Journal des débats 1983-juin-02 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wish to bring to the attention of the honourable members the important event in Canadian history that occurred on June 2, 1866, by marking the occasion of the 117th anniversary of the battle of Lime Ridge, perhaps better known as the battle of Ridgeway.

At present there is a plaque located on the south wall of this building to the right of the main entrance to the Legislative Building. There is also a monument erected to the west of the Legislative Building on the university grounds as a memorial to Her Majesty's brave sons, the volunteers who fell or were wounded at Lime Ridge whilst defending her frontiers from Ontario to the eastern provinces. There is also a plaque located in the Memorial United Church in Ridgeway, Ontario.

The Queen's Own Rifles -- and I do not have to tell the members of their presence around this building -- are one of Canada's top military regiments whose officers and men have continued to serve Canada in times of both conflict and peace. The battle of Lime Ridge and its victory helped foster Confederation and the building of a better nation for the benefit of future generations.

On June 5 and 12, 1983, Fort Erie will be holding its memorial or decoration day services, sponsored by members of the Royal Canadian Legion in Fort Erie and Ridgeway, in memory of their departed comrades of the two world wars of 1914 and 1939, in order to remember this event and express gratitude for their personal sacrifice for their country and in the hope for world peace.

As the province prepares itself for the bicentennial year in 1984, would it not be most appropriate for the Legislature to enact legislation setting aside the first two Sundays in June of one calendar year in observance of, and to honour our nation's fallen heroes, our war dead, and our veterans who have served with honour and dignity, in gratitude for their dedicated services?

The great majority of Canadians have been the recipients of a free society as a result of that personal sacrifice. This would not be to glorify wars, but to remind Canadians, including new Canadians, of the conflicts and hardships our forefathers encountered in forging a new nation for the benefit of generations to follow.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of privilege, but a point of interest.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to draw to the attention of all honourable members, two groups forming part of the Governor General's study group who are visiting the Legislature on Queen's Park Day. They have been attending panel discussions, and working and learning together for the purpose of improving the quality of decision-making in Canada. They are seated in the Speaker's gallery, and I would ask all honourable members to join with me in extending a warm welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LAND USE GUIDELINES

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to make a statement on what I think has been one of the biggest projects in the history of the Ministry of Natural Resources. It is a first for Canada, and one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind anywhere.

As members will know, since the early 1970s my ministry has been working to produce a set of land use guidelines for Ontario. Today I am happy to be able to announce that the guidelines have been completed. Published guidelines will be available by the end of June, and there will, of course, be ample opportunity for local residents to examine the guidelines for their area and ask questions of ministry staff regarding their implications.

I would like to remind members of the reasons such guidelines are needed in Ontario, I will describe briefly the extensive consultative process we have gone through since 1974 in arriving at these guidelines and I will inform members of several of the major specific decisions involved.

It is a complex matter and, of course, members will have an opportunity to examine and study the guidelines in detail, and we will endeavour to provide any clarification or information they may desire. But it is important to remember that for some years there has been in Ontario a clear need for a province-wide set of policies or guidelines that can provide a framework and foundation for more co-operative and effective resource management.

Traditionally, resources here and elsewhere have been allocated on what sometimes seemed like a piecemeal or first-come, first-served basis. If a forest industry was established in an area, forests were often committed to that use. Where sport fishing became established, commercial fishing was often curtailed, and vice versa. Where land was designated for recreational purposes, other resource uses, even where they clearly might be compatible with recreation, may have been curtailed or discouraged.

As competition for resources intensified, it became increasingly clear that our traditional ways of approaching resource allocation decisions were just not good enough. The ministry found itself in the midst of these competing interests. There seemed to be no basis or framework for the development of more co-operative approaches or for dialogue between such opposing groups as loggers and park enthusiasts, anglers and commercial fishermen, miners and environmentalists.

This conflict arose in part because there were no clear and published guidelines that would permit groups to know in advance the ministry's preferred use for particular land or water across Ontario. Up to now each interest group has tended to treat each resource application or decision as a competition, an occasion to put pressure on the ministry.

What we are aiming for with these guidelines is decisions that reflect policies specifically aimed at enabling the people of this province to get the most mileage out of natural resources now and in the future. Thus, since 1974 my ministry has been involved in extensive consultations with the general public, local authorities and special interest groups directed towards the achievement of a consensus as to the preferred use of our resources on a province-wide and district basis.

In 1982 alone, we held a total of 184 open houses throughout the province, at which more than 10,000 people made their opinions known. We received more than 10,000 written briefs and submissions, and late last year I hosted a series of public forums in seven Ontario communities so that interested parties could tell me personally about their concerns. More than 3,300 people attended these gatherings, and I can assure members they expressed their opinions in frank and unmistakable terms. I had equally frank discussions with representatives of 27 special interest groups in January 1983.

In the course of this consultative process, a consensus about several elements of our resource future became clear. First, while there was general agreement about the need for guidelines setting out the preferred uses of particular parts of Ontario's land base, it became clear that such guidelines should not interfere with private property rights, nor should they undermine essential local planning control.

We have carefully avoided any such encroachment in the guidelines I am announcing today. They will serve as a basis for improved resource allocation decisions. As such they will provide a higher level of certainty than has existed in the past, and we have no intention of interfering with the rights and responsibilities of land owners and municipalities.

2:10 p.m.

Second, I believe the consultative process we have gone through has helped to create a greater willingness among interest groups to work co-operatively and to search for ways in which various resource uses can be balanced. There is an understanding that resource allocation decisions should no longer be contests in which one interest group or another, or one resource use or another, emerges victorious. Instead, they must become a process of balancing and sharing our resources.

Let me briefly describe the overall objectives of the district planning process: first, to provide a comprehensive inventory of Ontario's resources and their capabilities; second, to identify and maintain opportunities for economic and social development; third, to provide a means of testing the feasibility of achieving desired resource management targets, and to reconcile those targets where they conflict; fourth, to provide a forum for public comment on the ministry's land use preferences and to facilitate public involvement in the process of resource allocation; and finally, to provide ministry staff with guidelines for integrated resource management that will help achieve policy objectives and minimize related difficulties.

The major thrust of my ministry in recent years has been to achieve a broad partnership in which all of those with direct interests in our resources participate in the management of those resources. This is reflected in our community fisheries involvement program, in our forest management agreements that require the forest industry to share directly in the responsibility of maintaining our forests, and in the fishery agreement we negotiated with the federal government and Indian people of Ontario, which will involve Indian bands in the conservation of our fisheries resource.

In total, these guidelines will provide us with a basis from which we can extend that partnership and involve more people and organizations in the critical tasks of resource management and conservation in Ontario.

Let me deal briefly with some of the major policies involved in the guidelines.

We clarify our policies with respect to supply of aggregates -- sand and gravel -- providing local and regional planning authorities with greater flexibility in the management of this resource.

