on here and a patch on there.

We have in Ontario now a one-man commission studying workmen’s compensation, and one of the things he is going to look at in his next report is the extent to which we can continue to have the hotchpotch of accident and sickness schemes we have in Ontario. We also have right now a select committee on company law, the chairman of which is the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), the hardworking, conscientious chairman from Kitchener. As a matter of fact, that whole committee is hardworking and conscientious.

Mr. Roy: Are you on that committee?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I am on that committee.

Mr. Roy: Well, you should be congratulated.

Mr. Laughren: Just as that committee is grappling with the whole problem of a patchwork of accident and sickness schemes, so are the people investigating pensions going to be grappling with the problem there for many years to come until finally they come to their senses and say, “This whole thing is nonsense, all this patchwork.”

Mr. Nixon: You mean this whole thing?

Mr. Laughren: I meant the pension field.

Mr. Nixon: Your gestures were all-inclusive.

Mr. Laughren: I was pointing at the member, I know. I take back the point Mr. Speaker, and I say to the minister that we support the bill and in return for our support, we expect him to support our amendments.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to be able to make a few remarks on this bill. I know that will be a profound disappointment. What we have here in the act to amend the Pension Benefits Act is the first of what I expect to be many attempts at artificial respiration for the private pension sector. We are going to have more and more of these frantic efforts on the part of Conservatives here and Liberals in Ottawa to try somehow to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Let me tell anybody who is still deluded that one can build a pension scheme in a modern industrial society on the basis of private sector insurance that he is whistling in the dark. The private pension system is a dead skunk. It has the two characteristics of a dead skunk: it is dead and it stinks. There is nothing one can do by way of artificial respiration to change that reality.

Over half of the workers in this country are not covered by private insurance programs. It is more than half, but I cannot remember the exact figure. I believe 60 per cent are not covered. On the basis of the performance of the private insurance industry over the last 50 or 60 years they never will be. Nothing that government does is going to change that.

Our pension policies in this country are the most backward in the western industrial world, with the exception of the United States. That is an indisputable, empirical observation. There is nothing anybody can say because those are simply the facts. We have a pension system that is based on a hotchpotch of private insurance, public insurance at the federal level broken down into three separate programs, private savings, provincial pension programs, tax credit systems, provincial social assistance and municipal social assistance or municipal welfare.

Anybody who spends more than five minutes a week in his constituency office knows what agony elderly pensioners have to go through to try to put together a package of income on the basis of this nonsensical hotchpotch, a package of income consisting of old age security, guaranteed income supplement, Canada pension plan, provincial Gains and municipal special assistance or municipal supplementary aid to help cover the rent; tax credits et cetera. It all adds up, when one puts the package together, to an income below the poverty line.

Yet policy makers in Ottawa and policy makers here in Ontario continue under the delusion that it is somehow possible by waving a magic wand and bringing in little pieces of legislation like Bill 214, which will be the first of a stream of these kinds of bills, somehow to deal with the fact that we have never come to an adequate policy resolution on the pension issue. The only possible resolution is to say that we can only build an adequate income security program for retiring Canadians in the public sector.

That means we have to redesign the Canada pension plan. What kind of a joke are we dealing with? A public pension plan that pays as a maximum 25 per cent of earnings is a bad joke. The member for London Centre has made a dozen speeches at least in this session alone with respect to the funding position of the Canada pension plan. I do not happen to agree with his conclusions, but everybody will accept his analysis that the Canada pension plan is going broke. It is going broke because it was never designed as a pension plan. It was designed as a source of cheap public borrowing for the provincial governments. That is what was put together in Quebec City in the 1960s. That is what the 10 provincial governments and the federal government agreed to set up in the mid-1960s. That is all it has been treated as.

Every attempt to improve even marginally the Canada pension plan has met with the ultimate resistance from the government of Ontario. The government of Ontario has insisted on protecting the pool of cheap money. Ontario has opposed additional coverage under the Canada pension plan since its inception. Ontario is now hoping frantically, through the agency of the royal commission, to come up with some way of reviving the money pot. It is having to deal with the fact it is a useless pension program.

