Journal des débats 1982-oct-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I would like to remind the members that on Thursday last the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) requested me to make a ruling on rulings made by the chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice.

I must point out once more, with all the emphasis possible, that there is no procedure by which the rulings of committee chairmen may be appealed to the Speaker. To put it very bluntly, the Speaker has no authority to second-guess the chairmen of the various committees.

This not only has been clearly indicated many times by former Speakers and by myself, but I refer members to May's Parliamentary Practice, 19th edition, which states clearly at the top of page 621, "Following the principle which governs procedure in committees of the whole House, no appeal can be made to the Speaker regarding the decisions and rulings of the chairman of a standing committee."

This statement is based on a number of precedents recorded in parliamentary debates over a period of many years. I state once more that an appeal from the ruling of a committee chairman must be made to the committee, just as in the House an appeal from the Speaker's ruling is to the House.

The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) makes the rather unique suggestion that the rule worked well when the minority situation existed in the House because they could then overrule the chairman, but that it does not work so well with a majority House. I must point out it has worked well in majority Houses for well over 100 years.

The member for St. Catharines also makes some reference to my alleged persuasive powers in dealing with committee chairmen, and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) makes the suggestion that I must instruct the chairmen. These remarks seem to suggest that there is a procedure whereby I instruct and direct the actions of the committee chairmen. I assure you that that is not the case.

As has been so often said, each committee conducts its own business within whatever committee it may be, just as the House does within the House, and it is only when a report on a matter within the committee's terms of reference, properly passed by that committee, is presented to the House by the chairman thereof that the contents of that report may be debated and dealt with by the House.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, might I ask for your assistance? The area of concern is that chairmen are making rulings contrary to the rules that apply in the House. While I agree with you that the Speaker cannot arbitrarily interfere, surely the onus is on chairmen who are selected to chair those committees, to apply the rules in committee in the same manner as they are applied in the House. The same set of rules should apply in both places.

When committee chairmen make arbitrary rulings and one asks them what rule is being violated or why they are ruling it out of order, they simply say, "I have a majority," or, "I am rewriting the rules." That cannot be tolerated.

Maybe it is time to reinstitute the panel of chairmen, which was recommended in 1976, so that chairmen learn the rules and apply them with some consistency, because we are going to have that problem forever if chairmen do not use the rules that apply in here.

Chairmen simply cannot rewrite the rules and then call on a majority to substantiate the ruling they have made; there must be some sense to what goes on in committee. Now, even procedural motions are ruled out for no rhyme or reason. Surely the procedure to follow is for the committee itself to oppose the motion, to vote on it and turn the motion down; not to have some arbitrary ruling by a chairman which has no relevance and which does not conform to any set of rules that applies. But that, in fact, is what is happening.

If they want to use numbers to defeat the motion, that is quite all right; that is part of the system. But it is the arbitrary rulings that do not conform to the rules which have to be looked at. I suggest that the panel of chairmen be reinstituted immediately, and that these chairmen learn the rules as they apply in the Legislature and not play some new game out there.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I know that you are anxious to continue this important discussion. It is not often that I do not entirely agree with the House leader for the New Democratic Party, but on this occasion I really must take some exception. I think you should know, sir, the matter that raised his well-known ire occurred at the meeting of the standing committee on administration of justice at the beginning of the hearings on Bill 179.

I must agree, sir, with what you have put forward. It seems to me that if a member of a committee does not believe the chairman has ruled correctly, then certainly he has every right and privilege to appeal that ruling. I agree that sometimes that is a little bit of a waste of time, the composition of committees being what they are. With the six and five rule that the member for St. Catharines mentioned, six government members and five opposition members, we do not often win. However, on the occasion the honourable member was referring to, when I was present, and there may have been others, there was no appeal of the ruling that I recall and therefore no vote on the ruling.

Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely right. Appeal must be made to the committee. Of course, the committee chairmen have all kinds of advice available to them, and we just have to abide by whatever decisions they make.

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am not sure to what the honourable member was referring, but I want to make it clear that, inasmuch as we felt the ruling was totally inconsistent with procedures in the House, the chairman was challenged in the standing committee on administration of justice on three occasions over the ruling.

2:10 p.m.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's gallery, where we have as guests with us today, members of the Association of Parliamentary Librarians in Canada, who are meeting in Toronto this week. They are led by their president, Mr. Blake MacDougall, Legislature librarian of Alberta. Also present in the gallery with the group is the national librarian of Canada, Dr. Guy Sylvestre, who is attending the association's meetings as an official observer.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CHINESE EXHIBITION

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all honourable members will be pleased to learn of the tremendous success of the China exhibition, which concludes a six-month engagement at the Ontario Science Centre this weekend.

On April 30, I had the great pleasure of joining the Premier (Mr. Davis); Dr. Tuzo Wilson, the director general of the science centre; Mr. Leonard Reilly, chairman of the board, and the distinguished guests from the Peoples' Republic of China in helping to launch this impressive show, which has established attendance records for our science centre.

April 30 was a day of great excitement and pride for all people -- excitement created by the event itself, and pride that this most spectacular exhibition of ancient Chinese science and technology ever assembled outside China had been obtained by our Ontario Science Centre.

I was particularly pleased by the important fact that, during its six-month duration, the China show would make a significant contribution to advancing the goals of our ministry. The cultural consciousness of Ontarians and people from beyond the borders of the province has been tremendously widened by viewing this show. Seven thousand years of Chinese science, technology and crafts have given visitors a greater appreciation of ancient Chinese civilization and its cultural legacy to the world.

In August, the China show brought the Ontario Science Centre its best monthly attendance ever. More people went through the doors of the centre in August than in any single month since it opened in 1969. China: 7000 Years of Discovery has enjoyed wide international attention and has been praised for its unique content and presentation. I think it would be safe to conclude that this is the major, single most-important reason for the increased public attendance.

On October 6, the science centre welcomed the one millionth visitor to the China show. By the time the show closes on Sunday it will have been seen by well over 1,107,000 people. As I mentioned, the show has attracted people from beyond our borders. Almost 45 per cent of the visitors to the China show have come from the United States or overseas.

What I find especially encouraging about the high attendance record established by this prestigious show is its obvious economic impact. Although complete figures are not yet available for the month or October, in its first five months the China show brought in more than $2.6 million in admission fees. In addition, the restaurant at the centre itself sold $1.5 million in food, an increase of 26 per cent over the same period last year, and the bookstore revenue increased 82 per cent to $750,000. There is no question that the China show has had a considerable impact on our economy.

I am sure all honourable members will join me in congratulating the efforts of everyone who participated in making the China show one of the largest cultural events ever produced in Canada.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I did not notice this before, but I would like to draw the attention of members to the presence in the House of the former Minister of Agriculture and Food and member for Durham-York, Mr. Bill Newman.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE PRACTICES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Yesterday I asked the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) certain questions concerning recent developments in the so-called Proverbs affair, in the light of the fact that Mr. Proverbs had turned over last Wednesday further portions of the videotapes to the police.

As the trial reopened yesterday at 10 o'clock, the chief prosecuting attorney withdrew from the case. He advised the court that he would likely be a witness not only in the case before the court but in other matters as well. Mr. McGee had met with Assistant Deputy Attorney General Rod McLeod and John Takach, the director of crown attorneys, two very senior crown law officers, last Friday. Apparently at that time it was agreed to have Mr. McGee remove himself from the case.

Is it likely the Attorney General was unaware yesterday when asked of the Friday turn of events? It was clearly this very development the Attorney General had in mind when he said yesterday that the trial was scheduled to proceed to court next week. We were all of the assumption that the trial was proceeding apace yesterday and this week, but he had already been informed of the one-week adjournment.

The Attorney General has not been candid with this House. The entire point of my questioning yesterday was to ascertain how the investigation was affecting the trial process. It was to have the Attorney General adopt a reasonable approach to the investigation, and this very point was underscored by the trial judge himself when he said: "It is obvious to me that Mr. Proverbs by definite intentions has planned to drop at the feet of the crown counsel evidentiary morsels which he expects the crown to snap up and analyse and ask for an adjournment."

The Attorney General has shown little regard for the rights and privileges of the members of this House. Let him, as the highest law officer of the province, now show some regard for the administration of justice, respect for which is being battered and reduced in the eyes of the public with each passing day by curious behaviour such as his. The next half hour of the tapes when released may well, for all we know, implicate the trial judge or otherwise obstruct and hinder the whole process of the present trial.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my privileges and those of all members are being compromised by this discredit to our judicial system. The Attorney General owes it to this House and to his reputation to give a statement to us now that he will move to obtain all the 37 hours of videotapes forthwith. Only then can we be confident that the investigation by Deputy Commissioner Lidstone will have all the materials necessary to do the job.

We have seen justice compromised in this province by the advance of the Proverbs trial so far, and the Attorney General should not delay in ending this most unhappy situation.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the honourable member that this was not a point of privilege and I must rule him out of order. However, having said that, I am sure the Attorney General will take note of the member's remarks. He is not in the House and will reply at a suitable date.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the man who has brought down interest rates, the Treasurer. He is no doubt aware of the Conference Board of Canada prediction of today that the unemployment rate for 1983 will be 12.7 per cent, about two per cent higher than the expected 1982 average rate, with a peak of probably about 13 per cent this winter. He is also aware of the forthcoming forecast from Chase Econometrics Canada and Midland Doherty. Chase even went so far as to predict a peak of 13.8 per cent in 1983.

Obviously these numbers are Canada-wide, not just for Ontario, but they speak very poorly for Ontario. Can we have the Treasurer's estimate of what the unemployment rate will be in Ontario for next year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as members know, I bring out an estimate each year. Just as I was wrong in my May estimate of employment for this part of the year, and I was, I hope the estimates the Leader of the Opposition is hearing from those people about the percentages of unemployment next year are wrong too. I am not yet in a position to say they are not the best or consensus opinions of economists, either in my ministry or in business in general.

I would only say this: We recognize that even if the slow steady recovery that was forecast by that group takes place, it will not be mirrored immediately in an improvement in job statistics. That is because, as I am sure the member knows, many corporations are running at relatively low percentage capacity figures at this time, and most of them have some room to improve sales before they have to bring more staff back.

Contrary to the opinion that companies mercilessly lay off staff every time there is a drop in production, I will argue that many have kept on people whom they know they need in the hope that there will be an upturn. That means there will be no sudden return to job hiring with the first upward movement. I firmly believe, and I agree with the Conference Board of Canada on one thing, that the direction has changed and improvement is the future order.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: That is not the way I read those figures, but the Treasurer may have his own way of doing it. Just because he was wrong, he hoped everyone else's forecast was wrong. Any way he cuts it, it speaks to a massive problem. Even if he is right and certain companies are keeping people on even though they do not need them, it speaks to a far deeper and more severe crisis in this province than is indicated by the numbers.

Will the Treasurer not agree with me that, in the circumstances, the response of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) that he has created some 4,000 jobs is absolutely paltry? That is 4,000 jobs over five months, when in fact about every five days we have been losing that number of jobs in Ontario.

Will the Treasurer not agree that he has to act very quickly, acknowledging as he does that the crisis is worse than the figures indicate?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If I am not wrong, I believe the 4,000 jobs that were discussed were just the section 38 jobs. In fact, there were a lot of other parts to the budget in May besides that. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that if he checks with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), he will find that municipalities have subscribed well to the more than $30 million he offered them for local jobs.

If the Leader of the Opposition will check the statistics on the purchase of new homes, I suggest he will find that in a good many parts of the province at the moment there is a mini-boom in retail sales of both new and used houses. It is those actions this government took in May that have helped.

I also suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that tomorrow, if the news releases are correct, he is going to hear some kind of state of the nation address from the Minister of Finance. I hope, and I hope the member will hope too, that the Minister of Finance is going to have some measures in his statement that will apply nationwide, with which we may be able to co-operate.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. He will be aware that the Conference Board of Canada predictions indicate that the unemployment statistics will hold true only if government policy remains the same; that the only variable is a change in government policy. Is the Treasurer willing to indicate to the Legislature and to the people of this province today that government policy for this province will change? Is he willing to state that job creation, the expansion of consumer buying power and a long-term industrial strategy will become the priorities of this government instead of its fighting inflation through the control of wages, which is now the priority?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, they are not by any means at all contradictory or mutually exclusive. I am sure the honourable member knows that. The major problems of unemployment are in the private sector. The major problems of inflation, as we saw them, were being created by increases in the salaries of people who were not subject to the changes in the marketplace. That is why we took the action to create jobs.

Mr. Peterson: Can I ask the Treasurer why he is so frightened to be forthcoming about any plans he has? Today, again, he said: "Well, maybe the new federal Minister of Finance may say something in his statement tomorrow." The Treasurer always cops out of his responsibility. Does he have any ideas? Why is he so frightened to be forthcoming? Is he just negotiating with them, trying to barter with them? Is he just trying to deflect the responsibility? Or is it his position that he does not have any responsibility in this matter?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have never tried to say I did not have responsibility. If I did not think I had, I would not want the job I have. I try to put my responsibility in a relative measure to that which the federal government has; it has a lot more than I have.