We indicate that our fisheries resource will be shared between sports and commercial fishermen with neither group having absolute priority over the other. Regulations and quotas will be set on a case-by-case basis and adjusted where necessary to respond to biological and other relevant data.

The guidelines recommend a minimal reduction in wood supply for the forest industry, to support expansion of recreational and wilderness use of some forest land. However, a detailed analysis on a company-by-company basis indicates that a tight but manageable wood supply situation will exist in the forest industry up to the year 2000. The guidelines also propose expanded industry participation and efforts to manage and renew forests to meet future needs.

The guidelines provide for a flexible approach with respect to resource access, based on a site-by-site assessment of the need for access routes. They will involve full public consultation, including consultation with tourist operators. They also provide for access roads to be managed according to their intended uses, with roads being closed where this becomes appropriate.

The ministry is also developing a new set of crown land recreation policies which will allow for the zoning of certain crown lands. People who are not residents of Ontario will be prohibited from camping in these zones, the intention being to reduce the impact of nonresident hunters and anglers on remote areas newly opened up by access roads.

The guidelines also refer to a new modified management area policy aimed at protecting specific areas and specific resource values. This policy provides for a range of no-cut and limited or selected harvest zones designed to balance economic, social and recreational resource values.

In the guidelines, we recommend 155 future provincial parks. These will include six wilderness parks, 35 natural environment parks, 25 waterway parks, 74 nature reserves, 12 recreational parks and three historical parks. Cabinet has already passed regulations to create the six wilderness parks immediately. Therefore, those parks already exist.

Negotiations are now commencing between Ontario and Parks Canada on its proposal for a new national park. We fully expect those negotiations will lead to the eventual establishment of a Bruce Peninsula National Park associated with our existing Cyprus Lake and Fathom Five provincial parks near Tobermory. At this time, the negotiations are focusing on the area of the proposed park within St. Edmunds township.

Ninety potential candidates were not recommended for park status. These include areas where more data are required before any further decisions are made, where tradeoffs with other resources uses have been made, or where, in the ministry's view, the area's natural features can be effectively protected by other means. In many cases, there will be special protection through the application of our new modified management area policy or the policy for areas of natural and scientific interest.

As a general policy, logging is not a recommended activity in future provincial parks. Mineral exploration is recommended to continue in about one third of the proposed parks within the context of a licensing system that will permit exploration and development in a manner consistent with environmental values. Such controlled exploration would be permitted on about 80 per cent of the land base associated with the 155 new provincial park candidates.

Hunting, trapping and existing tourism operations which are both significant and considered compatible with park values are recommended to continue after regulation.

In addition to our 155 new parks, the guidelines identify some 250 lakes on crown land as having potential for additional tourist development. Our ministry will work closely with Tourism and Recreation, and with Northern Affairs, to ensure the maximum possible benefits from these developments.

I know members will want an opportunity to study the new guidelines in detail and that, as specific district guidelines are published and discussed at the local level, many members will wish to become involved in these discussions as well. I have asked my staff to inform all members on both sides of the House of the dates being set for discussions in all regions and I welcome the advice and comments any members may have.

The guidelines are not etched in stone. I am sure that as we extend this partnership that we are striving to build in the management of our resources in Ontario, some elements of the guidelines will be reconsidered and modified.

But the guidelines do provide a clear framework and foundation for a better system of resource management in Ontario, a system in which groups work in concert with the ministry to balance and to share our resources, to conserve and to optimize resource opportunities.

They indicate the resource allocation preferences of my ministry, and show a clear commitment to the balancing of various resource uses in a way that optimizes the benefits available to all the people of Ontario.

I believe that, in total, they represent an important advance in our ability to fulfil our responsibilities as the primary guardian of Ontario's natural resources, and I look forward to having an opportunity to discuss them with members in more detail in the weeks ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all honourable members to please limit their private conversations.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton).

AMENDMENTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr. Foulds: On point of order, the opposition has not been provided with copies of the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Are the copies being distributed, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Norton: They are supposed to have been distributed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: You need a lot more staff.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We run a lean operation in Ontario. May I proceed?

Mr. Speaker: I believe they are in the process of being distributed, and I will let the minister proceed.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Today I shall be introducing for first reading, a series of amendments to the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Last July, in a statement concerning the Junction triangle area in Toronto, I indicated that existing environmental legislation would be amended to improve the ministry's delivery of effective abatement programs in this area and other parts of Ontario.

The amendments in this bill meet that commitment. The bill includes a number of further changes which strengthen and simplify the legislation as well as several changes of a housekeeping nature.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think the leader of the third party just absconded with my copy of the material. They have two, I have none.

Mr. Speaker: Good heavens, in the spirit of co-operation, can one copy he made available to the official opposition, please?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sorry for the confusion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Another point of order from the member for Port Arthur.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is it not the custom under the standing orders that both the leaders and the critics for the opposition parties should receive the statement before the minister proceeds, and should not the minister just get on the ball and get his ministry operating?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister has taken note of your remarks.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the bill will protect employees of a company from reprisals for seeking enforcement of the act or for providing information to provincial officers carrying out investigations.

A ministry director will have the authority to order pollution prevention measures, require the availability of personnel and equipment. and require any equipment or procedures necessary to prevent the discharge of any contaminant or to minimize any effects from discharges.

We are closing a loophole in the legislation and assuring finality to control orders. This will prevent any future appeals against a director's refusal to amend an existing control order.

Mr. Kerrio: Hold it. Is my name at the bottom of that?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Control order powers will be broadened to permit a director to require monitoring of contaminants and to carry out studies of the effectiveness of control measures.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister should do the honourable thing and tell members it is my amendment, word for word.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is all right; the member can claim credit in his own riding.

We are also providing further flexibility in the operation of the Environmental Appeal Baord. A single member of the board will be able to conduct a hearing and render a decision, and the board will be able to sit in two or more divisions simultaneously and handle more than one hearing at a time.

In part 7 dealing with sewage systems, we are authorizing municipalities to set the level of fees charged for inspections and certificates of approval and inspection.

A number of amendments are designed to improve the effective administration and application of the Ontario Water Resources Act. One change will delegate some approval powers under the act to speed up processing of these approvals, reduce delays in development and save costs both for the municipality and for the Ontario government.

Amendments concerning sewage and waterworks agreements will permit regulations under which the ministry may assess costs to defray the administrative costs on provincially operated facilities. This will provide some further incentive for municipalities to take over these operations in accordance with provincial policy.

We are also providing for more frequent rate reviews, which will protect consumers from unexpected and dramatic rate increases.

With enactment of these amendments, we intend to proclaim an earlier amendment to the act which strengthens the controls on the quality of well construction.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleagues in the Legislature of a special three-year grant to the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres. The coalition will receive $200,000 for the fiscal year 1983-84. Agreement in principle has also been given for --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) does not have a copy of the statement.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: My apologies to the members. The coalition will receive $200,000 for the fiscal year of 1983-84. Agreement in principle has also been given for a similar grant for the following two years.