Who is going to live on 25 per cent of his earnings maximum? How can we talk about a modern pension plan when it is as regressive in its funding structure as the Canada pension plan? That is absolutely ludicrous. How can we continue to shirk the reality or pretend that the contributions, 1.8 and 1.8 per cent of payroll, are somehow adequate to a modern public pension system? All one has to do is look at the rates of employer-employee contributions in European countries compared with benefit levels to understand what a completely miserable operation the Canada pension plan is.

Where does the government take its initiative? Not by speaking out loudly and clearly on the injustices with respect to the Canada pension plan. Not by speaking out loudly and clearly on the inadequacies of the overall hotchpotch, the six-level layer cake that guarantees a subpoverty level of existence. Not by dealing with the Gains component which is under Ontario’s jurisdiction by raising the rates to a level above the poverty line. Singles are still below the poverty line and couples are just a few centimetres above it.

That is not in the cards. That is not on the agenda. What we have is a royal commission whose work has been delayed, I believe, five times. Some of us are even told that not only has it been printed, but the ink has been dry for some time. Is that true?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is not true.

Mr. McClellan: I am glad to hear that. I had been told that. I believe the minister when he says it is not ready yet. It was supposed to be ready three times in 1979. It was supposed to be ready two and a half times in 1980.

Mr. Laughren: December 15 was the deadline.

Mr. McClellan: There was a previous deadline in 1980 and another deadline some time this fall.

Mr. Laughren: December 15.

Mr. McClellan: We will see if it comes out December 15. I know what is going to be in it without knowing what is in it. It will be the last clarion call to revive the private pensions sector and there will be a whole series of proposals around vesting and portability, a series of efforts to end what can only be described as the most blatant, nonsensical injustice imaginable. These are situations that would not have been tolerated 30 or 40 years ago in any of the European industrial democracies, yet we are still fooling around and having to stoop to the level of debating something like Bill 214 which has such minimal vesting and portability provisions as to be, quite frankly, beneath contempt.

In this bill, the minister is perpetuating 45 years of age and 10 years of service as a condition for getting some kind of protection if one is suddenly laid off. Thanks a lot. What happens to people who are not vested under our Neanderthal vesting provisions? They are just out of luck; too bad; sorry.

5:50 p.m.

That we are even dealing with something as crazy as trying to protect somebody’s pension credits in the case of a layoff in 1980 is absolutely disgraceful. It is demeaning. Are we supposed to be grateful that the government has finally said, “If you are over 45 years of age and have 10 years service or more and somebody takes your job away from you, we are going to protect your pension credits.” Thank you very much. What a bunch of sweethearts! I wonder how long it took them to come to the overwhelming realization that that was something that was appropriate to do? Did the minister have to study it for a long time? Is this something he agonized over?

It really is a very sad commentary on our society’s attitude towards workers who have reached retirement age that we have never had the decency as a society to bring in a decent public pension program that covers everybody and provides a level of retirement income based on some objective measurement of decency and adequacy. The best we are able to do is put together a hotchpotch that guarantees either a subpoverty level of existence or something, as I said, just a few centimetres above the poverty line. I suppose one is used to crumbs from a crummy government, whether it is at the provincial level or in Ottawa. Crumbs are what we get and crumbs are what we got.

As I said, I hope the report of the royal commission on pensions will come this month. I do not believe it will. I do not believe it will come until after the election. The statistical data in any royal commission on pensions is going to have to deal with the financial position of elderly people in this society. It is going to be too damned embarrassing for the government to bring out another study. An up-to-date study of the economic position of retired citizens in Ontario prior to an election is something, I am sure, the government does not want to see and does not want the citizens of this province to see. I do not expect it until after the election campaign. But once it comes out, I hope we can then start to have a serious debate in this Legislature about what Ontario’s retirement policies are going to be. So far, all we have had are things like the contribution from the member for York West (Mr. Leluk). He wants the retirement age raised to 70. I do not have any objection to that. My party has no objection to a flexible retirement age.

Mr. Leluk: Why did you vote against it then?

Mr. McClellan: We voted against it, my friend, because we are not willing to bring in a measure that would force retired Canadians or elderly people to continue to work in the absence of an adequate pension program. When some government, either in Ottawa or at Queen’s Park, brings in a coherent public pension program that guarantees a decent retirement income for all Canadians then this party is prepared to say all right.