CADILLAC FAIRVIEW

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is aware of the sale from Cadillac Fairview to Greymac Credit Corp. of some 11,000 rental units in the city of Toronto. Obviously, as the minister concerned with the rent review legislation, he has to be very concerned about the possible result of that sale on those tenants. I want to know the minister's view of that sale and what is he doing now to protect those tenants.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition, who was part of the whole process from 1975 on when rent control was introduced, knows that the government, with concurrence of members of this House, introduced a rent review program which involved a guideline of six per cent and which involved the cost pass-through principle. That is a principle which the Liberal Party has publicly supported over the years as being a reasonable and rational one, in spite of the fact that some of the members opposite think the whole rent control process is economic insanity. Having said that, let me say that by and large the rent control program has served the tenants of this province well.

We are all running into problems now with respect to inflation and the problems that evolved from inflation, particularly high interest rates. Individuals, home owners and property owners are faced with those problems particularly when they refinance their properties at increased mortgage rates or, in the case the Leader of the Opposition is referring to, when a property is sold.

I think our obligation, and it has been the obligation of the rent review process, is to make sure there is no collusive relationship between people selling properties. I hope we can make certain that it is a reasonable sort of sale. I have not heard anyone suggest that it is not a reasonable price, but of course those are matters that will be fully disclosed when more details are known about it.

What we are doing is to continue to make certain that the rent review process is fair and well-funded. Last week, cabinet and Management Board approved an additional $2.5 million annually to add to the staff and to improve the availability of commissioners and staff to facilitate the rent review process. We are endeavouring to make that process work as well as it can and to serve the tenants and landlords of this province well.

Mr. Peterson: The minister has not satisfactorily answered my concerns about this particular transaction. He is aware that this transaction involves about five per cent of the controlled rental stock in Metro Toronto. Is the minister aware of the gigantic proportions of that? He is aware that this affects more than 20,000 tenants. He recognizes, at least on the surface, that it looks as if a high percentage of the financing for that sale will be passed through to the tenants.

I am sure the minister recognizes his responsibility in this very special and extraordinary situation. The only action I have seen so far is some passive promise perhaps to write a letter to the Foreign Investment Review Agency expressing some concerns. Will he not agree with me that his responsibility as the minister goes further than that and that he should be looking into this? Since it appears he is not prepared to do that, he should allow a select committee or a committee of this House to look into all aspects of that sale so we can satisfy ourselves that the tenants are not financing that purchase by foreign investors.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have outlined in detail my view of the rent control process. I also recognize my obligation and the government's, as well as that of the Legislature, to make certain it is a process that is constantly under review. I commit myself to that kind of process as I have in the past.

As to the issue of the sale itself, I have no problem in indicating to the Leader of the Opposition and other members that I will be happy to invite Greymac Credit Corp. in. I have never had discussions with them about this transaction to find out in greater detail the exact outline and nature of the sale and better to evaluate the impact on tenants. Surely the issue we have to face is to make sure that the system can phase in those increased financing costs in as fair a way as possible.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, a present guideline of the commission recommends that something in the neighbourhood of three years is a reasonable phase-in period and that the financing of more than 85 per cent not be allowed. Both of those guidelines have been challenged in one case that is now before the courts. It may be, if that challenge is successful, that we will have to look at the right of the Residential Tenancy Commission to do the things they have been doing, because I certainly think they have to be able to phase in increases like that.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree with the contentions of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations that this sale will put thousands of people on to the street and that it will result in an average increase of 30 per cent or more to tenants in those Cadillac Fairview buildings?

2:30 p.m.

In spite of warnings from the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations and from the New Democratic Party over the last couple of years that the major single component in rent increases would be the turnover and refinancing of buildings and that a major component of that was offshore speculation, can the minister tell us why he has not responded to requests in this House for an inquiry into the effect of offshore speculation on increasing rents in this province?

Can he tell this House what position his government will have when FIRA comes to him and asks whether or not he feels this sale is in the public interest?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the House the results of any review, if there is going to be one, by the federal government. It would be foolish to make a commitment without having seen the findings. The member should not expect anyone to do that.

We have to continue to look at the rent review process to make certain it is treating tenants as well as landlords fairly. I personally have concerns about reports of rapid turnover of properties, and I will continue to look at those issues to see if there is any appropriate approach that I might recommend to the government if it is indeed a real problem that is facing people.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a note from my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan). He says: "The sale of real estate is like the sale of high-priced breeding animals owned by country gentlemen. They enhance the price of the animals by buying each other's bulls. 'You buy my bull and I will buy your bull.'" We do not buy the minister's bull on this question.

We have an extraordinary situation here. This is not routine. This is not run of the mill. The minister is responding late all the time. A couple of weeks ago, he did not even know it was before FIRA. Yesterday I gather he said he might send a letter to FIRA expressing some point of view. We are going to be in this House a year from now discussing how to handle massive rent increases arising out of this sale if we do not deal with it now. We have an opportunity to deal with this emergency situation now.

Will the minister permit this matter to go before a committee of this Legislature for a thorough scrutiny by all members of this House to make sure the legislation is fair in the circumstances and is not just encouraging people to roll over buildings and pass the prices to the tenants?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if there are any matters the government thinks should be brought before the House for legislative purposes, I will be pleased to have a committee of the House review them, as it would in the ordinary course of events anyway. We like to feel that the ministry, our staff and others we consult with over issues will be able to face the issues in a legitimate way. I would expect the member would agree that is the role of the government and the role of the ministry.

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister responsible for the administered prices program of the government, will he tell us in which of the following fields the program has been successful: Ontario health insurance plan fees, milk prices, natural gas prices, chronic care copayment fees, liquor prices, rents, motor vehicle licences and gasoline prices in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not able to write down all the items the member listed. He knows very well many of them are in the private sector. It is of great concern to all of us that the Prime Minister of Canada has already ruled out a wage and price control program in the private sector. He would have been much wiser -- and I suggest the member probably agrees with him -- to wait until one gets a better idea of the effectiveness of the public sector program that is being proposed.

I think the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) addressed the issue of OHIP fees very clearly. He indicated that the decision on the fee increase was made last May and was not part of this process. He also indicated, however, that he would be very sympathetic to the whole process when the issue was considered again in the spring, and I will be interested in that process as well.

The issue of natural gas increases has not yet come before the committee and, as members know, the committee cannot be formally constituted although it is operating on an informal basis until the legislation is completed.

Mr. Foulds: As the minister has rightly identified in the list I outlined, increases range from a minimum of six per cent to a maximum of 140 per cent. Can he tell us how he can have this double standard where he says that on the items I have listed, the decisions were made prior to his introduction of the government program, whereas the legislation is rolling back contracts about which a decision was made in good faith prior to the introduction of the program? Can he explain that inconsistency?

Can he tell us why the people of the province should accept his program when it does nothing? It has failed on every major front to keep the costs to consumers in health care, transportation, food and housing within his guidelines. How can they accept this program in good faith?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and I had a discussion the other day about, for example, food as an item on the consumer price index. At that time we commented on the dramatic reduction there had been in the food portion of the index.

Indeed, the September figures are even more startling across Canada, indicating that food prices constitute about 5.5 per cent of the consumer price index on the September basis. So perhaps the voluntary aspect of the program and the talk about the need to practise restraint and tighten our belts is having some effect.

I have to tell my friend I do not know any way to deal with the problems that face us today other than by facing the problem of inflation. I have not heard realistic talk from the member about how to face that problem.

I heard of one rebel in his party in Ottawa who came out with a statement about the need for wage and price controls, but I have not heard any member of that party here supporting him on that issue. If he wants to have some positive effect on inflation, he should support some programs that are aimed at dealing with it.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree with me that we are going to see the kinds of problems raised by the New Democratic Party increasing and that there are too many holes in his legislation on the price side?

The fact that he is not including his friends the doctors is lending a serious credibility problem to that legislation. We have heard nothing from the minister, as the wage and price czar in this province, about Ontario Hydro's rates, which are coming out this afternoon. Why is he not exercising his responsibility to make sure everybody knows that everything falls into line in this province, both prices and wages?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition really believes the price control system will be a perfect one. We will endeavour to make it as good as we humanly can. I have indicated to the member the criteria on which we will base that review. Hydro's rates will be subject to review as well.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the minister well knows he does not intend to do anything at all about controlling prices. He does much less on price control than other provinces in this country. Milk and auto insurance rates are examples where many other provinces exercise some control. He knows that natural gas for home heating and other purposes is an administered price over which he has control. Does he know that Consumers' Gas --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: This is the question, Mr. Speaker. Does he know that Consumers' Gas has not changed its 15 per cent increase request to the Ontario Energy Board since he tabled his bill, except to say that the wage increases of its employees should be reduced to five per cent?

In view of the tremendous increase of 35 per cent which Consumers' Gas received last year, if the minister is now sincere and wants the people of this province to be sincere in doing something about excessive prices, will he freeze Consumers' Gas income for a one-year period?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, although the issue is not one that has come before the cabinet committee, it is my understanding that Consumers' Gas has agreed to conform to the guidelines with respect to its cost within this province.

The member says wage increases would be held to five per cent. Having said that, he also knows the employees of the gas company are not subject to the wage control program, so that reduction in income will have to come out of some other aspect of its operations.

He also knows, because I know he is an intelligent man who reads about the world's problems --

Interjections.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I ask the Premier (Mr. Davis), was I wrong? Is he not an intelligent man who reads about the world's problems? I think the Premier is wrong. I think he is such a man. Is there no applause for that? Goodness gracious.

He knows very well this government can have no control over the cost of gas as it relates to the Alberta-Ottawa and Saskatchewan-Ottawa agreements. He knows very well this government has no control over the cost of gas in the trans-Canada pipeline. He also knows that the federal government, recognizing that, exempted energy from its control program. He should not say we are not doing anything; we are doing something nobody else is doing.

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay). Is the minister aware that female employees at the Essex County Board of Education have been forced to undergo extensive medical examinations, including internal examinations and the taking of bust measurements, as a condition of employment? Can the minister tell us what this possibly has to do with being a competent typist?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I was unaware any such requirement was established by any board of education anywhere, but I would remind the member that if that were established I guess it would have been the decision of the administration of that board, and that board is a duly elected body responsible to its own taxpayers.

Mr. Foulds: May I ask the minister to refer the matter to the Minister of Labour, who is absent today, because the three complaints that have come to our attention have come from employees who are on probation. Two of them are on a probationary period for one year and one for three months.

From her previous experience as Minister of Labour, the minister will understand that employees in probationary periods face some emotional stress. They must tolerate these examinations in spite of their personal objections. Will the minister have the Minister of Labour investigate this action, and will she have him take action to protect all female employees of boards of education and other employees from this kind of examination?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Of course I shall refer it to the Minister of Labour. It was my understanding that all employers in the province would be aware at this time, after the discussions that took place around that piece of legislation, that only those aspects of a physical examination which had a direct bearing upon the responsibilities to be assumed by the potential employee were appropriate for inclusion in a physical examination. I shall most certainly speak to my colleague and ask him to investigate this.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kerrio: I have a new question.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: I thought the Liberal Party might be interested in the issue, Mr. Speaker. Given the conditions the minister outlined in her last answer, where it is a requirement for the employment involved, could she at least push for the condition that an employee who requires that kind of examination be allowed to have it done by her own doctor?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is a circumstance which is prevalent in many instances but not all. In large organizations, frequently the physician employed by the company utilizes not only the information received from the patient's own physician but also whatever additional examination is considered appropriate.

I do not think the member is suggesting that anyone should employ an individual without at least trying to make sure that individual is unlikely to have an acute attack which is perhaps going to limit her employability within a very short time of being employed. I do not think it matters whether the employer's doctor or the individual's doctor carries out the examination as long as that examination is appropriate to the employment.

CYANAMID CANADA INC.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Is the minister aware of the petition filed with the cabinet on October 20 by Cyanamid Canada Inc. regarding natural gas price increases? That petition states:

"If Cyanamid does not obtain substantial relief in its natural gas costs immediately, there is a strong likelihood that Cyanamid will close down its nitrogen production at the end of the fertilizer season next spring. This will mean over 1,000 more people unemployed in Ontario, 700 of them at Niagara Falls Garner Road plant, and will have a substantial detrimental effect on other business in the Niagara area."

Has the minister examined the possible occurrence of these layoffs? In view of the devastating effect that skyrocketing gas increases are having on industry, what is he going to do to redress this situation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, I am aware of the presentation. Indeed, there have been other representations made to this government, to the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) and myself, on this issue.

As the honourable member knows, there is a task force put together by the government of Canada, because this is obviously a reflection on the energy costing and pricing agreement between the producing provinces and the government of Canada. This government views quite seriously the economic impact of this, and the whole matter of the consequences flowing from the federal-provincial agreement dealing with pricing is at present under review.

Mr. Kerrio: In view of the fact that the end product of nitrogen contains some two thirds of its cost in natural gas, and that the Cyanamid plant in Niagara is paying 25 cents per 1,000 cubic feet more than CIL and 22 cents more than Nitrochem, and that the Ontario Energy Board is responsible for setting the price structure, how can this plant compete within the confines of Ontario when, under the jurisdiction of the OEB, we do not have fair pricing across the province?

How is the minister going to redress that problem when he heard in the estimates that the gas companies are getting a return on their investment and it does not have much to do with having equitable prices across the province? How will the minister address himself to those problems?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The honourable member knows, because he is the critic for this ministry and he has been at the estimates, that we have nothing to do with establishing the wholesale price of natural gas. What does the OEB have to do with setting wholesale prices? That is the subject matter of an agreement between the government of Canada and the producing provinces and that is where this problem originates. We have been asked to give consideration to it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister will know that Consumers' Gas increased its markup by 60 per cent in the award that was made last February. This markup was three or four times greater than has ever been awarded before. Recognizing the fact that the government does have substantial control over gas prices, does the minister feel that award giving the gas company a 35 per cent increase was justified?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is not supplementary to the question at all, and I think the honourable member knows it.