There are five ministries involved in this particular grant, contributing to it. They are the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Ministry of Correctional Services, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Attorney General, as well as the Provincial Secretariat for Justice.

The grant will be used primarily to cover the operating costs of the Ontario coalition and its member centres across this province. These funds will enable the rape crisis centres to maintain and expand a variety of counselling, information and support services to sexual assault victims and their families.

In addition, this grant will allow the centres to undertake a wide variety of educational activities among the health, social and justice agencies in their communities.

During the past year, I have received several hundred letters of endorsement from private citizens, police forces, church groups, hospitals, professional agencies and elected officials, urging our continued support of this important service.

Since 1980, the Justice secretariat has worked closely with the coalition in support of its efforts to assist victims of crime. We have published two booklets, Helping the Victims of Crime and Information for Victims of Sexual Assault. Both publications continue to serve a valuable educational function. In essence, they have filled a basic information void. Another recent initiative I announced earlier this week is a pilot project my office is undertaking to test a newly developed child sexual abuse resource kit.

All these endeavours have stimulated and encouraged the necessary co-ordination between the social and justice systems to develop strategies to combat sexual assault.

LACK OF MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege. My colleagues and I are surprised that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) is not present today to announce the government response to yesterday's meeting.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Di Santo: No, it is a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: You may ask him during the appropriate question time.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister certainly may proceed.

Mr. Di Santo: I want to explain why my privileges have been abused.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member will resume his seat, please.

Mr. Di Santo: If I do not speak, how will you know?

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, it is not a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. Will he take advantage of this occasion to rise in the House and completely and totally dissociate himself and his government from the outrageous statements of his colleague, the present Minister of Industry and Trade and the former Provincial Secretary for Justice, the member for London South (Mr. Walker)?

He says in his new vanity book, "One possible solution might be" -- he is referring to domestic violence -- "for the police called to domestic disturbance cases to charge both people with causing a breach of the peace." He goes on to say, "It takes at least two to make a fight, and perhaps the law should consider both partners in the problem, particularly as publicly supported police services are being repeatedly brought into the situation."

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Trade was good enough to send me a note as I arrived in the Legislature to express his concern, first, about the distorted presentation of his views --

Mr. Wildman: In his own book?

Mr. Breithaupt: Author, author.

Mr. McClellan: Why don't you read the book?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Was this written before or after his lobotomy?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- apparently on television last night. I look forward with great interest to reading his book, of course, but I have not yet had a chance to.

The minister also indicated to me that his view remains as it has always been. I recall his view when he was Provincial Secretary for Justice, which was that in the case of any injury at all to a wife, a criminal charge should be laid against the husband. He assures me he is still of the view that the police should lay charges in cases of wife battering, and that the charges should be prosecuted vigorously in the courts.

If the member has any further questions to ask in this respect I think he might direct them to the author himself.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Allow me to rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think this is as good a time --

Mr. Wildman: It is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot tell whether it is a point of privilege until I hear it.

Mr. Martel: You cut my colleague off not three minutes ago and did not let him explain his point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will please resume his seat.

Mr. Martel: You cannot have it both ways. You judge one ahead of time without hearing him out and then let someone else speak.

Mr. Speaker: I am not judging anybody ahead of time.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think this is an opportune moment to comment on the question now having been raised by the Leader of the Opposition in reference to some remarks that were made last night concerning what was raised as a direct question by the member and reference to which was made by the Attorney General.

My point of privilege relates to a news report on television station CFTO in Toronto last night. I think it should be brought to attention that it was completely false as a report and the reporter was totally wrong. I speak from a position of having been the person --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Just a moment. I speak from a position --

Mr. Speaker: You do have a point of privilege?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I would like to be able to make it without the ballyhooing from the opposition, If they would be good enough to listen to me, I would be good enough to point out to them that they may then wish to raise a question as a result of what I might say, but they are certainly going to have to listen first. One cannot speak with them shouting the way they are. If some of the braying can be deterred for a moment, I would like to offer this view.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I think this matter may be more appropriately raised at the end of the oral question period, and it may very well come up during the course of the question period.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my question had nothing to do with the news report; it had to do only with what was written in the book. I have read the appropriate passage to the Attorney General; if there is distortion between the author and his ghost writer that is not the point. The point is here in the passage in this hook.

Having heard the offensive passage quoted in this House, would not the Attorney General agree with me that the logical extension of his colleague's argument would be that in the case of a bank being robbed he would charge the bank also?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that when my colleague was Provincial Secretary for Justice one of his priorities was the whole issue and concept of victims of crime. I know he does agree with me that people who batter or injure their wives should be very seriously prosecuted. I am confident he shares my view in that respect.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, there is a doctrine called cabinet solidarity and we have a minister of the crown who has issued a book that can be read in a very few short minutes. It is about 164 pages long and contains a number of nuggets of great interest to all of us.

One of the nuggets that has been quoted has to do with the question of the treatment of domestic violence. The Attorney General's colleague, the minister who is responsible for the status of women in this province (Mr. Welch), was just at a conference dealing with the problems of battered women and that question.

I would like to ask the Attorney General, does he agree with his colleague the thinker from London South, the Minister of Industry and Trade, when he says it takes at least two to make a fight and when he says that one possible solution might he for police called to domestic disturbance cases to charge both people with causing a breach of the peace?

Does he agree -- yes or no -- with that statement by the minister with respect to the way in which domestic violence should be handled by the police?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to my earlier response. I want to make it very clear to the leader of the New Democratic Party that the Ministry of the Attorney General has taken a role of real leadership in this issue throughout this country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: I have to say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that this is a sad day for all the members on the government side and on the opposition side who participated in a report that brought to light a very serious problem, which has been completely distorted by the Minister of Industry and Trade.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: The Attorney General said that this province and his ministry have provided leadership in this role across the country, and he said in answer to the first question from my leader that when charges are laid they will be prosecuted vigorously.

In view of those statements, can the Attorney General tell me why he has not responded to a letter I wrote him on April 11 about a woman whose husband had been charged with assaulting her in the view of a police officer? I brought this case to his attention. The husband had a prior conviction for manslaughter he had a prior conviction for assault of a police officer --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out to the honourable member that this is a completely different set of circumstances.

Ms. Copps: No, it is not. With respect, Mr. Speaker, the minister said this morning --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: The minister said in answer to the first question from my leader that when charges are laid, his ministry will be prosecuting vigorously. I am asking why he has not even answered the question I raised in a letter to him seven weeks ago about why a husband received a suspended sentence -- he was not even given a jail term -- and why the crown did not appeal that sentence.

Why has he not even responded to a letter I wrote to him on April 11 about a husband who had previous convictions not only for manslaughter but also for assaulting a police officer?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have seen the honourable member's letter. I assume that after it was received, my director of crown attorneys was probably waiting for a full report on the case from the local crown attorney. I will attempt to expedite an answer to her concerns as quickly as possible.