In addition to that, we will go along with flexible retirement both up to age 70 and down to age 60 so that people have real choices. But to say we can raise the pensionable age to 70, when we have things like Bill 214 in front of us that indicates just how shoddy our pension system is and when we have an abysmal public sector pension that guarantees nothing for the majority of Canadians, that is something we are not going to touch with a 10-foot pole.

The member can keep bringing it in as long as he wants. He does not fool anybody. He does not fool the construction workers in the west end of Toronto, about which I thought he would have a little more sense. He wants to talk to construction workers about working until the age of 70. I invite him to come into the riding of Bellwoods and do that. He should bring his hard hat because he will need it.

I think I have made the point. I hope I have. Subtlety is not my strong point. I also do not expect this minister to come through with the kind of pension policies that are appropriate to a modern industrial economy. At the very least, he could have come through with vesting and portability when he is bringing forward amendments to the Pension Benefits Act. Surely even the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations understands --

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member would just refer to what is in the bill.

Mr. McClellan: Vesting is in the bill, Mr. Speaker. You have caught me at the one point in my speech when I am actually talking about the bill because the bill deals with the existing vesting provision -- 10 years of service and 45 years of age. Surely, at the very least the minister could have come in with amendments that have been asked for consistently over the last five or six years, which are to reduce the age and time requirements for vesting. When is that going to come, after the royal commission? When is the royal commission going to come, after the election, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the state of pensions in this province. I pointed out very specifically in my opening remarks that I was not addressing the issue of pensions in this bill.

I want to put a couple of things to rest. The ink is not dry, to the best of my knowledge, nor has it been dry on the Haley commission report. The member and the Globe and Mail keep saying there are stacks and stacks and stacks of copies. That is a lie. There are all kinds of working papers around and there are various appendix volumes but the ink is not dry on the actual report.

Mr. McClellan: I am sure the minister wasn’t saying that I was lying.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, I say it is a lie.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you.

Mr. Laughren: Knowing you, we have to get it cleared up.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I said that the first time. Knowing his sensitivity and how kindly he addresses me, he certainly should have known.

The Deputy Speaker: I was listening and the member referred to the Globe and Mail. I would appreciate it if you would address the chair.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will, but I would ask you to make the member for Nickel Belt withdraw that last remark. Either you are going to remain in control in here or not.

Mr. Speaker: I will have to ask the honourable member what the remark was. I did not hear it, I was speaking.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to give it the dignity of repeating it.

On a far more substantial matter -- having heard all of the Marxist version of the pension industry or the lack of it -- I want to address myself to some of the concerns raised by the member for London Centre.

Mr. McClellan: The minister is getting ready for the old red smear, is he?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not have to worry about any red smear, my friend. I do not.

The matter raised by the member for London Centre concerned the pitfalls that have developed in the American experience, both state and federal, with guaranteed funds. The US approach is for intervention by the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation on the termination of a pension plan.

Quite often the PBGC itself is involved in administering the assets of the plan and making distributions to pensioners. This has resulted in extremely high administrative costs. As a matter of fact, on a rough or ball-park estimate, because remember we are dealing with different jurisdictions there, sometimes up to 50 per cent of the premiums collected go directly into administration costs. We want to avoid that. Another one of the difficulties is there is a large backlog.

Once again, as I am sure the member for London Centre knows, the unfunded liability provisions in the United States are not up to the standards of Ontario and obviously this produces, at the particular time of termination of an unfunded plan, substantially more difficulties. Those are the main pitfalls.

I do wish to comment upon the fact that people will abuse it. I really think we have built into the legislation that people are not going to abuse it, that they are not going to do a sweetheart deal with their labour organization because they are going out of business. There is something going on out there right now that is perilously close to a sweetheart deal with them all hailing it. If the members of the House were privy to the information I have through the commission as to unfunded liabilities and certain things that are going on and being hailed as great social reforms, they would have very significant concerns -- as indeed should be, as these are the very people those things are supposed to protect.

I agree with the member for London Centre. As a matter of fact, I give credit where credit is due. The advocate of disclosure in this Legislature, or the person who should get the credit for it, is the member for London Centre, not the minister. The member for London Centre broached that across the floor some time ago and I tell the members it is more necessary now than when he first broached it.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks in the hope we can get second reading of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.