I want to point out to this House that the problem raised by the member for Niagara Falls is a very serious one affecting the economic livelihood of a lot of people who come from the Niagara Peninsula, where the member and I seek some support. I think we should address the question that is before this House, which is what the member for Niagara Falls invites us to do, and not get sidetracked on some other issue with respect to this matter. The member for Welland-Thorold knows better.

2:50 p.m.

ENUMERATION OF FRENCH-SPEAKING VOTERS

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on a subject which I know is a matter of some conscience for him.

The minister will be aware that on the municipal enumeration sheets there is the following question, "Do you wish your name to be on the electors' list for French-language school purposes?" But are the minister and the government aware that in my own city of Hamilton, informed observers estimate that of some 12,000 electors, at least half have not had that question asked of them in the process of enumeration, and that inquiries into the surrounding districts likewise reveal very haphazard attempts to elicit an answer to that question?

Is the minister also aware that the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario estimates that 10 of its 20 districts have not had that question asked of their members, and that the French-language school trustees refer to the situation as a disaster?

What do the minister and his colleagues propose to do to retrieve this disaster for those undertaking to carry out responsible duties under the Education Act? What does he propose to do to ensure this does not happen again?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that numbers of people were not asked the question. I would have no way of knowing that. I am aware that some complaints, not a great number, have been directed to our attention from people who said they were not asked the question and from others who said the question was asked incorrectly. I suppose that kind of comment could be made by many people about many of the questions in the enumeration process.

We agreed with the Franco-Ontarian groups to undertake this as another way to get a list of French-language electors in this province. I fully supported this way of doing it and believed it was worth trying. If we have not arrived at the point where we can get the proper list through this process, we will work with the groups to work out some way to get the proper list.

Beyond that, I am not responsible for the carrying out of the enumeration function. I suggest the member should direct that question to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), who carries out the enumeration.

Mr. Allen: In some measure, I am heartened by the fact that the minister indicates some undertaking will be made to ensure that adequate lists are provided in the future. None the less, when the government has undertaken an extensive program to publicize the importance of these particular municipal elections, which are going to be for a three-year duration, so the franchise is much more important than it normally is --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: Will the minister assure us that in future enumerators will be properly instructed so that they will ask a simple question? Since the attempt has been made twice before with some satisfactory results, will he not, in this instance, persuade his colleagues to order a new enumeration in those districts where it can be ascertained that the question was not seriously asked on a systematic basis?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, we could not order a new enumeration. I must emphasize to my friend that when we were talking about how this could be done, we underlined to the groups that there would probably be problems with it. It is exactly the same kind of process that goes on when we have enumerations for provincial and federal elections. There is always a multitude of complaints about the way the enumeration is carried out.

We underlined to these people that this was a new question that had never been on the form, that we were using a large group of people who would be instructed to carry out this enumeration in the province, but that we could not promise absolute 100 per cent results from the process.

Before everybody gets all worked up about it, they should first of all get the lists, which should be made public. We will make sure the lists are made public so that people can see the list of French-language electors. They can get the list and take a look at the list first, and then, if there is a complaint, we can study the list together with the Franco-Ontarian groups.

I have written the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) or the French-language groups and told them the list should not be used as the sole basis for electing the French-language advisory committees -- in other words, it is not the final definitive list of people who can vote for French-language advisory committees -- so there should be no problem there. Anyone who comes forward and qualifies at the electors' meetings will be allowed to vote for French-language advisory committees, as they have in the past.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is investigating the issue of questionable enumeration practices, would he take a look at a petition that was tabled with one of his colleagues, the member for Durham York (Mr. Stevenson), in which area residents are extremely concerned because several dozen members of a gun club, who do not reside in their community, are being allowed to vote because of their membership in the gun club? The petition was tabled with the minister. Could he please check into those questionable enumeration practices?

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, that is not a supplementary to the main question.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) but he is not in the House. I do not really know to whom I should address it, so I will wait until tomorrow.

MUNICIPAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Eventually, when he is prepared to give his assurance or make his announcement, the question will have great ramifications for the municipal taxpayers in the province.

In view of the fact that municipalities and boards of education, at least at the staff level, are beginning their process of looking at next year's budget, and in view of the fact that they must meet special mandated obligations, such as I discussed with the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) the other day -- Bill 82 and the cost associated with that; or in the case of municipalities, the pollution abatement cost of removing phosphates -- would the minister assure the House today that the level of payments transferred from the province will be in excess of the five per cent which he is placing as the restriction on salaries and wages in order that they can meet those special responsibilities, many of which have been mandated by the provincial government?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I cannot, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bradley: Would the Treasurer not agree that while the municipalities would likely anticipate a lower level of transfer payment from the Treasurer than had been anticipated earlier this year before his restraint program, they still have to meet their own obligations for their own programs, many of them now pared to the bone, and they also have to meet programs and stipulations put forth by the provincial government?

Would he not agree that if he does not take action to provide the municipalities with sufficient funds to carry out their operations, both their own initiatives and those mandated by the province, the burden will fall ultimately on the property taxpayer, who will be paying the most regressive form of tax at a rate well above five per cent?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have pointed out to this House before that the share of family income represented by property taxes has been dropping at a time when most other taxes have gone up. I pointed out in my budget that the municipalities of Ontario should not expect to get inflation this year. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has indicated they would get little, if any, increase in their grants this year. I believe they have all, collectively, been doing their best to tailor their spending with that expectation in mind.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, would the Treasurer give us his assurance that at the very least he would adjust the grants so that where there is clearly an impact on a municipal budget because of the actions of this government, that impact would be covered? He made some assurances in his budget that the impact on sales tax and licensing provisions would be reflected in his grants next year. For example, when a minister, such as the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), just put another $800,000 into the region of Durham municipal social services obligations, will the Treasurer now move to give us some assurances that he will at least help them to recover those costs, which they did not anticipate and which are a direct reflection of actions of the government?

3 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any assurance that increased costs are going to be met by us. I have to point out to my colleague that I have had a major reduction in the share I am getting from the federal government already. There are rumours around that it may be cut further.

WINDSOR TESTING FACILITY

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister report to the Legislature on the status of the establishment of a testing facility in the Windsor-Essex-Kent area for those individuals who have the disease of malignant hyperthermia, and on whether the government is willing to commit the necessary funds so that the testing can occur in our area for the approximately 1,200 people who are suspected of having this particular disease?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I know this problem is of great concern to all of us. The member for Windsor-Riverside wrote me about this matter at an earlier time and has expressed his concern several times since then.

I am able to report that the ministry is willing to commit the appropriate funds to make sure that the test is available in southwestern Ontario. Currently the ministry is trying to locate a hospital and a doctor willing to undertake this very difficult and complex test. We have had discussions with the Essex County District Health Council, and in turn, they have had discussions with many of the hospitals in Windsor with regard to undertaking this particular test.

A further meeting is scheduled for about the middle of November, at which time we may have some more definitive answers with regard to whether any of the hospitals have staff who are willing to undertake this procedure. If they do, then the ministry will fund it immediately.

RETAIL GASOLINE VENDORS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade, which refers to a document put out by the Petroleum Resources Communication Foundation entitled, Pump Price Breakdowns across Canada for September 1982.

Given that this is Small Business Week in Ontario and that the minister should be conscious of and supportive of retail operators of service stations as small business, can he tell me why the retail operators in Ontario receive a dealer margin per litre which is the lowest of all Canadian provinces? Ontario dealers get 2.2 cents a litre compared with 4.7 cents in Newfoundland, 4.2 cents in Prince Edward Island, 3.9 cents in Nova Scotia, 3.6 cents in New Brunswick, 3.4 cents in Saskatchewan and 3.6 cents in British Columbia.

Why do our small businessmen get the smallest margin per litre in all of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot well knows that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) asked this very question just three days ago, and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations undertook to provide additional information that related to it.

Mr. Sweeney: Can this minister, as a member of cabinet, explain why it is that, because of decisions taken by this government, of which he is a member, Ontario now charges at the pump, in the form of taxes and other government charges -- royalties and all of those things taken into consideration -- 68 per cent of the pump price? That is the second highest price in Canada. Could it be that the small business operators in Ontario are being ripped off by their own government? Is this why they receive such a small amount?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the member has to keep in mind who regulates the actual pump prices. The federal and provincial governments do not regulate the prices of petroleum products.

The second thing the member must keep in mind is that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has undertaken to provide additional information related to it. This is part of his jurisdiction and he will be reporting to this House on it. The member should pay him the courtesy of giving him the opportunity of replying to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

LESLIE STREET SPIT

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment on the Leslie Street spit again.

The results of the pesticide testing done on soils being trucked to the Leslie Street spit clearly indicate that the ministry's control program will not stop all of the soil contaminated with banned pesticides from getting to the spit, basically because all of the sites that were identified as containing contaminated soils have not been designated for control.

This means we have taken and will continue to take soil containing banned pesticides and dump it on to that spit site. When is the minister prepared to expand the control program to cover all soils being trucked and dumped at the spit?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, for I think at least the third time in the last two weeks, that is the same question the honourable member has asked. I will offer him the same answer.

The program we now have in place is a prototype we will be monitoring for effectiveness over the next few months. At the conclusion of that time, I will make a decision as to whether it is applicable to a broader area or whether it ought to be more inclusive within the Metropolitan Toronto area as well.

Mr. Charlton: Surely the minister is aware that the pesticides that were identified in the soil samples tested correspond to or are the same pesticides that were identified in a report by his ministry last fall, November 1981 -- a summary report on the effects of dredging, soils disposal and lake-filling activities on water quality in the Toronto waterfront. The pesticides in this present set of tests are the same pesticides as that study identified as being present in waters at the H. R. Harris filtration plant.

That study last fall was a study of the dredging problem. This information now clearly indicates the relationship between the dredging study and the environmental assessment that is going on around the dredging study. Will the minister now make the spit dumping issue a part of the environmental assessment around dredging?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am reasonably familiar with what is going on out there, but when the member starts making reference to these studies without identifying more precisely what he is talking about, even I get confused and I assume the other members in the House have no idea what he is talking about.

I would suggest that the member bear in mind that the water quality monitoring that is going on in that area has not indicated any degradation of the water quality in the area of the spit. The answer to the second part of his question, with regard to expanding the environmental assessment to include the spit, remains the same as it was yesterday or the day before: no.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the House today who are the owners of the Leslie Street spit area and whether or not they will be required to apply for a certificate, as I have asked on other occasions?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the issue of ownership, as I understand it, is a matter of some legal debate at the moment.

Mr. Bradley: What is your best guess?

Hon. Mr. Norton: What is my best guess? Even though I am sure the member recognizes my expertise in the law, I would not wish to usurp the responsibility of the law officers of the crown and others. I will allow them to discharge their responsibilities and earn their living and wait until they have come to some conclusion on the matter.

3:10 p.m.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. A letter was sent on October 20 to tomato growers in the counties of Kent and Essex by Southland Canning of Wheatley, in which they say they are unable to meet the terms of payment in their payment schedule. In view of this, will the minister take steps to provide financial protection, under the Farm Products Payments Act, to food producers before rather than after the event, as was the case with the McIntyre bankruptcy case in which he moved quickly and got protection for cattle and hog producers? Will the minister do this for the many other agricultural products that are in jeopardy due to our economic times?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member raised this matter, inasmuch as my staff gave him the answers to that several days ago.

In the matter of the Southland company, the honourable member knows that the assistance which was afforded to that company some time ago through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program was done in such a way that we have a secured position with respect to that company. Potentially, that money could be used if, in fact, it came to that, to pay the bulk of the money owing to the growers.

Also, the member probably will know that the company has a very significant inventory of processed products in its warehouses and is having problems moving it due to a problem with imported produce, I believe from Italy and Spain or Portugal. That leads to another matter: the question of whether or not that constitutes dumping. As the member knows, that is being pursued through the appropriate channels with the federal government. We have some very serious doubts about what is going on there with respect to those imported products.

Coming back to the broader question, the member is suggesting that we move away from what is essentially a voluntary program under the existing legislation to a compulsory program covering all commodities. I really think we are not at the point where we would be in a position to make it mandatory for every grower in the province.

Mr. McGuigan: Does the minister realize that while the government may be protected, farmers are extremely anxious? One young farmer who called me lost his crops last year due to bad weather, and he is owed $40,000. He is under the farm adjustment assistance program, which gives an indication of his financial health. That young farmer is extremely worried. Does the minister realize that technically the company is in bankruptcy today because it cannot meet its ordinary payments? If someone moved on them and forced the sale of that inventory at fire-sale prices -- and I have seen this happen in my experience in farming; in fact, I have been the victim of it -- that farmer will get very little.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not for a moment questioning the concern of growers, collectively or individually. In this particular case, at the time that BILD assistance was afforded to that company someone had the foresight to secure that assistance, in effect as a second mortgage, so that if it came to the worst we would be in a position to recover at least a portion and thereby be able to assist the growers.