REGULATION OF TRUST COMPANIES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the trust companies matter, our ongoing concern about his capacity to regulate these companies inside our provincial boundaries.

Given the minister's concern over the Dominion Trust matter for some period of time, and given the fact that his regulators have been involved in that company for some period of time -- possibly even at this very moment, who knows? -- how could he allow transactions to close as late as March 28 and April 18 of this year that were in violation of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say that in an unusual move I am going to thank the Leader of the Opposition for at least having the temerity and the courtesy to acknowledge that the ministry has been on top of this issue, as it is on most issues, right from the very start. Indeed, I think the first time he ever heard the name Dominion Trust, aside from the word "Dominion" in "Dominion of Canada," was when it was reported to him at a confidential, off-the-record meeting, which quickly was not off the record, in early December.

In any event, I honestly think some important points need to be said to reassure the public and the depositors with this issue having been raised. Let me first of all say that I am advised by the registrar that he is not in any way concerned about the solvency of this company; nor, I am advised, is he concerned about the safety of the depositors in that company. I raise this specifically because when one names a trust company such as this, there is always that great fear in the minds of depositors and the public that some disaster is about to take place, and I am advised that is not so.

I may also assure the honourable member and the Legislature that representatives of the ministry and of the registrar have been in very close contact with that company in monitoring it and in investigating it. Although I am not prepared to go into details at this time as to the extent of that monitoring and that investigation, I think the important thing is that, significant though it was, we still have evidence of transactions taking place.

2:40 p.m.

Nevertheless, having said that, I am not prepared at this stage, as the Leader of the Opposition is, to make the assumption that they immediately and automatically contravene the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. Whether or not there have been matters that have taken place in that company that contravene the act is a matter to be determined.

Mr. Peterson: I respect the minister's speech on the safety of the depositors' money at any given time. We did not suggest there was a problem, because the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. could have come up with it anyway. The CDIC is already paying hundreds of millions for the minister's negligence, whether he likes it or not.

That is the truth, but that is not the issue. The issue is, since he is well aware of these transactions now that we have brought them to the public and he is aware that our information is correct, why would he allow these violations of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act to go on in perpetuity, particularly when he is supposedly there on top of it, supervising and watching every detail of this company? How could that happen?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, I reject the preliminary remarks. Mr. Speaker, I know we are not supposed to answer those but, if you allow them to be made, I suggest we have a right to say that they are full of junk. So that I will not get involved in a lengthy speech about it, let me leave it at that simple phrase: junk.

Mr. Kerrio: Your answer is junk.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I told the press last evening that the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition are some of the transactions we have been looking at. I am certain he will forgive me if I say I have no doubt that he checked on the information. His office is frequently calling ours to confirm things. Indeed, it was with a great degree of concern that one of our investigators returned home to the office two or three days ago suggesting he was being followed and, when the person was identified, it was his friend Jim over there. Now, if Jim wants to follow him, just phone and we will tell him what the guy is going to those trust companies for. He does not need to follow people around.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could take this opportunity to let us know when he intends to bring down the white paper and give the House a chance to discuss some of the very real issues with respect to appraisals, with respect to the value of properties, and with respect to appraisal value versus market value which, as the minister knows, have been raised in other instances involving other trust companies. Can the minister give us a time for the publication of the white paper?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I said in a statement to the House in late April that it was my hope we would be able to present the white paper to this Legislature by the end of June, but I did say that, of course, I would like to be able to do that in the light of the Morrison report.

As the members will know, there was an application before the courts this week by one of the parties to quash the Morrison report; so I am afraid that at the moment I cannot give the honourable member exact timing. But let me assure him that I am as anxious as he is to have a number of issues relating to the management of the trust companies and the financial industry in general brought before a committee of this Legislature for discussion.

I do not think the member and I have any dispute on that. I hope he will also agree that, as a result of the amendments that were agreed to by all members of this House on December 21, 1982, while we wait for that white paper and for that discussion, we probably have the strongest loan and trust act that exists in this country.

Mr. Peterson: The minister may want another inquiry, because there is obviously a paranoid working for him somewhere or other. We do not have anybody working for us by the name of Jim; so he may just want to check that out.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Let me ask the minister an important question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: I work for him. Just to clear that up; that is what I am talking about.

I want to ask this question of the minister, who is treating it with a considerable amount of levity. The issue is his capacity to regulate; the issue is the series of failures that are still going on. Will these transactions and the failure to catch them while his people were there be included in his internal review as to the competence of his ministry and that particular section? When will we be receiving a copy of that internal review?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I totally reject any suggestion that there has been any lack of adequate supervision by the ministry. If the member --

Mr. Peterson: Why haven't you --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Oh sit down, for God's sake. Do not be such a little boy.

Mr. Peterson: Why are you doing investigations if you are --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member really understood the extent of the careful supervisory efforts that have gone on, I think he would be very complimentary of the ministry and its staff.

If I had Mr. Whitelaw's first name wrong, I forgive him. I forgive the member and I forgive him, and I even forgive myself if I had his first name wrong. I thought it was James. However, if he wants to follow people around, he should just phone. We will let him know where we are going and he can save himself the footwear. It will be easier just to go there and meet us.

I have made it clear from the start that there will be no hesitation on my part with respect to the internal review we are carrying out being made public to this Legislature. The decision I will have to make as soon as it is completed is whether it should have some external review before that tabling with the House takes place, but there will be no doubt that it will be subject to review by this House.

LINCOLN PLACE NURSING HOME

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, on Monday, I believe, the Minister of Health has been quoted as giving information outside the House that he did not give to my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) when he was asked questions with respect to the Lincoln Place Nursing Home.

The minister stated to the press outside that his ministry had warned Lincoln Place last February that it intended to revoke the home's licence if some safety improvements were not made. Quoting the Toronto Sun of the next day: "Grossman said the home is making 'reasonable progress' in meeting ministry requests, adding he doubts it will have to be closed."

Can the minister confirm that information with respect to correspondence between the ministry and Lincoln Place Nursing Home in February? Is he prepared to table that correspondence indicating the nature of the violations that led the ministry to take such a serious view of what was going on?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with the revocation procedure at other times in this House. I had indicated that in the event we had to go through with revocation procedures -- and we might in this case; I cannot predict it at present, although I suspect not, but I cannot be sure -- under the current legislation it will very much affect our opportunity to succeed in a revocation action.

I know my good friend would not want to see us fail in a revocation proceeding if we had to launch it under the current legislation. I expect that will be remedied in part or in full by the legislation we hope to introduce shortly.

At present, because of the circumstance I find myself in as a result of what I consider to be deficiencies in the legislation, the answer to that question has to be no.

Mr. Rae: I speculate as to why the minister was not prepared to tell this House something he was prepared to tell the press with respect to revocation proceedings commencing in February, when his indication to the member for Bellwoods was that there were things going on with respect to some inspection in April.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Again, on May 17, in answer to questions from my colleague the member for Bellwoods, the minister said, and I quote from Hansard at page 807: "That covers Country Place, which has indeed been charged. With regard to Lakewood, Barton Place and Good Samaritan" -- three other nursing homes -- "final decisions have not yet been taken, but they will be taken in the next day or two."

I wonder if the minister is now in a position to tell us the status of the ministry's investigations and actions with respect to those three homes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. One of them was Lakewood, and the answer is that no action has yet been decided on in that case. Regarding Barton Place, the revocation letter was sent May 9. What was the third one?

Mr. Rae: Good Samaritan.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Good Samaritan -- I do not know whether that is under G or S. I am always happy to provide the information. The answer to the third is no. In the case of the third one, it is not likely since the violations were quite minor.

2:50 p.m.

I should take this opportunity to remind the member what has been done in the past few months. We have moved quite clearly and forcefully against Ark Eden. We have succeeded in getting St. Raphael's Nursing Home on Yorkville Avenue closed after many years of trying. We have moved successfully in the Huron area against the home for special care.

Just to keep the record straight, there were a lot of misstatements made last Monday or Tuesday in terms of allegations about Lincoln Place. I want to make it clear that where there are real violations, even given the inadequacies of the current legislation, we have moved unfailingly and very firmly against those nursing homes that really should be closed and we have succeeded in getting them closed.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The minister knows full well that he cannot make an allegation against another member or even, if one looks under the rules and privileges of the House, make a suggestion or innuendo about another member as part of his comments. The minister should either present the statements he says are erroneous and misleading -- he did not use the word "misleading," but he was very close to it -- or withdraw the comment.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I accept that invitation. The member for Bellwoods, who usually has quite accurate information, indicated on Monday, and I am quoting from Hansard at page 1190, "May I ask whether the minister thinks it is first-class care ... at Lincoln Place Nursing Home in that the residents walk to the bathrooms wearing helmets because there is not enough staff ... ?"

That may be the information the honourable member had, but it presents a totally different picture from the facts. From what we have been able to determine, one patient has been custom- fitted with a specific medical device, which is ordinary in the circumstances and has no relation whatsoever to the staffing situation.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, if, as I understand, the minister began revocation proceedings against Lincoln Place in February, why is there not a mechanism in place to let new patients know about the situation at Lincoln Place?

I refer specifically to a patient who was admitted there about three weeks ago. She was so appalled by the conditions that her daughter had her yanked after 10 days because she was disgusted by what she saw there. Why was this family not aware that revocation procedures were already in place before it had a parent or family member admitted to Lincoln Place?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I agree that they should be made aware of that and commencing July 1 they will be.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there are four residents fitted with crash helmets. The minister may think it is really cute that a nursing home issues crash helmets instead of providing staff to walk people to the washroom.

My supplementary question has to do with Country Place, the home that was delivering meals in a golf cart. The minister said that home was going to be charged. Can the minister tell us what charges were laid against Country Place?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the honourable member that charges were laid on March 17. He will be surprised to hear that I do not come to the House with details about 340 nursing homes. However, they were charged.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, revocation proceedings were not taken. Charges were laid on March 17. They are an open and public matter. The member is free to go to the courts and get details of those charges. Or, if he wants to call my office this afternoon or later --

Mr. McClellan: What kind of smart-alecky nonsense is this?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why does the member not ask the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) how many charges have been laid this morning in Ontario and ask for details of each charge?

POLLUTION IN LAKE ONTARIO

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Minister of Energy. It concerns tritium pollution in Lake Ontario and Lake Huron and the decision by Ontario Hydro to shelve plans for controlling tritium emissions at the Pickering station and to have all that work concentrated at the Darlington station some time later.

Given that tritium pollution in Lake Ontario is twice as severe as it is in Lake Superior and that on February 28, 1979, a major heavy water leak led to the levels of tritium in the Pickering drinking water being 40 times as high as the Atomic Energy Control Board's short-term emission limits, in all conscience how can the minister justify the decision by Ontario Hydro to cancel the control plans with respect to tritium emissions at the Pickering generating station?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this matter was very seriously considered by Hydro and the board of directors. They are satisfied that the decision they have taken at this time is in keeping with all the standards of public health and safety.

As the honourable member will appreciate, this is a very technical matter. On the basis of my examination of all the material that has been provided for me, I am satisfied the objectives for tritium removal are still as relevant now as they always have been. This consolidation is being undertaken with all aspects of public health and safety being fully considered and there should be no concern along that line.

Mr. Rae: The minister should be aware that Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a radiation expert in Toronto, says "New evidence now shows that tritium can stay in the body for as long as 12 years and that the danger has been underestimated."

I would also like to advise the minister that scientists for the American section of the International Joint Commission, with whom I spoke in Washington a couple of weeks ago, prior to this announcement by Hydro just a couple of days ago, stated that they were very concerned at the lack of action and the lack of apparent concern in Ontario with respect to tritium pollution in Lake Ontario.

Given that evidence and given that a decision was taken in 1980 by the then chairman of the board, Mr. Macaulay, and announced with respect to the $58-million plan to clean up the tritium emissions, if something was true in 1980 and we have evidence today that suggests the problem may have been underestimated in the past, does the minister not think at least he should sit down with Ontario Hydro and ask it to reconsider its plans to shelve this proposal?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Perhaps I can respond to the supplementary in two ways.

First, to pick up on the second question, I would certainly want to make it my business to satisfy myself that the reference the leader of the New Democratic Party has made with respect to the American authorities was taken into account.

Second, I am advised that when the consolidated facility is in operation, the level of tritium in Pickering and Darlington heavy water will be reduced to about a third of the level now present in Pickering A reactors, compared with a reduction to about a fifth of the present levels in a dedicated facility like Pickering. The key word there is "reduction."

Proceeding with the consolidated facility will result in significant benefits to operating both Pickering and Darlington stations in terms of improved working environment, increased power production, reduced risk of overexposure to workers and reduced emissions to the environment in the event of a spill or leak of heavy water.

I want to assure the member, and members of this House, that I do not have to b e convinced about the necessity for vigilance with respect to all these matters in so far as health and safety are concerned. I am quite satisfied that Hydro is equally sensitive to these concerns.

I will have discussions with Hydro on the basis of the American evidence to which the member has made reference.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the co-operation of all members to limit their private conversations within the chamber. If they want to carry on business, please do it outside the chamber.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that they are shelving the tritium extraction in one of our nuclear plants and still have not really decided what the cost of safe disposal of the spent fuel bundles and other problems that exist with nuclear power will be, if we keep putting off those responsible things that should be done in this area, does the minister think we will ever know the true cost of nuclear power?