On the broader question, the member is suggesting that rather than a voluntary program which has been available for -- the member can correct me -- I think, five or six years since the legislation was put through, it should be made compulsory on every single grower of every single commodity in the province to participate. I do not think we are at the point where we could do that.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy. I have just been informed that Ontario Hydro has made an announcement with regard to its rates. I would like to ask the minister, why did he not make an announcement in the House today? Am I correct in saying the amount announced for the rates is an increase of 8.3 per cent? If so, does the minister not agree that is unreasonable and not in line with the government restraint program?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Ontario Hydro organization was to make an announcement some time this afternoon with respect to its rates. I have not received a formal communication from Ontario Hydro, but I will have that information and be glad to comment once I have that officially from the chairman of Hydro. I would remind the honourable member that at eight o'clock this evening, the standing committee on resources development is meeting. It is still considering the estimates of the ministry, and Ontario Hydro and its representatives will be at that meeting.

Mr. Swart: In view of the in-depth understanding that the minister must have of Hydro, I am surprised, first of all, that he did not know what the increase was going to be. Also, I would ask him --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I did not say that.

Mr. Swart: -- in view of the concern he must have for hydro rates and the examination he would have done, would he not agree that rate is excessive? Is he prepared to make an announcement now that he will appeal it to the Inflation Restraint Board?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Let the record show that is not what the honourable member asked me in his first question. He asked if I had the official notification. I must say the member is using a figure I am not familiar with as well. I think the House would be best served when we have the official notification from Ontario Hydro, which has the responsibility to establish the rates. I am quite familiar with what the rates will be.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have notice right here from Hydro. He has notice. Is the minister telling us he does not know? Is that what he is telling us? Ridiculous. He is now getting an average increase of 8.4 per cent. That is what he is announcing. Is the minister denying that?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: He did not have the temerity to come into this House and tell us what it is. It flies in the face of the minister's own restraint program. He has extra revenue this year from his sales to Vermont and Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. He could have brought this within the restraint guidelines to give credibility to his own program. Why did he not do it? Does Ontario Hydro run the minister or does he run it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Perhaps in the coolness of the balance of the afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition would reread the question of the member for Welland-Thorold with respect to what he asked me and the rates he quoted. When the Leader of the Opposition calms down I will be glad to share the facts with him. I am quite familiar with the process. Under the circumstances, Hydro will announce the rates. In fact, once they are announced we will be glad to comment on them.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Van Horne: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In regard to written questions, I refer to section 81(d) of our standing orders. On September 22, I put in a written question to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) regarding the appointment of Mr. Ted Browne to the position of Master of the Supreme Court in London. The answer is not forthcoming; not even an interim answer. Could I direct to the government House leader, in the absence of the minister, that at least an interim answer should be provided?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister will take note of your remarks. For the information of the honourable member, that was a point of order, not a point of privilege.

Mr. Peterson: It was a good point in any event.

PETITIONS

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF HOUSING

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions signed by 20 members of this caucus. The first one is as follows:

"Under standing order 33(b), we, the undersigned, petition that the annual report of the Ministry of Housing for the year ending March 31, 1981, be referred to the standing committee on general government."

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: For the information of the honourable member, I point out that the Minister of Housing is not required by statute to table an annual report. Therefore, your petition is out of order.

Mr. Epp: It is time he did.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed, may I make a statement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I would like to advise all honourable members that the petition presented by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) to petition the annual report of the Ministry of Housing has been reconsidered. The Ministry of Housing no longer exists and therefore cannot table a report. However, that responsibility is now carried by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and they are by statute required to table a report, although they have not yet done so, I am advised. When they do, I would be pleased to entertain the petition of the member for Waterloo North if he still so desires.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, as you recall, my petition specifically referred to the report for 1981.

Interjection.

Mr. Epp: Yes. I certainly agree with you and I want to thank you for the decision.

Mr. Speaker: It was clearly just a mixup in names with the change of the names of the ministries.

ANNUAL REPORT, RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition signed by 20 members:

"Under standing order 33(b), we, the undersigned, petition that the annual report of the Residential Tenancy Commission for the year ending March 31, 1982, be referred to the standing committee on general government."

Mr. Speaker: I advise the member that this petition is acceptable and therefore is in order.

ST. LAWRENCE REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, for the record, I have a petition, containing approximately 3,500 signatures, which makes reference to the possible closure of the St. Lawrence Regional Centre in Brockville. It states that such a closure not only would result in unnecessary hardship being placed upon the clients of St. Lawrence Regional Centre but also would result in the loss of much-needed revenue and jobs in that community.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing committee on resources development, Mr. J. A. Reed for Mr. Wrye; on the standing committee on general government, Mr. Haggerty for Mr. Cunningham, Mr. McKessock for Mr. Bradley and Mr. Eakins for Mr. Ruprecht.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Conway, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the current and continuing crisis in the rental housing market in Ontario and, in particular, the impending disastrous consequences for thousands of Ontario residents arising as a result of a recent rental residential property transaction between Cadillac Fairview Corp. and the Greymac Credit Corp.

Mr. Speaker: I beg to advise all honourable members that this notice of motion was received on time and does, indeed, comply with the standing order. I will be pleased to listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes as to why he thinks the ordinary business of this House should be set aside.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have five minutes to persuade you, and I hope you will consider my arguments seriously. I recognize that others may argue it is not an emergency today, that it could have been one yesterday or perhaps will be next week. It is very difficult in a transaction of this nature to isolate the particular day it is an emergency as opposed to a nonemergency.

I draw attention, for example, to the great Sudbury question on which we have had emergency debates. It is very difficult to argue that there is a greater emergency one day as opposed to another day. The reality is that at some time we have to come to grips with this question in this House. I put that argument to you and ask for your understanding, Mr. Speaker.

Today is a particularly significant day in the sense that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) made some pronouncements yesterday that were feeble, in our view, in that they did not address what we consider to be a developing major problem. I know we could leave this matter for a year, but then we would surely have an emergency debate and would be wondering what to do.

We can see an emergency coming. All the facts indicate to us that we are walking into a transaction which, because of its size, will have disastrous consequences for the rental market in Ontario, particularly in Metro Toronto. We are going to have to address our minds specifically to some protection for those tenants.

There has been a very distinct paucity of information on the whole Greymac deal. The minister has been monumentally uninformed on this. If one looks at his public pronouncements on who Greymac is, whether it was foreign or domestic money and whether it was serious, he appears to have absolutely no knowledge of the situation; either it is that, or he tends to wash his hands of the situation.

Let me assure the minister that we are talking about five per cent of the controlled rental housing in this city. That is huge and, of course, it has ramifications for the entire rental market. As the minister knows, if these prices go up, they could lead to price-fed inflation or acceleration in prices for all the rental units in the city of Toronto. If it were just one or two units, it would not have that effect; but it is of such consequence that we in our party believe it bears looking into.

I do not have to remind the minister that we have a crisis in this province. The vacancy rates are about 0.3 to 0.4 per cent. We have a terrible backlog in rent review. If this transaction goes through, it is obvious that most of it will go to rent review and that we will see an increased backlog at the rent review level in spite of the infusion of cash which the minister has put into the entire matter.

We know that the issue here is really the impact of a transfer of ownership on rents in this province. We can see, and there is some speculation, that rents may go up 30 to 40 per cent to finance these kinds of purchases. As my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) said to me, it is like gentleman farmers selling bulls back and forth, and just because the transaction takes place, the price goes up more and more.

We believe we need a thorough debate on this subject. It is an emergency. We also have to use other devices that we have available as the opposition. A committee should review this entire situation and talk to Leonard Rosenberg, the president of Greymac and the brother of Morley Rosenberg, to look at all the ramifications of this and perhaps have a thorough review of our rent review legislation at this time.

I assure the members that I know the government does not have the same view that I have on this matter. I understand that the government House leader (Mr. Wells) does not want to interfere with this particular schedule; he has a vested interest in the Malvern bill. I respectfully submit that nothing is more important than this issue, if we could start a debate on it. I am sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) is going to have some very serious views on this question, because he, like the rest of us, has to be concerned about the amount of rental stock in this city as well as in a variety of other cities, such as Ottawa and London, where we are facing a crisis.

This transaction could so exacerbate this crisis that a year from now we are going to be using all our legislative creativity to try to solve some of these problems. Let us use our capacity to anticipate by discussing it now, by looking at that legislation, by looking at how we can make sure this simple sale -- which affects the tenants in no way to the better except to increase their rents, at least potentially -- does not come about, and by looking at how we can make sure this does not assume the potentially disastrous proportions it could.

It is a big situation, Mr. Speaker. It needs a favourable ruling from you.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, our party believes there is an emergency. We find a certain irony in the fact that the Liberal Party has suddenly expressed concern about this problem, since it is the very party --

Mr. Boudria: What have you been doing?

Mr. Philip: I am about to outline what we have been doing. It is the very party --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: The Liberal Party is the very party that, together with the Conservatives, voted thousands of tenants out of rent review in 1977. It is the very party that advocated, along with its federal counterparts, the lessening and weakening of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Indeed, it is the very party that has voted against tenants on issue after issue in this House.

We find an irony in the fact that this party, whose federal counterpart is advocating the complete dissolution of rent review, should suddenly come forth with this motion. None the less, we will support it.

3:30 p.m.

The Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations has pointed out to the minister --

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: I can tell that we are pointing out their hypocrisy, and they do not like it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that if he will, please.

Mr. Philip: Hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is a good word and is parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not, and it is not acceptable.

Mr. Philip: Then I will withdraw the word "hypocrisy."

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I know that party does not like its two-facedness being pointed out.

The fact is that the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations has pointed out to the minister that this transaction, if it goes through, will put thousands of people on to the street, unable to pay the increased rents. It will also result in rent hikes of 30 per cent or more for many people in this city.

This is a crisis because this government has failed to act on the warnings given over the years by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations and by the New Democratic Party.

In April 1981, our party moved a no-confidence motion condemning the government for not acting on speculation by foreign investors in land and housing in this province. At that time it was the Liberal Party that voted with the Conservatives against that motion.

In February 1982, the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations pointed out that the largest increases awarded by the Residential Tenancy Commission are based on the increased financing costs experienced by tenants after the resale of buildings. It made specific proposals to the minister at that time and the minister chose to ignore them.

On September 23, 1982, I introduced a private member's bill which would have plugged loopholes in the present rent review act and which would have frozen the maximum amount a landlord could obtain for one year even under rent review. This bill also provided that the Residential Tenancy Commission would have the power to investigate such matters as the foreign takeover of rental accommodation. The government expressed absolutely no interest in it.

On October 14, and again today, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to spell out exactly what his position is on the foreign takeover of rental accommodation in this province. The minister has failed to give us that position.

We have a crisis. The crisis is the result of long-standing inaction by this government dealing with the very specific issue addressed in the motion. We need an emergency debate at this time. The public has a right to know what this government's position is on the foreign takeover of rental accommodation in this province.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to believe there is anything in what the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Etobicoke has said that would warrant you to reach the conclusion that an emergency debate on this issue is required.

The Leader of the Opposition has pointed to the need to address ourselves to the housing shortage in the province. I remind him that it is this Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing who has endeavoured to address those issues, as the member knows very well, probably more innovatively than anybody else in the country and certainly more successfully than anybody else in the country.

The rental construction loan program has resulted in some 16,000 units being approved. There are some 6,000 in Metro: 2,000 already available, with the other 4,000 under way. I think that is a legitimate response to some of the problems facing us in the housing market. That does not mean there are not continuing problems, but I think it is fair to say this minister is endeavouring to address them in appropriate ways.

I might also remind the member that the renter-buy program, which aims at freeing some rental accommodation, has been very successful to date. There have been some 7,000 applications to date, likely all approved, half of them in Metro and half of them from renters. That will free further units in this city. We have an innovative and creative response to the housing-shortage problem in this city.

On the other hand, we have a federal government that promised 10,000 units in this province, of which 6,000 were to be for Metro. I have to tell the member it is not living up to that commitment. To date it has had only 3,000 applications and 1,300 have qualified for assistance.

The minister of housing has continued to press the federal government in areas the member and I happen to agree on, to free more money for nonprofit and co-operative housing, because, as the member does and as members of that party do, we see that as a very important aspect of the whole problem.

The other issue the member raised was that of rent control and the sale of property. We both know that rent control was put into place because of our mutual concern about exorbitant increases. We agreed, as a parliament, that a six per cent guideline with a pass-through of costs seemed to be a reasonable approach. It is clearly on the record that the member has supported that principle, in spite of the fact that a previous Housing critic and another member felt the six per cent guideline should be raised, and in spite of the fact that one member of that party feels it is economic insanity and a social necessity, admittedly, to be in this area.

With the co-operation of the House, we have endeavoured to put in place a system that treats tenants and landlords fairly. By and large, I think it has served the tenants of this province well. Even last year, 17 per cent of units went to rent review with an average increase of something in the neighbourhood of 14 to 16 per cent. So, by and large, the majority of tenants have been served well by this rent review system. That does not mean it is a system that must always be the same. As minister, I am always open to reviewing certain aspects of it.

The particular issue the member has raised is one of the purchase of a property in this province. There have been many properties purchased over the years, but the thing that concerns us all is that it affects a large number of people. I can understand their concern just as I can understand the impact of interest rates on all people, whether they are in business, are municipal property owners or, indeed, are tenants and landlords. What we have to have is a continuing rent protection program that is responsive to everybody's needs. I like to think that is the kind of system we all put in place together and, if it needs to be reviewed from time to time, I shall review it.

I do not know what the member is suggesting with respect to the Greymac-Cadillac Fairview purchase. To my mind, Cadillac has always been looked upon as an exemplary landlord, and I see no reason to suggest that Greymac may not be the same. I do have some concern about efforts to interfere with the sale of property, as I am sure the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) had when he introduced a resolution calling for this House to ask for an amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights calling for the protection of the enjoinment of property and freedom of disposition of that property.

I think the Leader of the Opposition should make sure his party is on side with all the things it is proposing in this House. I do not see that there are grounds here for an emergency debate.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully and with great interest to the arguments put forward by the representatives of the three parties. I might remind all honourable members that my responsibility is only to find whether the motion is in order, as indeed I do. Therefore, the question before the House is whether the debate shall proceed.

4 p.m.

The House divided on the question, "shall the debate proceed?" which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I.;

Newman, Nixon, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 46; nays 60.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I would like to table the answers to questions 108, 159, 174, 244, 256, 269 to 271, 277, 281, 493, 540 and 541, and the interim answers to questions 235, 264 to 268, 278, 279, 283 to 286, 288 to 293, 295 to 297, 300, 301, 305, 306, 308, 309, 312 to 485, 489 to 492, 502 to 508, 513 to 517, 519 to 528, 530 to 534 and 537, all of these standing on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Friday, October 29].

RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the response to a petition presented to the House, sessional paper 178 [see Hansard for Friday, October 29].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MALVERN WASTE REMOVAL ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 174, An Act to provide for the Removal of Certain Waste from the Malvern Area.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a number of comments to this particular bill and the manner in which it has been brought before the House.

I recall the words of advice that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) directed to the members opposite with respect to his concern that we not become members of the obstructionist group that is holding up the transfer of this soil out of the Malvern area. I cannot in all conscience speak to this bill and not voice our concerns about it, and I do not think Her Majesty's loyal opposition can be threatened into resignation over the passage of this bill. I have several concerns which force me to rise, and I want to start by saying a great number of them have to do with the environmental process which has been developed in this province over the last several years.

4:10 p.m.

Let me preface my remarks with an acknowledgement that most of the material which the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs provided to us the other evening fits well with the material we received as background information about the site itself. I think all members share with him the great concern about the health and wellbeing of the residents of that area and we support the idea that their dilemma has to be solved in some manner.

We may even reflect upon the remarks of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton), who in his own capable way summed up the whole dilemma in which the government finds itself vis-à-vis the question of the effects on the health of individuals who reside there. At the time he made his comments in question period, he may have been commenting with respect to the health and concerns of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs at the same time.

A long time has passed since these deposits of soil were placed on the 10-acre farm around that site, which was eventually purchased by Ontario Housing Corp. and brought in to provide some of the housing in Metropolitan Toronto, about which there is now no real problem as the vote has just displayed in this House. We would not debate the question about whether or not the soil has to be moved. That question has already been answered by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in his remarks.

The part that concerns us most is that the process under this bill will remove the problem from the area in Malvern without due consideration for those people living in the area to which the soil is to be carted. There is nothing in this bill that provides those people with an opportunity to address their concerns about this material being taken to their location. The one provision, section 7, speaks about the acts that do not apply. One of those is the Environmental Assessment Act, another is the Planning Act, and so on.

It seems to me that as soon as one gets away from going through the processes set up by this government over a long time, one is subverting the whole system of determining what and where certain things are done in the province. The whole idea behind the Environmental Assessment Act is so people can be assured the deposit of certain materials and projects is going to be safe, in concert and union with the environment which exists around it. The Planning Act is designed to make sure people are well aware of how the land is to be designated, what it is to be used for and in what manner they will be able to plan the orderly construction and development of the raw land that individuals own in the province.

A number of items surprise me a certain amount. Perhaps I will take that back and say maybe it does not surprise us so much when we consider the action of the current government with respect to this matter and others that have gone before. To this point, I think it is clear to anyone who has watched the developments at Malvern over the last several years that it has been a bit of a hot potato in more than one way with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

He certainly has not been able to take decisive action on it and he has not developed an attitude of coming to the citizens and discussing the matter in any orderly or helpful way with the individuals who are most concerned. We have several quotes from meetings the minister has had with people from Beare Road, for instance, who are concerned about their backyards, as others would like to be.

Mr. Conway: Do you mean to say that having a government member, to say nothing of a government minister, does not get immediate action?

Mr. Elston: I think there is an appropriate comment. The appropriate action is not always taken as quickly as it might well have been. We have noticed the minister has suggested Beare Road as one possible location and the ridings of Hastings-Peterborough and Dufferin-Simcoe as others, all with government members.

Then we noticed that as a result of all this, a proposal by the minister suggested the Premier (Mr. Davis) write a letter to Ottawa suggesting Chalk River be opened up for the reception of this soil. That riding is represented by a member of our caucus. We all know it was not long ago when, dealing with a problem similar to this at Port Hope, the Chalk River site was opened up for 400,000 tons of soil with the concurrence and aid of the member. Now it seems the government is again looking for somebody outside its own caucus to accept the waste from Malvern.

The problem is it is not telling any of us where that site is going to be. Somehow it is going to be able to designate it without the operation of public input from the citizens who may well be affected by this. It will merely accept the consent of the owner and occupier of the site as the prime determinant and no one will have a chance to look into the environmental and safety aspects of this deposit.

Not only that, we are not even sure this resting site which is to be designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council will be the final site. There is no telling how often, or to how many locations, this waste will be moved before it finds its final resting place. With a bill like this, we cannot support that sort of running around the province.

We notice there has been a great deal of delay in finding a site. I know the Minister of the Environment had hoped he would have something before we came back here in the fall. So far, under questioning, we have not yet been advised whether there is a site in mind, several sites in mind or whether there is any location at all the minister has in mind to place this material. I rather think, and I guess we confirmed it as late as October 18, that the Minister of the Environment's office had no comment to make with respect to the sites under consideration.

It seems to me at this late date, having had the bill introduced in July, there should have been more specific and precise information available as to where the government is going to cart this stuff if it is going to move it in line with the promise of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who I understand told his constituents it would be moved by the end of December. I feel there is indeed a site in the minds of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of the Environment. I think they ought to tell us.

4:20 p.m.

The question has been posed to those honourable ministers to let us know where this stuff is going. So far, they have not told us. All we know for sure is that once they decide where that site is, the only person who will really know about it until the trucks actually start rolling down the street is the owner/occupier who will have to consent to the designation. Upon that consent being obtained, the owner/occupier can accept this stuff. It does not matter under the guidelines of the bill whether the particular effects of this soil are going to be damaging to anybody around the outside of this property or not. There is no area where the public has access to find out about the effects of it.

It seems to me it could be going to the Beare Road landfill site, it could be at the low radiation disposal area at the Bruce nuclear power development in my riding, there could be a reopening of a site at Chalk River, or it could be in the backyard of almost any person who happens to be adjacent to a site purchased by someone whom the government might know would be willing to accept this stuff at a going price.

How do we know, as legislators, that the people of Ontario are going to be protected? We cannot trust government members as far as we can throw them. The problem is that we have put our trust as a province in the administrators of this province for nearly 40 years and we have come up with very serious problems. We have come up with ministries that react in a knee-jerk fashion to problems as they arise, and we cannot now put our trust in them to save the people who live in the area to which they are going to truck this soil. We cannot afford to.

Interjection.

Mr. Elston: The Minister of the Environment suggests I would not rather be in any other place, but I can assure him that after the next election I will be in that place -- that is, over across the way. He might well be across here. Then we will see.

My concern is still great that we do not have any access to any sort of public hearing to determine what is going to happen. It is interesting to look at the comments of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs when he talks about this bill. When he originally started talking to the newspapers about what was going to happen, he made a couple of statements that were quoted in the Toronto Star. I quote from that article: "I am concerned with how we are going to dispose of the soil, but in the same vein" -- and I add some emphasis to this -- "I would not want to force it on anybody."

Here we have a piece of legislation that requires only the consent of an owner/occupier of a piece of land. We do not know where that land is, we do not know how the guidelines are going to be established for the disposal of this soil, we do not know whether there are going to be special facilities required by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. In fact, this bill does not give us any information as to how this stuff is going to be dealt with or where it is going to be dealt with. How can we as legislators support this kind of nonsense, this lack of planning, when we come to deal with this? We just cannot do it.

I want to give one more quote as to the open-mindedness of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. He was speaking to a group from the Beare Road landfill site not long ago and he was being questioned about whether the site would be a licensed facility under part V of the Environmental Protection Act. The bill itself speaks to the point by saying no hearing will be required, and, therefore, it could be that we would end up having the material deposited there.

The citizens of the Beare Road area were quite concerned. They met with the minister on March 11, 1982, and when they asked him to discuss with them their concerns about the destination of the soil, this is what he said: "The radioactive soil on McClure Crescent is going to the Beare Road landfill site. What else would you like to discuss?"

That is what the minister said to that group of concerned citizens on March 11, but he will not come to this Legislature and tell us where he intends to deposit the soil and he will not tell us in the bill. Yet he stands on the other side and expects us to give him a blank cheque to move this stuff to wherever he wants. He says to us, "Trust us," and I say that is impossible. I would suggest even Morley Rosenberg would not trust that bunch any more. They certainly have not delivered what they promised him.

I have some concerns about other sections of the bill. It sets up the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs as the issuer of certificates with respect to who is included in the program and who is not. Under subsection 2(2) of the bill, the minister may, in writing, consent to the extension of the time under which agreements can be entered into between the municipality of Scarborough and an individual citizen. There is nothing there that delineates the reasons or types of excuses that may be considered by the minister.

It again gives the minister a blank cheque. He can say to a particular person: "My good fellow, I think you have sinned against the provisions of this bill, but I will forgive you. Here is your written dispensation. You can now enter into an agreement with the municipality of Scarborough. We will tidy up your backyard." Or, if he does not happen to like the poor fellow, he can say, "My poor friend, you have not gained favour with me lately; therefore, I am afraid I am unable to grant you dispensation to enter into this agreement."

There is no indication here of what sort of guidelines he is to be using when deciding who can and who cannot enter into this agreement after the expiration of the six months. I do not really know why such a blank cheque has to be delivered. On top of not knowing where the material is going, we are now finding out that we do not know who is going to be involved in the program.

Under subsection 2(3), the borough of Scarborough may remove the Malvern waste and rehabilitate the property in the Malvern area in accordance with an agreement entered into under subsection 2(1). There is no indication there that a particular resident of McClure Crescent will get the same treatment as his neighbour. We do not know what sort of an agreement is going to be entered into with respect to renovations, but I presume it may depend a great deal on the leverage exerted by the residents. There is a great chance that there will be unequal treatment of individuals when it comes to renovation. I think we should spell out in this bill that there is to be equal treatment for all people in that area.

There are several sections on which I have questions in detail, but they may be answered later on when we get into looking at amendments for this bill. However, in section 4 of the bill we see the notation in the margin, "Consent to designation." It is not clear to me what is really meant by this. Subsection 4(1) reads, "The owner and the occupier of a place may consent to the designation of the place by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under this act." It does not say that he must consent before it is designated. In my opinion, that does not jibe with the type of statements made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

4:30 p.m.

Subsection 4(2) reads, "The owner and the occupier of the place designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council may receive and retain ..." and he does that without any question of his own liability, any concern with respect to any environmental protection legislation or anything of the sort.

The point in the margin against section 5 is, "Designation of alternate place for delivery and retention." In its own fuzzy fashion, it seems to me that the government is -- what will we say -- trying to lead us astray a bit in this bill by not being as precise in language as is required.

Subsection 5(1), which is about the alternative place, reads, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council by order may designate a place to which the borough of Scarborough may transport the Malvern waste...." And subsection 5(2) says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall not designate a place under subsection (1) unless the owner and the occupier of the place have consented to the designation."

I would like a detailed explanation from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and maybe even some comments from the Minister of the Environment with respect to the dovetailing of those two sections. Exactly how are they going to pick out this designated area? What sort of guidelines will be imposed for the Lieutenant Governor to consider before he designates one place over another?

Is the prime consideration going to be environmental, as it should be? Is one of the prime considerations going to be financial? Is somebody going to offer a place to the government at a low cost? Is it going to be a government-owned facility? Is it going to be a facility owned by somebody from Metro Toronto? If that is the case, who is going to provide the consent for the depositing of this soil in the location if it is owned by a government body? Tell us, please, how we can now come to the government and place all our trust in its hands after the record it has developed over the last several years with respect to waste disposal sites in Ontario. The track record has not been reassuring.

If we then go to section 9, we would like to really find out exactly what is the meaning of the section with respect to the liability. I think it is worth a comment from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs as to the liability created by the removal. How far is the government going to go to right the damages done in good faith by the borough of Scarborough or the damages to anyone with respect to removal or deposit perhaps? What sort of liability will the government accept if damage is done to the people in the area to which this soil is to be removed? What provisions of compensation will be developed for them?

What is the government going to do for those people who have established their houses in an area which they knew was free from problems when they established there? How is the government going to win over their trust? Why should they trust the government when it established the housing project in this area without consideration of the difficulties which were going to develop later on?

I would like to comment on an area which is under section 10, where the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has a blank cheque under the provisions of this bill. The section reads:

"Upon the certificate of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs as to the amount of the actual and necessary expenses incurred by each of the borough of Scarborough, and the owner and occupier of a place designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under this act ..." the amounts can be expended.