Would this question also bring to the minister's mind the question of whether we should not perhaps have gone more into hydraulic, which does not pose any of these problems? Maybe in the long run, if we had known the cost we might have gone in that sensible direction.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, certainly the tracing of costs is a very important exercise in so far as the public utility is concerned. That is part of the responsibility of the Ontario Energy Board when it reviews the revenue requirements of the utility as it gives some consideration to rates. As the honourable member knows, in the current submission, which will start before the board very shortly, there are some questions with respect to the decommissioning of plants in the long term and how those costs can be apportioned.

I would agree with the member that one of the matters with respect to the growth and development of nuclear power is going to be this question of the ultimate disposition of the waste. The member knows from our exchanges over the past that co-operative effort between the federal and provincial governments is proceeding in that regard and in regard to the longer-term storage of a temporary nature of that waste at the plants. But I hope we will be making some significant progress with respect to waste disposal once some of these preliminary research projects have produced their results.

Mr. Rae: The minister will know that the proposal that the tritium control be consolidated at Darlington will mean that as much as 900 gallons of heavy water will be taken out of the Pickering station daily. If trucks are used, a spokesman for Ontario Hydro has said, and I am quoting from the Oshawa Times, the material will be carried in 45-gallon drums in special tractor-trailers. He said he assumed the material would he taken along Highway 401 if trucks were used.

Is the minister satisfied with the safety of this proposal for heavy-water trucks driving along Highway 401 between Pickering and Darlington? Would the minister care to look into this matter in order to allay the fears that a great many residents of the area are naturally going to feel as a result of this proposal from Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the question of how this particular water will be transported between stations is, as the honourable member may know, under study by Hydro, and I am told that it expects to report later this year. To speak directly to the question, the method of transportation and the packaging of heavy water will obviously be subject ultimately to Atomic Energy Control Board regulations, so I think all these concerns have to he taken into account.

It is interesting to note, however, that Hydro has made 9,000 shipments of heavy water and low-level radioactive waste without spillage, and I think all this will be taken into account as a final determination is being made with respect to the method of transportation.

LAND USE GUIDELINES

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the land use guidelines. I wonder if the minister would now confirm that since these guidelines are being published he has abandoned the strategic land use plan? Would he confirm to this House that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) has won his power struggle with him? Would he also confirm that it has now taken 10 years and uncounted millions of dollars hearing thousands of submissions for him to produce a memo for his district managers?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member thinks that what has been produced is a memo, it just shows he has not read the documents. I am not suprised. It is the same way he has not read the proposed draft plans that were issued last year; the same way there was no interest across the floor in attending any of the open houses or public forums, except for the member himself in Toronto.

Mr. Elston: That is not right.

Hon. Mr. Pope: What?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Elston: That is not right.

Hon. Mr. Pope: You were not at the public forums. I did not see you in London at the public forum.

Mr. Elston: I attended the public meeting at the district office.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Yes?

Mr. Foulds: Order. Speak to the question.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we are committed to this program and that 10,000 people have involved themselves in the program. The documents we are producing give effect to the concerns and interests and priorities attached to resource management in Ontario. They represent something members have been urging me to do in the House for the last four to five months, and that is to steer a middle course to try to resolve the conflicts wherever possible.

We have accomplished that in these documents. They are a comprehensive resource inventory available to the public, something that has not been available before. They indicate some of our guidelines and some of our priorities in resource target achievement and they provide a comprehensive framework that people can have reference to.

They also provide some mechanisms and some systems for conflict resolution in terms of access roads in modified management areas and in terms of parks development and creation. All these issues are very important resource issues. I think the people of Ontario have won and I think it is a good basis upon which to do our resource planning now.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Would the minister now give us his new definition of the word "wilderness"?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Again, the member has probably not read this document, but if he wants a definition of "wilderness" I would refer him to the 1978 parks guidelines.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue that second supplementary. Surely the minister agrees he is going to have to change his entire parks classification system now that in 80 per cent of the land mass of the 155 new parks he is going to allow for resource extraction and mineral exploration. How can he conceivably call the land mass where he is going to allow that a true wilderness park? Surely he will have to come up with a whole new parks classification program.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, we understand the position of the opposition, particularly of the Liberal Party. We have, in each of those candidate wilderness areas, registered trap lines that have existed for decades, tourist establishments that have existed for years, and hunting and fishing opportunities that the residents of northern Ontario have traditionally used in these same land areas. We have existing logging operations, mining claims issued and cottage lots developed in these areas. We have mineral development and potential in Lady Evelyn Lake.

Members opposite want to take away the existing utilization opportunities of the people of northern Ontario, and we are not in favour of that.

Mr. Stokes: On page 7 of the minister's statement he talks about guidelines that recommend a minimum reduction in the opportunities for resource exploitation, particularly in the timber industry.

Will the minister provide members with the detailed analysis, on a company-by-company basis, which indicates that a tight but manageable wood supply situation will exist in the forest industry up to the year 2000? The guidelines also propose expanded industry participation in efforts to manage and renew forests to meet future needs. Will the minister provide members with those company-by-company analyses so that they can decide where there are problems and where there are likely to be shortages in the future?

Hon. Mr. Pope: There is no doubt that if we do notional calculations we get a projected impact in the order of one per cent of annual allowable cut. That is a general impact across northern Ontario. That is part of the 29 per cent impact on annual allowable cuts from forest fires, which is in the neighbourhood of 16 to 17 per cent, and from inoperability because of access problems, topsoil limitations, topography, or because of infestation or disease. This includes the three per cent withdrawal because of the no-cut reserve policy we have had in the licences in the last few years.

There is no question about that. The total impact is 29 per cent. Of that 29 per cent, one per cent deals with the parks reserves that are being put in place. Therefore, I think we can deal with any notional shortages to the year 2000 by making a better effort at fire detection and suppression, as we are with the new improvements we have put in place in the last two years. We can get a better, more economic extraction of our timber resources through planned access to the operable stand areas and accelerated reforestation programs, as we are now doing.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I would like a clarification of two of the things mentioned in the opening statement. One has to do with access roads, where access is going to be selectively denied to specific users of access roads that are designed to assist in better managing the resource.

How can the minister justify denying the general public access, particularly to those roads that are built using funds on a federal-provincial basis, with taxpayers' dollars, by saying he is going to retain those for the exclusive use of the timber company as opposed to general use by the public?

How is he going to rationalize what his ministry has been doing over the last few days by denying access to lakes and the placing of boats on lakes by resident anglers and sportsmen, giving specific preference to outpost operators? How can the minister do that when he says he is coming up with a new crown land management policy and he has already denied access to those resources to taxpayers who see this as part of their heritage?

Hon. Mr. Pope: The honourable member knows these kinds of discussions are carried on in public forums during the development of the forest management agreements. I have been at a number of forums when the forest management agreements have been discussed.

The issue of access roads has been present, anglers and hunters have been present, tourist operators have been present, the forest companies have been present and we have looked on a road-by-road basis at three different elements: should a road be established or constructed in there, at what cost and at what level? What should be the route of the road? What should be the degree of access allowed to the road? All that is decided at a public forum where people have the right to put their points of view forward. We make a decision based on the points of view and opinions expressed there.