We have no idea how much money is to be associated or approved by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We have no idea of the criteria he is going to be using. Yet he comes to this Legislature to ask our blessing on this bill so that he may write a cheque in any amount he wishes for any person for whom he cares to write it. And he tells us that we really ought not to get in his way as he is walking merrily to and from the vault door of the local Ontario savings office to feed the expenses of the removal of this soil.

That is not proper. We have always felt a need to be able to review the expenditures under any program, and I do not think it is a good idea to appoint one particular minister to write the cheques under this particular piece of legislation. I am opposed to that, and I know there are others who are similarly opposed to that sort of blank cheque writing.

Mr. Speaker, we also have a comment to make on Bill 149, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities, which was sponsored by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett).

One of the explanatory notes of that bill said that in sections 3 and 9 there was a move to prevent any person or municipality outside the region from coming into an area and setting up a waste disposal site of any sort, which does not seem inconsistent with the hopes of a lot of people. They do not want a municipality from Toronto, for instance, going into Hamilton and dumping its refuse there, nor do they want the refuse from Timmins coming down to Barrie. It seems like a reasonable approach.

But under the provisions of this bill, that legislation does not matter. The bill sponsored by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says:

"We do not care about any other legislation. We do not care about any environmental legislation, about any previous planning legislation. We do not care about any plans for orderly development that have been put forward by counties and regions in this province. We do not care about the blueprint for orderly development in Ontario that we developed several years ago and have since forgotten about.

"We do not care about anything. We will put this stuff from McClure Crescent wherever we like, because we will find a friend somewhere, some owner and occupier who will consent to our dropping this stuff there. And we will exclude that friend from any sort of public hearing or environmental assessment program that would aid those people who own land around him to find out if it is going to be safe."

That is what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is going to do for the owner and occupier who says: "Please, Mr. Minister, bring it to my yard. And by the way, the certificate that you will issue to us for payment, I hope, will be large enough to satisfy our needs."

It does not seem right to me. And in view of all of the planning of orderly development for communities in this province, this bill certainly is not acceptable. It certainly is not acceptable, with respect to environmental planning, for this Legislature and for this province and for the minister to say, "Trust us." I am afraid that is not going to be enough for us.

We have great concern for the people of McClure Crescent in their problem. We know that the Minister of the Environment answered us very forthrightly when he said on October 19: "Mr. Speaker, if the member wants a simple and forthright answer," and of course, we always do, "I would still say to the best of my knowledge, from all medical evidence available, the soil is safe. I suppose the simple reason for moving it is to protect the mental health of the residents of Scarborough." I presume he also means the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The question is, do you agree with that or not? What is your opinion on that?

Mr. Nixon: Why should we have an opinion on what the Minister of the Environment himself has said about the mental health of your constituents?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Be a little forthright for a change.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Elston: We have thought for some time that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has been growing a little fuzzy on some of his points, and perhaps he has been exposed by his cabinet colleague to the point where it may be of some concern for his leadership hopes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: He is just being a responsible member.

Mr. Nixon: What are you being?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let's hear what you would do with this.

Mr. Elston: Do you really want to know what we want to do with this? Like every other environmental issue, this is something the minister does not understand. We would put it under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act and the environmental procedures in place in this province.

My goodness, for years we have been holding up this stuff, the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, as the greatest thing for the environment of this province. It is the best in the world, we are told; the best in North America. And do you know something? Every time we come to an environmental issue we have an exemption of one sort or another or the minister comes up with a piece of legislation that he describes as a "trust me environmentally" piece of legislation.

What could be clearer than the main point we are making, namely, that we want wherever the government is going to dump this stuff to be subject to the procedures under the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act? What could be clearer than to let the people of this province know what they are going to do with the stuff and where they are going to dump it? That is the type of stuff we want the minister to be forthright about, with us and with the province; and if he cannot be, then there is no reason that he should come to us and ask our permission to move this stuff.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Name locations.

Mr. Elston: You tell us. You have it in mind. You have the blank cheque to move it. You know darned well that you know exactly where you are going to take it, and you are not going to tell us. That is not proper.

Every time those birds over there come in here and tell us they are all in favour of freedom of information, that they have all sorts of studies, that they want to let the people of Ontario know what they are doing, they can look back at this Malvern bill and languish under their own deceptions.

We do not think it is proper for the government to come here and ask for a blank cheque from the Legislature to determine who are going to be included in these agreements or whom they are going to allow to get into these agreements. We do not even know the sort of criteria they are going to use for remuneration for those people who accept. The whole thing smacks of a lack of planning, and we cannot put up with it.

This is great stuff. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is setting up a fine little kingdom in which to operate. Unfortunately, I will not be a part of the setting up of this whole program, under which he has sole discretion over who does and who does not get assistance.

I have another question that is extremely important for those of us who have been following the development of this matter over the last couple of years. That is, on whether or not the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of the Environment are familiar with the application for judicial review with respect to this particular bill. It seems to me that in some senses, if there were any hint that a judicial procedure was in the air about any issue the opposition wanted to talk about, someone on the other side would say: "It is sub judice. We certainly cannot talk about it now; we cannot let you have information. We cannot do this, we cannot do that."

Certainly that has not prevented the minister from forging ahead to push this stuff through the Legislature. It has not, in my opinion, stopped him at all. He seems to be bent on going ahead and moving this soil even before this application for judicial review is dealt with.

I want the two ministers to address this question and the problem about the judicial review application. I think it is a serious one and it really deals with the whole basis upon which this bill is drafted.

In case there is some misunderstanding or whatever, I want to be sure the two ministers understand what I am speaking about. It is a matter in the Supreme Court of Ontario, the Divisional Court, "In the matter of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO, 1980, c. 224; and in the matter of part I, s. 7 of the Constitution Act, 1981; and in the matter of the Malvern Waste Removal Act, 1982. Between: East Rouge Residents Against the Local Dumping of Radioactive Waste, applicant, and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, respondent." It deals with several problems and I will go to part 3 of the application which deals with relief requested.

The Deputy Speaker: I guess this deals with the bill.

Mr. Elston: Certainly. It is the whole judicial review of whether the bill is constitutional and whether these guys have the power to do it. Does that not tell us something about the bill, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: I do not know. I am asking you. Convince me.

Mr. Elston: I am asking the minister to deal with a question that surrounds the very essence and being of this act. I want some information and I want to make sure he understands exactly what I am asking him to comment on.

Sometimes the people on the government side are confused by the number of documents that pass over their desks and they may not understand exactly to which document I am referring. I want to be very sure.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We understand all that.

Mr. Elston: He does understand?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, we understand.

Mr. Elston: Then he will understand why we cannot just place our trust blindly in his hands.

I want him to comment with respect to this particular judicial review application which asks for an order: "(a) declaring the Malvern Waste Removal Act or any like legislation ultra vires of the Ontario Legislature; (b) declaring such legislation or any like legislation ultra vires as infringing section 7 of part I of the Constitution Act, 1981."

I will leave it at that because I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs knows the issues there. If he would like, I can go through this in detail and read the material which is set out here. I do not think that would be appropriate or helpful at this point.

In his remarks when the minister is dealing with this bill, I would like him to address his concerns about this piece of court work and tell us how he is going to deal with this. I think we require an undertaking that this judicial review will proceed prior to there being any movement of this material. Because if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wants to move all this soil before the judicial review is held, his purpose will have been an end run around the legal procedures of this province. Of course, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would not want to be seen getting around the letter of the law.

I think this issue is an important one to be dealt with prior to --

Hon. Mr. Pope: Of course, that process would not be doing the same thing with appeals to the Court of Appeal of Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Elston: This one? Well, there cannot be an appeal to those bodies until there is an act of some court somewhere.

Hon. Mr. Pope: So you have an appeal.

Mr. Elston: Once one gets the process; one has to start it with something. This has started it and I want to know that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is going to provide us with his undertaking to let this be spoken to and decided before he uses it.

Hon. Mr. Pope: So the Liberal position is you want the soil to stay there?

Mr. Elston: No, we want to be sure all environmental concerns are met before it is moved.

Hon. Mr. Pope: No, that is your position because it will take two years to get to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now we know the Liberal Party's position is clear.

Mr. Elston: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs --

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind the member to try to avoid the interjections, provocative as they are.

Hon. Mr. Pope: You are twisting things when you are telling me that. Now we know what the Liberal policy is.

Mr. Elston: While the Minister of Natural Resources is involved in a game of twist and shout, I will go forward with an explanation of our concerns.

The Deputy Speaker: Please do.

Mr. Elston: What we really want is to be sure that all the environmental concerns are met before this stuff is dumped on somebody else, because then it does not become the problem of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs any more; it becomes the problem of some other member. It seems to me that is not going to be of much assistance to most of the members in this House.

4:50 p.m.

For one member to provide himself with a blank cheque to move the stuff wherever he would like it to be moved, to some friend's place or whatever, is not an acceptable way of dealing with the problem. We have the legislation to deal with the problem effectively. At least, we are told that the process under the environmental laws works as well as anywhere in the world. Why do we not use it?

What is the rush now, when this soil has been there for so many years? It seems to me a long time has passed since this first became a timely topic in Scarborough, way back in 1980, and probably even before then. All of a sudden in the fall of 1982, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says: "I am going to move that. I am not telling you where. I am not going to tell you how much it is going to cost or how I will determine who is going to get on the list of the agreement. Trust me."

We cannot support such legislation until it is substantially tightened up. It must be tightened up before we will give it our blessing. We would also like the minister to explain to us how the Malvern bill dovetails with Bill 149, which I spoke about earlier, in regard to the aims of those regional areas that are set out in the explanatory notes and throughout the bill. Those are the basic concerns I have with respect to the bill.

We would like to see the material moved, there is no question about that, but we cannot have it dumped on just any place in the province. If the minister will respond in a forthright manner to the questions I have asked him, perhaps we will be able to make some amendments that will allow the type of public input our party requires in environmental issues. Probably we can defuse a very difficult situation for those people who have a feeling that they are on the list of likely places to which this material is to be sent.

We cannot support the bill until such time as we have been given the details in a number of areas and have also been given environmental assurances from the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my caucus, I rise to oppose Bill 174. I want to make very clear at the outset that our opposition to the bill is not an opposition to the very speedy removal of the soil from McClure Crescent.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the member for Scarborough North, has introduced this bill, not the Minister of the Environment. I fully and clearly understand the minister's concern for the people on McClure Crescent and his wish to get that soil out as quickly as possible. I fully understand his feelings of frustration in trying to represent and protect his constituents. In many ways it is very much like the not-in-my-backyard syndrome that his colleague the Minister of the Environment complains about so bitterly all the time.

The reality is that every community has the right, and every representative of a community has the right to fight in whatever way is necessary to represent and, more specifically, to protect the community. I do not fault the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for this bill. As a representative of a community, he is using the only tactic he could see available to him to represent fully the needs of those people.

On the other hand, I fault some of the comments he has made during the course of the debate on this bill. Last week he suggested that those who oppose this bill also oppose the residents of McClure Crescent and the prospect of getting that soil out of there; that by opposing this bill we would be obstructing the removal of that soil.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, in as clear terms as I can, that the second biggest single obstruction to the removal of that soil from McClure Crescent -- aside from the Atomic Energy Control Board -- has been the incompetence of this government in its handling of the whole matter: specifically, the inability of our Minister of the Environment to understand the power and authority he has to represent the people of the province, and the tools he has to use.

The member for Scarborough North, in his opening statement, ran through the history of the Malvern soil situation in order to help members understand why this bill had become necessary. He ran through that sequence of events very accurately in chronological terms. However, there were a number of incidents and substantial amounts of information which he omitted along the way, so that he left an incorrect impression with the members who were listening to his opening remarks.

He correctly identified the timing of the discovery of the problem. Unfortunately, he forgot to state that although this government was aware of the contamination because of the Malvern survey made in 1975, it did absolutely nothing about it.

Mr. Elston: It was not an election issue.

Mr. Charlton: It was not an election issue. To them, it was not an issue of any kind. Now, seven years later, they are attempting to tell us that we have to ram through this legislation, which exempts half a dozen pieces of existing legislation passed by this majority government, in order to protect us from doing things as we have done them in the past; to protect us from making inappropriate decisions and later on having to come back to clean up messes which should never have existed. They are asking us to exempt those very important pieces of legislation which they themselves put in place.

For five years, this government took no action on the knowledge it had about the contamination that survey revealed. Since the time it was determined in December 1980 or January 1981, whenever the testing was completed in the survey, until the present, this government has flubbed a dozen opportunities to move the soil out of that area in full compliance with the laws it is now trying to exempt.

The member for Scarborough North very accurately set out that the first proposal by the AECB -- not by this government but by the AECB -- to get the soil out of Scarborough was to move it to Bancroft and to use it to cover tailings piles at the Madawaska uranium mines.

I see that the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) is here and I am glad, because I am going to make some comments about what the member for Scarborough North said. He said that the people of Bancroft, the people of Hastings-Peterborough, absolutely rejected the idea of moving that soil to Bancroft, to the Madawaska mine site. In reality, that is not what the people of Bancroft said at all.

5 p.m.

The people of Bancroft said a number of things. I attended a rather large public meeting in Bancroft. So did the member for Hastings-Peterborough. Since it is his constituency, I hope he was there -- yes, he was. That was a very angry meeting, but it did not reject in absolute terms the removal of that soil from Scarborough to Bancroft. The people at the meeting rejected doing that without an environmental assessment. They objected to that happening unless they could clearly see that it was going to improve the situation of the tailing piles and not just hide it, because there are problems already with the tailings at that mine site.

They did not want a precedent. They wanted absolute assurance that if this soil went there, it would not set a precedent for further dumping there. They wanted a full environmental assessment so they could be sure it would improve the situation of the tailing piles and not make it worse or just hide it.

Some of the residents, although they did not like the idea of spreading the soil over the tailing piles, actually were quoted in the press -- and I stood there while they were being interviewed -- as suggesting that perhaps the soil could have gone down some of the abandoned mine shafts and they would have no objection to that. Unfortunately, this government was not listening to what was going on at the Bancroft meeting --

Hon. Mr. Norton: You are totally confused or else you are trying to rewrite history to suit your own ends.

Mr. Charlton: I am not trying to rewrite any history. The minister was not there. I was there.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, you are.

Mr. Charlton: No, I am not. I even wrote a letter to the minister immediately after that meeting, laying it out for him. He sent me a letter, saying: "Don't oppose the removal of the soil to Bancroft. Don't be irresponsible." Two weeks later the Premier (Mr. Davis) was opposing the removal of the soil to Bancroft -- the Premier, not me. I opposed it first, but he followed suit when he saw the reality of the folly of what the minister was doing.

I want to tell members about the incompetence of this minister who is interjecting.

The Deputy Speaker: In relation to the bill?

Mr. Charlton: In relation to this bill. This minister stood in his place in this House and told the people of this assembly and the people of Bancroft that he had no authority over the decision the Atomic Energy Control Board had made. I want to quote a staff member from the Premier's office who said, "The final decision on where the soil rests will ultimately be made by a federal task force on radioactive waste disposal and radioactive contamination." That is from the Premier's office.

We talked to the chairman of that task force. I want to take a moment to relate what that gentleman had to say to us. He is Mr. Roger Eaton, the head of the remedial action section of the AECB and chairman of the task force. There are 20 agencies represented on that task force, besides the AECB, the federal government and three provincial governments.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is Ontario one of them?

Mr. Charlton: Ontario is one of the three, and it is represented by three representatives of three different ministries, one of them being a Mr. Brad Drowley from the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr. Eaton, the chairman of that committee, told us in a rather lengthy discussion, "Yes, this task force will make the final decision." That is what he said. He agreed with the Premier's office that the task force would make the final decision. But he said, "I cannot tell you how that decision will go, because this task force has always operated on the principle of unanimous consent."

It has always seemed to me that unanimous means all, a total. Mr. Speaker, when you ask for the unanimous consent of the House to change the rules, if anyone objects you do not have unanimous consent. The same is true for the federal task force. To have unanimous consent to approve the removal of that soil to Bancroft, the task force would have to have had the consent of the three Ontario delegates to that task force.

This provincial government, this Minister of the Environment, had the clear authority to stop the whole proposal. In addition to that, what the people of Bancroft were basically demanding was nothing more than a full environmental assessment of the proposal so they could be reassured that it would improve the situation and not make it worse.

Hon. Mr. Norton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not know what conversations the honourable member has had with Mr. Eaton or with anyone else, but I think it is important that he make it clear to the House that the task force has no statutory or constitutional authority to be making any such decision. At best, it could make a recommendation to the Atomic Energy Control Board, which does have the constitutional responsibility. It is as simple and straightforward as that.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, again I have to disagree with the minister. The Premier's office disagrees with the minister. The task force disagrees with the minister. The chairman of the task force, Mr. Eaton, told us the task force would make the final decision. The Premier's office told us publicly that the task force would make the final decision. Why does the minister disagree with the Premier? Why does the minister disagree with the chairman of the task force?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister should stop attacking the Premier. It is unseemly for him to attack the Premier in the House. He is not here to defend himself; he is helpless.

Mr. Samis: The minister is out of order, right. He should stop interfering. The minister should settle down.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Charlton: It is about time the Minister of the Environment did something about finding out what authority he has and what authority he does not have.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There is no need for this dialogue back and forth across the floor.

Mr. Samis: Throw the minister out, Mr. Speaker. He is a very provocative minister. He is long-winded and provocative.

Mr. Charlton: We asked the minister a number of times in the House about the environmental assessment, and he said he had no authority to impose one. The reality is that he could have instructed his representative on that task force to go to the task force and say, "We will oppose the proposal to move the soil to Bancroft unless the Atomic Energy Control Board is prepared to submit it to an environmental assessment."

We have the absolute assurance of the task force chairman that the proposal would not have been approved without unanimous consent. If Ontario had opposed the proposal, it would not have been approved.

If this ministry had the interest to investigate the procedures it had to follow before that movement of soil could occur, if it had taken the time to intervene in the process and to suggest that it go through an environmental assessment to satisfy the local concerns, then it is very likely the situation would have been resolved. An environmental assessment of the proposal would also have had to look at alternatives such as moving the soil to the mine shaft or moving it to an already licensed site in the province. If that had been done, the soil would already have been moved out of Scarborough, out of the Malvern area and off McClure Crescent.

We went through the same thing when the AECB proposed Base Borden. The Ministry of the Environment in Ontario kept its hands off the whole issue.

5:10 p.m.

In the course of his opening remarks, the member for Scarborough North mentioned the Beare Road proposal. I spoke to a number of people from the Rouge River group who were opposing the Beare Road proposal. Their opposition to the Beare Road proposal was based largely on the fact that this government would give them no assurances that there was a definite limit to the time that the soil would stay in the Beare Road site.

All this government had to do to get approval from that group was to say that the soil being moved to the Beare Road site would be moved there for a maximum of three years or a maximum of five years and then it would be removed to a new location.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If we put that in the bill, will you vote for it?

Mr. Charlton: I say to the minister, give us a site, give us a time, and we will consider it. If he cannot give us a site or a time, we will not consider anything.

Mr. Samis: How can he refuse an offer like that?

Mr. Charlton: If the minister uses the figures I have just quoted, I will accept it. If they are any other figures, I will have to look at them.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You'd be frightened of all the people running after you.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Charlton: At any rate, they are not listening to the people who are opposing them, nor are they going out and talking to the people who are opposing them; so they do not know what those people are saying. They do not know now, and they have not known right through the process, because they are not listening to anybody.

During the course of a conversation last week with the member for Scarborough North, I suggested to him that the easiest and quickest way to deal with this situation without having to pass this bill and without having to exempt some fairly major pieces of legislation was, as my colleague mentioned in his speech previously, to consider moving the soil from McClure Crescent to the Bruce nuclear site, which is already licensed for the storage of low-level radioactive waste.

The response of the minister to me was: "No. They don't want it. Ontario Hydro doesn't want the soil." They are a licensed handler of low-level radioactive waste, yet they do not want the soil.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Who said that?

Mr. Charlton: The member for Scarborough North said that.

This government claims it runs Ontario Hydro. It claims Ontario Hydro does what this government tells it to do. Surely then Ontario Hydro, which already operates a licensed site for the storage of low-level radioactive waste, could be compelled by this government to accept it. But no, Ontario Hydro says, "We don't want it." As a result, the government changes its mind about that as a potential site and brings in a bill that is going to force the waste on some community, somewhere; we do not know which community that is.

Communities no longer have the right to say no. But Ontario Hydro, which already operates a site for the storage of low-level radioactive waste, has the right to say "No." Communities with people living in them do not have the right to say "No," but Ontario Hydro can say "No."

That points to the wholly ludicrous way in which this government has approached trying to deal with the McClure Crescent contaminated soil situation. It speaks to the inappropriateness of this bill being here now. It speaks to the very essence of the government's commitment to environmental and other legislation in Ontario.

The member for Scarborough North sees this bill as one small exemption for soil that is not all that dangerous. He sees it as one small exemption under the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act and whatever other act happens to be affected by this whole process.

He sees it as one small exemption in an effort to try to protect his community. I can understand that, as an individual member representing a constituency; I can understand his feelings as a representative. But the reality is that it is not one little exemption; it is one in an ever-growing list of exemptions to these major pieces of legislation.

This bill, as an addition to that list, is making the legislation we are exempting here almost irrelevant because the exemptions are becoming the rule instead of the exception. There are more exemptions occurring than there are applications of those pieces of legislation. The result is that every additional piece of legislation we allow to exempt certain projects, no matter how small or large they happen to be, further weakens that legislation and its ability to protect the residents of Ontario from the kind of stupid environmental mistakes we have made in the past.

We know about some of the mistakes that have happened in this country, and we have read about the ones that have happened in other countries. We have gone through the debate on Stouffville, and the one on the effects of Love Canal, Hyde Park and other such dump sites on the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. Yet we continue to exempt specific situations in Ontario from the very legislation that was intended to protect us from similar events in the future.

There are a number of other members who would like to speak to this bill; so I will wind up fairly soon.

In the initial stages this government did not want to have anything to do with the Malvern soil. They said that it was a federal responsibility and that the Atomic Energy Control Board was going to deal with it. Now they are attempting to deal with it because the AECB has backed out. There is no question that they have a right to be angry with and to lay the fault at the door of the AECB, because that board acted just as irresponsibly as this government is acting in the whole process.

The AECB, in every instance of involvement -- at Bancroft, at Borden -- did not listen to local residents and tried to impose its will without hearings. This government went along with them instead of trying to find out how they could intervene on behalf of the people of McClure Crescent, the people of Bancroft, the people of Borden and the people who are opposed to moving the soil to the Beare Road site. They did not bother to listen to those people or to understand their concerns, and they did not bother to find out that they had the authority to intervene.

Now, two years after the fact, we in this Legislature are being asked to approve a bill that exempts everything in sight so they can take this soil from McClure Crescent and move it to a site they will not identify. Under terms they will not identify, they want to impose that soil on some unsuspecting community.

5:20 p.m.

I go back to what I was saying earlier about Ontario Hydro and the Bruce site. Ontario Hydro has a site that is already licensed for the storage of low-level radioactive waste. The Ontario government owns and claims to control Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro should have no more right to say "No" than the people in the Rouge Valley, Borden, Bancroft or whatever other community they have in mind as a result of this bill.

For once I think I agree with the member for Huron-Bruce when he says that this bill is here and the member for Scarborough North has made comments to the people of McClure Crescent that the soil will be out of there before the end of December because they do have a site in mind. They may have more than one in mind, but they did not bring this bill in with nothing in mind; that is certain.

At any rate, there is no point in this bill. It serves no useful purpose. We already have a licensed site where the soil can go. The minister made a very true comment to me last week that it does not matter what other location they propose or whether they give the people in that community a legal way to oppose the removal of the soil there, because no matter what community he proposes to move this to, the local people will oppose it. They will oppose it much more vigorously and angrily because they have no right to oppose it than they would if they were given a clear way through a hearing process of legitimately having hearings and coming to a conclusion about whether the proposal is good or bad.

In all cases where people are told they have no right to oppose, as in the Bancroft case where the Atomic Energy Control Board said, "We are supreme; you do not have the right to hearings or to object," that is when they object with absolute, maximum fervour. That is something the member for Scarborough North has to think about. The Bancroft and Borden situations, and the legal actions in Borden, came about because those people were told they had no rights.

If this minister was standing up in this House now and saying to us, "We are going to move the soil to the Bruce nuclear site temporarily, propose an eventual site for its permanent disposal and subject that proposal to a full environmental assessment," he would not find the reaction he is getting here today, but a useful reaction from the opposition parties.

He would also likely find a lot less vigorous opposition from whatever community that eventual site happened to be in, because it would then know it had the full right to sit down and prepare for an environmental assessment hearing, it would have expert witnesses and it would have the right to cross-examine and ask questions about this possibility and that possibility in terms of possible damage to the local environment.

The minute this government takes the approach it is taking in this bill -- an absolute denial of rights and a refusal to allow the community to be heard and to express its views -- the minister is guaranteeing maximum opposition to whatever proposal he makes; unless the minister really does not have any proposal in mind, which I doubt very much.

I would encourage the minister to think seriously about the remarks I have just made. Before the vote on second reading, he should think seriously about laying before this House the location or locations he has in mind and the proposals for those locations the Minister of the Environment is probably looking at right now.

Just to wrap up, this bill is totally unacceptable to this party. It is unacceptable because of what it will cause out there, somewhere in this province. It is unacceptable because it is an addition to an already almost endless list of exemptions which are rendering fairly good legislation impotent, and because it is an avoidance of this government's responsibility to deal fairly, fully, in an up-front fashion with not only the people of McClure Crescent but the people of whatever community this material will be moved to.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to voice my concern about the proposal to remove this soil to some unknown place. Of course we are concerned about the people who live in Malvern and about their safety. I resent being coerced into supporting the bill because of the position the government has taken in not giving us an answer to what is to be done with this soil and trying to say we are not in favour of the people in Malvern. I imagine it is rather demeaning for the government to even suggest such a thing. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) was trying to make that point a few minutes ago. I just want to express how much I resent that position.

The record of this party over several years is one of leadership in the environmental fields. It is one we are determined to maintain. When we look at the future of society, I believe that in spite of the item most of us would put as our number one danger, the threat of nuclear war, we have on both sides of that armaments race some rational people who are going to think very carefully before they embark on such a mission. This was illustrated when we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis and saw reviews of that crisis. On both sides of that confrontation, people used their heads and avoided the end of the world.