The member knows the concerns of the tourist industry and the fly-in camp operators. who are opposed in general to a forest access policy which will have drastic economic consequences on their livelihood. They have invested thousands upon thousands of dollars in establishing a traditional fly-in tourist recreational experience that has been used by many people across Ontario. There are tax dollars, tax revenues for Ontario. We want to see the tourist industry expand in the province and we want to see the fly-in camp operations expand in the province. The only way we can have a road access policy in all fairness is on a case-by-case basis, looking at all the interests of all the resource users and trying to come to some combination that is most acceptable.

In some places local fishermen are going to be upset. In other places, like the Minaki road, the local tourist operator is going to be upset because he had a fly-in operation and that operation is now destroyed by the road access we allowed.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure us that of all these people who are making a livelihood now, none will be put out of business, as I indicated to him in my comments regarding the land use plans?

Second, there is something that bothers a lot of people who have gone to the public forums. That is the mechanism which is going to be available to change the guidelines, the rules, or whatever phrase the minister is currently using, in case something comes up that has not been foreseen.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I cannot guarantee that for some tourist operators the nature of their businesses will not change. When we make a decision about routing and about the degree of access, we try to take into account their financial commitment and contribution and their existing businesses and the job opportunities.

In some instances, such as at Separation where the Minaki road went through, we designated that private property as the access site for the whole lake system. We are attempting to work with that operator to publicize that access point to help him get a campground established and to help him develop a tourist trade related to vehicle access into the area as opposed to a fly-in operation. From time to time that will happen, but in general terms we are trying to protect the existing tourist industry and provide for some sort of expansion. Both in the wilderness parks and in new areas of forest cover there will be access.

The point the member raised in the second part of his question is precisely the reason we changed the word "plan" to "guideline." He should talk to his critic and advise him of the necessity of being allowed to have a flexible system that can be upgraded when we have additional resource inventory information available and also on the basis of other priorities and programs that may come into existence.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. He will recall that on Wednesday last week the Parkdale tenants and home owners had a demonstration to protest the change from apartments to hotel units. Since that time two developments have taken place.

One, we found another apartment company that is advertising the same services. I will send the minister a copy. Two, we found that the travel business people are also involved negatively in this situation. A letter that was sent to him and to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) indicates very clearly that they are very upset about what takes place in these units; namely, there are no services, This letter indicates to both ministers that the travel people protest the kind of treatment visitors from the United States had when they came to Canada and stayed at these placcs.

We want to know what action the minister will take to protect visitors from abroad, and what action he will take to stop the proliferation of these hotel units.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, Mr. Speaker, I must confess I was not aware of the letter that had been written to me. I suspect it will be in my mail to review in the next day or two.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Don't mumble into your tie.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just be quiet. I thank the member for drawing the letter to my attention.

With respect to the whole issue of the section 4 exemption with respect to transient accommodation, let me go over it, because I suspect there is no major difference. Certainly there was none in 1979 when the member's party concurred with the section 4 amendment and voted for it. The section 4 amendment related to situations where there are legitimate transient accommodation facilities.

In the cases the member has written to me about and has had constituents write to me about and which there have been meetings about, let me say once again that the Residential Tenancy Commission can deal with them only on an issue-by-issue basis. But as to the J son Avenue buildings that the member has referred to on many occasions, in each case the commission has not gone along with the concept of a section 4 exemption.

In many of those cases, I think most of the ones the member is talking to me about, there are appeals by the owner against the refusal of the acceptance of that exemption. So we are not talking about some massive runaway program that is taking place in society.

Indeed, the commission to date, in all the matters the member has brought to my attention, has not accepted the claim that there was an exemption under section 4. Nor indeed, I might add, in a recent case relating to the same area, has the court accepted a notice to evict under the Landlord and Tenant Act as being appropriate because of an exemption under section 4. That, too, is a matter that is under appeal.

I think the member owes it to the people of his riding to tell them the facts of what is going on and not simply try to inflame people.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister would have to agree that the facts of the situation speak for themselves. He has the letter in front of him from the travel industry. He can read it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Ruprecht: He has the notice there that this situation is now expanding and proliferating. That is the situation and the minister cannot deny it.

In answer to the point the minister is making, that he should be very grateful --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: You are not here to answer; you are here to ask questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: We should be grateful that the commissioners are independently coming to the conclusion that this should not he permitted. That is a very lucky thing. The minister will have to admit that. But we do not want that; we do not want to base the Residential Tenancies Act on luck.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Ruprecht: What we want to do is to make sure that people are being protected. This minister's responsibility is to protect tenants and to make sure there is no proliferation.

Mr. Speaker: You do have a supplementary?

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: When will he either directly provide a guideline to his commissioners so this does not happen. or simply amend the Residential Tenancies Act?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, it is pretty clear that the first thing the member had better do is read the Residential Tenancies Act so he gets a better understanding of it. Nowhere in that act is the minister permitted to provide a guideline to the Residential Tenancy Commission. They make their own guidelines free of ministerial interference. If he is suggesting that this minister should interfere in that way, then it is an interesting approach and a new approach. Is it his party's position? If it is, let him stand up and say there should be ministerial discretion with respect to guidelines.

With respect to the section 4 amendment, I had always understood, as the member has -- he being the thoughtful person he is and always delving deeply into the backgound situations; he is thoughtful and he is a deep thinker, is he not? I cannot hear the answer.

Mr. Speaker: The answer, please.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: He wanted the answer before. I cannot hear him.

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister just address himself to the question, please?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member will know that in 1979 when this Legislature, in a minority situation, very thoughtfully considered revisions to the Residential Tenancies Act, his party supported the section 4 amendment as being a rational and a reasonable thing to do when it was done in an open, honest and acceptable way and not to evade the Residential Tenancies Act. If his party has changed its position -- which, by the way, would be in keeping with many things his party does on positions -- then let him say so.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, our party's position is different from that of the Liberal Party.

Would the minister not agree that the real issue now is not that tenants can be legally evicted, but that in this case, as in the case of tenancy-in-common, tenants are being harassed to leave those units? What is this minister going to do about that harassment?

Since he stated earlier that he was meeting with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), what kind of commitments does he have from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that an amendment to the Planning Act will be brought in so this kind of conversion will no longer be allowed to take place?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if the member has a question to ask of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, he should address it to him and not to me.

Certainly, as I indicated, the Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and myself did meet long ago and as a result of that, the member knows very well, certain amendments were introduced to the Landlord and Tenant Act.

With respect to harassment of tenants, again the member knows that is a matter that is already present with respect to a remedy in the Landlord and Tenant Act and it is a remedy that is open to any tenant.

MINING EQUIPMENT CO. FUNDING

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade -- and I again draw your attention to the excellent coverage in the press gallery today following the leaders' questions.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the member will not be provocative.