The future will show that the greatest problem we have lies in the area of environmental degradation in the soil and the water. Part of that degradation is by the erosion of soil. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is essentially saying, "Trust us." I probably speak for most of the members in this party in saying that if there is any minister over there we would trust it would be him, but he is not the Minister of the Environment.

I know from sad experience in my riding of Kent-Elgin, and I think I am expressing the opinions of the people I represent, that we do not trust that ministry. That ministry operated a landfill site in my riding for many years which the court declared was licensed under illegal circumstances. The residents of the township of Harwich, with some assistance from neighbouring municipalities and from citizens' groups, had to spend more than $400,000 to prove their point.

5:30 p.m.

The former minister came to us in Kent-Elgin, sort of cap in hand, in the fall of 1979 and said to the good people there: "You have a mess here in this landfill site. You already have something you do not like. The way to correct it is to take some more of it." But that kind of coercion did not work.

There are seven landfill sites which are still taking hazardous liquid industrial waste. I wonder if we are going to say to them: "You have a mess. We can make your mess even better by covering it up with radioactive soil." With a background of that sort, we can be forgiven for not having great trust in this situation.

I would think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, with the great political experience he has, would have thought this thing out a little more and would have come to us with a better proposal.

The Minister of the Environment has repeatedly rejected requests from me and from Harwich for reimbursement in full or in part for the funds the ministry forced these people to spend in order to defend themselves. He even refused to see the representative of Harwich township. It strikes me as inconsistent for the government to assume the costs of acting on behalf of the citizens of Malvern, while the citizens of Harwich had to assume their costs themselves.

I hasten to add that even if at this time those costs were assumed, as they deserve to be, that would not change my attitude towards this bill, because I am not one who can be coerced into accepting a bad bill. It is a bad bill regardless of what other measures may be taken. Nevertheless, as I have said, the government's action in the two municipalities strikes me as inconsistent.

We acknowledge that the soil must be moved, as our critic the member for Huron-Bruce has indicated. We want to know where it is going and we want to know something about the process. While we would like to say to the member for Scarborough North, "Yes, we trust you," I think experience dictates that our actions be otherwise. Sadly, our experience compels us to reach other conclusions. In particular, I deplore the fact that the minister unhesitatingly assumes the costs in this case, while the Minister of the Environment refused even to talk to the people of Harwich, who have been grievously wronged.

I do not want to belabour the point. I join with all those able speakers who went before me and laid out the reasons they oppose this bill. I agree with them and I oppose it for the reasons I have outlined.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, while we do not want to prolong discussion on this bill, I feel it is such extraordinary legislation that it is important to make the implications of it very clear.

Citizens view it as the role of government to be there to ensure that they have a safe and healthy environment and are protected from hazards, and that when potential hazards are drawn to the attention of the government it will not only investigate those hazards promptly and include help and environmental tests in that investigation, but will also make public the results of its investigations and will act promptly when potential hazards are confirmed or appear to be sufficiently confirmed to merit action; and that, erring on the side of caution, if there appears to be a hazard it is better to remove it than to wait for the final, technical definition or confirmation of the exact results of the hazard.

In the case of the McClure Crescent radioactive soil, the citizens of that area have found that this government has not fulfilled the role that most citizens expect of it. It has betrayed their faith that government will act when hazards are drawn to attention. They have had to engage in numerous demonstrations, marches, depositing pots of radioactive soil on the doorstep of the Legislature and other methods to try to get action. But the history of the two years since this problem was discovered has been a history of foot-dragging, buck-passing and failure by this government to come up with any plan for dealing with it.

I realize there are problems of jurisdiction and the federal government is also involved in the question of radioactive soil and in setting the standards for what is considered a dangerous level of low-level radiation. But when we have a serious health hazard that appears to the residents to be endangering their own and their children's health, it seems to me we cannot wait for the niceties of settling jurisdictional problems.

The government that is the closest to the problem -- in this case the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario -- must act promptly and come up with a plan it can present to the Legislature with the appropriate details so that we know exactly what the government is proposing to do and what the implications and the approximate cost will be so that we can also vote on the amount we are being committed to.

The least we can do for the citizens of McClure Crescent is to get a prompt solution to their problem. It should have been done over the past two years. The government's response to it has been absolutely deplorable.

This is no response, because instead of providing us with a plan, with a place for safe, temporary storage, which is what is needed, and with an outline of what will be done to find suitable long-term storage, this bill simply wipes out all legislative provisions that might affect this solution and in effect destroys the whole process of environmental assessment, environmental review and public participation under the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act.

It also wipes out all provisions regarding land use under the Planning Act. It eliminates the power of the Ontario Municipal Board to review and confirm or deny land use bylaws. It suspends the right of electors under section 149 of the Municipal Act to vote on borrowing bylaws affecting the disposal of the soil. It suspends any law or regulation that conflicts with this act.

In my opinion, subsection 7(3) is the most sweeping piece of legislation that has ever been introduced in this Legislature. To suspend any law or regulation that conflicts with this act simply means that the government is asking for a blank cheque without giving us any indication of what it will actually do. It could, under this clause, suspend laws regulating the transportation of hazardous substances on highways. That could be very serious in dealing with radioactive soil.

5:40 p.m.

Moreover, this bill sets aside the Legislature's power of the purse. We are not asked to vote a certain sum of money, or even a sum up to a certain amount, for this undertaking. We are simply asked to allow the government to spend whatever it wishes on the undertaking. There is no opportunity to scrutinize those expenditures in an estimates committee or even to ask questions about them. When he makes his concluding remarks, I hope the minister will give us more details on what costing he has done on various options that he may be looking at. That is the least that could be offered to us.

The minister may say, "What would you do if you did not accept this legislation?" In the first place, we would not tolerate a dangerous precedent of this sort because, in effect, the government has admitted it has no solution and is simply suspending the laws of this province when it admits that.

This bill may be contrary to the Charter of Rights because it also removes due process in land use and environmental decisions. In my opinion, that is the sort of precedent that cannot be allowed, even though we sympathize with the plight of the McClure Crescent residents and we want an immediate solution to their problem. We do not think this is a solution because it still indicates that the government does not yet have a temporary site and has no plans as to how to make the site completely safe.

It has no long-term plans for providing for the safe disposal of low-level radiation, nor has it worked out with the federal government proper standards for the levels of low-level radiation that could be allowed without danger to health. We are still working very much in the dark.

Subsection 2(3) indicates there is still room for further delay under this bill. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can extend the six-month limit which is set in the bill for signing agreements with the property owners in Scarborough and for agreeing on a rehabilitation plan. In effect, this bill is no solution and it is no guarantee to the residents of McClure Crescent that there will be any action within the next six months. Therefore, I think even they may feel, if they look closely at it, this bill will not really end the dithering that has been going on in this field for so long.

We feel we must vote against a bill which sets such a dangerous precedent for suspending the laws of this land and giving a blank cheque to the government.

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk on this bill. I realize it is a government bill but there are certain things in it that I am opposed to. There have also been a few comments made here today that I feel are a little incorrect.

One of the things I want to mention in this bill is that it states it can move this soil any place and has no regard for the Environmental Protection Act or the Planning Act. As a reeve of a rural municipality, I was involved in bringing into place the zoning bylaws of that municipality.

Of course that was a rural community. People got totally upset that the government was trying to tell them what to do with their land. We had to do a lot of toe-to-toe slugging to get zoning bylaws in place, so when they come along with this bill and totally ignore the Planning Act, I feel I cannot support the bill.

In the same respect, it overrides the Environmental Assessment Act for basically the same reasons. It also overrides the Municipal Act where one cannot even have a plebiscite in the municipality where this soil might be taken. One other thing: It goes on to say that it is protection from any legal liability. That is basically saying we do not have any faith in our legal system. I cannot accept that.

At the present time, there is a lawsuit between four residents of the Malvern subdivision and the borough of Scarborough. To make a decision on this bill at the present time would mean we were getting involved in that lawsuit. I feel we should not have this bill until that lawsuit is settled.

I realize this poses quite a problem for the member in that riding; I also acknowledge we have different opinions on how dangerous this soil is. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) has stood in his place and stated he feels this soil is safe. The medical officer of health for Scarborough claims the soil is safe. On the other hand, the mayor of Scarborough has gone on record saying he would not even allow this soil in Scarborough's dump.

Hon. Mr. Norton: But his council unanimously supported it.

Mr. Pollock: I see. Anyway, I suppose a lot of members think I am talking on this bill because I am afraid the soil is going to come to the Bancroft area. I certainly am concerned, but it could go anywhere.

While we are talking about this soil, I want to offer a rebuttal to what the member for Hamilton Mountain said. He claimed the residents of Bancroft did not want this soil up there simply because, I believe his comments were, it would override the Environmental Assessment Act. As long as it coincided with the Environmental Assessment Act and the Planning Act, they would accept it.

I would tell the member I brought a petition in here with over 1,200 names. I cannot remember the exact wording of that petition now, but the thrust of it was that they did not want it, period. There are at least 12 different viewpoints in that Bancroft area on what to do with the soil.

5:50 p.m.

I acknowledge the fact that the reeve of Bancroft -- and the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) made this statement because he heard it on the radio, and I heard it on the radio at the same time -- was agreeable to accepting the soil. Unfortunately, it was not in Bancroft that he would be accepting it. It was going into Faraday township so he was a little off base in that respect.

Mr. Samis: Pretty close.

Mr. Pollock: Pretty close, but about four miles out roughly.

Interjections.

Mr. Pollock: A few days ago, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) made reference to the closing of the mine and the plight of Father Maloney, to my comments and also to the position taken by the Ontario government in regard to keeping the Madawaska mine open. I was disappointed it did not keep that mine open. However, the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) met at different times with those delegations from Bancroft. They sat down and talked to them, looked them in the eye and said they had economic problems all over the world and all over Ontario.

The delegation from Bancroft wanted to stockpile uranium, but the Premier told them that McDonnell Douglas is in his riding. If uranium was stockpiled and the government went on record and supported it, McDonnell Douglas workers would want them to stockpile airplane parts; this would have a chain reaction all over the province.

Recently, though, there was an article in the Toronto Star stating that the US government was going to place an embargo on uranium that might come into that country from Canada. I checked this out and found, as I mentioned the other night, that one of the firms that is selling uranium to Ontario Hydro, or which got the bid from Ontario Hydro, is Key Lake Resources in Saskatchewan. Key Lake Resources is owned 50 per cent by a crown corporation of Saskatchewan, by a German firm and Eldorado Nuclear, which is a crown corporation of the federal government.

This article in the Toronto Star goes on to say that Eldorado Nuclear has bought out two more holdings in Saskatchewan, for a total price of $400 million. These are rich deposits. Therefore, I am assuming that Eldorado Nuclear, a crown corporation of the federal government, is going to supply practically all the uranium to Ontario Hydro. We know the federal government controls all uranium shipments or exports in this country. Therefore, with Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. holding these rich deposits, and the federal government controlling it, Madawaska Mines has no chance of ever starting up again.

I will just take a minute and go over the whole situation there.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I trust the honourable member is tying his comments into Bill 174.

Mr. Pollock: It is all in the same ballpark, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I am having difficulty in seeing how the member is tying it in.

Mr. Pollock: The member for Renfrew North involved Father Maloney. Father Maloney's big plight, and mine too, was that eventually the price of uranium would go up and the mine would come back on stream again. It is my hope that some day that will happen, but with Eldorado Nuclear holding these rich deposits in Saskatchewan, and the federal government having control over exports of uranium, there is very little chance that a small mine in the Bancroft area would ever get a piece of the market, even the world market.

The Acting Speaker: The member is not convincing me that this is tied into Bill 174.

Mr. Pollock: This is plus the fact that the mine closed down six months ahead of time because the Italian firm cancelled its contract with some up-front money to do that.

At some time in the future Madawaska Mines might have had a chance to sell more uranium --

The Acting Speaker: Will the member help the Speaker see how this ties into Bill 174?

Mr. Pollock: Just do not interrupt, Mr. Speaker. I will get around to it after a while.

The Acting Speaker: I am not going to give the member a long while.

Mr. Breaugh: The universe is unfolding.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Some of these arguments take a little time to develop.

Mr. Pollock: That is for sure.

Mr. Conway: Unlike Clarke Rollins, this member speaks.

The Acting Speaker: Bill 174 is An Act to provide for the Removal of Certain Waste from the Malvern Area. We will now go to Malvern.

Mr. Pollock: We are talking about Madawaska Mines where the waste was slated to go at one time, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, there is very little chance of Madawaska Mines ever starting up again. It was Father Maloney's hope, and mine too, that some day it might start up again. When the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) came up to the Bancroft area, the Bancroft Times stated that he made the statement, six weeks after the mine had closed down, that he would take a delegation to Ottawa.

The Acting Speaker: The member is trying the chair to the point where I will rule him out of order shortly. Will he please tie his comments into Bill 174?

Mr. Breaugh: He is talking about the site.

Mr. Pollock: That member for London Centre is a little like a rainbow. He showed up after the storm.

Mr. Cassidy: There is no site named in the bill, Mr. Speaker. Any part of the province is a potential site.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I think he knows that Bancroft is the site.

Mr. Pollock: Those fellows are getting me confused.

Hon. Mr. Norton: They are persuading you that Bancroft is the site. Be careful.

Mr. Cassidy: You have just exceeded Clarke Rollins's entire lifetime record in the Legislature.

Mr. Pollock: Yes.

The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.

26 octobre 1982