Mr. Martel: The minister will know that his government has spent approximately $45 million on Minaki Lodge to create about 30 permanent or year-round jobs.

Can the minister indicate when his ministry is going to give a definitive answer to the request from J. Clark, formerly of Jarvis Clark. as to whether the federal and provincial governments are going to provide some financial assistance that would lead to the development of a mining equipment company in Sudbury, which would create 225 permanent jobs for certainly a lot less than the megaproject he built in Minaki?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) announced it already.

Mr. Martel: Ah, baloney.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What page is it on, Gordon?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Page 143.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I have indicated a number of times that the Mining Equipment Co. of Ontario project, or at least the reworked MECO project which is now before us, is one that we are prepared to consider quite seriously.

We have always made it a substantial aspect of this that the federal government has to be prepared to he a participant in the process. That has been very clear. It has been conveyed by the member for Sudbury, who has advanced that view quite strongly to us. The federal government must be a part of the process.

I have reviewed the submission that has been put forward and we have some concerns. One, for instance, is with respect to the load-haul vehicle. Today the market is at 20 per cent of previous capacity and two facilities are already providing those kinds of vehicles -- one in Owen Sound and one in Burlington, transported from North Bay, and it gives me no end of annoyance that it has now been consolidated there when I think it probably should not have been.

The fact is that two firms are already producing the kind of vehicle that would undoubtedly be an element of the MECO project. In spite of all that, the project is before us. It has been advanced for discussions in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development and we are prepared to consider a reasonable proposal.

What it has to have is that federal ingredient. We have consistently made that clear, and I am sure the member for Sudbury has made the Sudbury area very aware of that. Let me assure the member we have absolutely no difficulty that this project, if it is at all possible. should go forward. We realize it might be a few years or so before the market is restored. We nevertheless are going to do that.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister not aware that the original agreement his predecessor had entered into through Duncan Allan was not that federal money had to he involved?

That aside, even more important, is the minister not aware that the company we are talking about is now sending into Canada all of the equipment it is going to produce in Sudbury? Is it not time then, if we are talking about import replacement and if all of that is being shipped in from abroad, we should start to produce it in Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. Walker; The answer to the latter part of the question is, of course, yes. The answer to the first part of the question is that it is my understanding that Mr. Allan did not necessarily make an agreement but made overtures with a view to creating a MECO. The proposal would have included a substantial amount of federal participation. They must be part of the process; we insist on it.

Mr. Martel: No, that is not true,

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The member should go and tell his friendly federal minister who comes from that community that she has to ante up in this case and be part of it. We are not carrying the ball alone on it; she has to be a substantial part of it, and we want that to occur, recognizing the problems we may have.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

TELEVISION NEWS REPORT

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker. on a point of privilege: I will now take a moment to raise the point of privilege that you asked me to delay until the end of question period.

Last night on a local television station in Toronto, CFTO, there was a political editorial by a Tom Clark that contained some information involving a book that I have been a part of, and in that particular report it was said by reporter Tom Gibney --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot really transmit this message to the House with the noise from the opposition. I would ask them simply to listen.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I was very good to listen entirely to what they were saying without shouting. I think maybe they should now listen to what I am saying without their shouting.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Mr. Rae: If you can't take it, sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: There is a difference between taking it and rudeness. Now remember that.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the point of privilege. please.

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Last night on CFTO-TV, reporter Gibney, on leading into the statement, said, "Walker said, 'In cases of wife beating, both husband and wife should be charged with disturbing the peace." Further, reporter Clark said. "Here are his," referring to me, "views on wife battering" and proceeded to read two particular quotations from a book.

Mr. Speaker, I said nothing of the sort in the book that I wrote. The report was entirely false. The reporter was totally wrong and here is how it is:

I refer members to page 141 of the book. I am sure they have it in front of them.

I said: "In all situations where the victim has quite clearly been severely hurt, police officers should lay charges of assault causing bodily harm. There should be no discretionary powers for the police or the victim in cases of serious injury." That is consistent with the all-party report put forward here recently. I believe members of the New Democratic and Liberal parties participated in it.

Second, the quote read by the CFTO reporter had no relationship whatsoever to wife battering, and it was wrong to imply that it did. Rather, it related to any domestic quarrel. It related to anything that could have been between, say, two brothers or a father and a son.

Furthermore, CFTO took two of the quotes from my book out of context. They juxtaposed a later one and an earlier one and passed them off as a continuous quote, even though they were separated by other sentences. Now to set the record straight, let me read this, it begins on page 142 of the book.

"It would be far preferable if we could prevent domestic arguments from reaching the stage where someone is seriously hurt. But how? One possible solution might be for police called to domestic disturbances to charge both people with causing a breach of the peace, particularly if they have had to intervene between the same couple more than once.

"This would lessen pressure on the police to sort out on the spot which individual actually precipitated the dispute. It would also reduce the anxiety and intimidation experienced by many victims in making a formal accusation against a partner. It takes at least two to make a fight, and perhaps the law should consider both partners the problem, particularly as publicly supported police services are being repeatedly brought to their situation."

I speak from the position of having been the person who brought in the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Having originated the funding for the rape crisis centres, I have advocated here a --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I have advocated here very clearly that the spouse should be charged in any severe beating. There is no question that should be the case. A committee of this House agreed with it.

That paragraph is part of a much greater chapter that relates to victim justice and the series of victims' rights. There is probably no one who demands more justice for the victims of crime -- and I consider wife battering to be a crime -- than I would.

I think it totally wrong for the CFTO reporter and, for that matter, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), to have ignored the fact that when I spoke of wife battering I spoke in terms of laying charges. The second aspect of it was taken totally -- I think it totally wrong for the CFTO reporter and, for that matter, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), to have ignored the fact that when I spoke of wife battering spoke in terms of laying charges. The second aspect of it was taken totally out of context. The Leader of the Opposition should correct the record in order that in future he does not lead us astray in the manner in which he has.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the member has raised what you have allowed to go on for some time. I assume you have allowed it as a point of privilege. Since you have allowed --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Just to clarify the position, misrepresentation in the media is a legitimate point of order, and that is the point the minister has raised.

Mr. Rae: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking directly to the point of privilege which has been raised by the minister. With all due respect, if the minister has raised the point of privilege, other members are allowed to comment on his allegation that his privileges have been breached by a member of the press.

Mr. Speaker: There is not any provision for that in the standing orders, as you are well aware. It is a matter of me making a ruling that the point of order or privilege is in order or not. There is not any further representation required.

Mr. Rae: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would simply submit that on other occasions when members have argued their privileges have been affected, either by activities inside or outside this House, that is a matter for argument which you are allowed to hear.

I think you should hear it since the minister has risen in his place and given an explanation as to what his book really means and what he meant on pages 141 and 142. Since this matter is now one where, frankly he has accused a member of the media of misrepresenting his position, those of us who have also read this tome are entitled to express an assessment of whether or not the member's privileges have been breached in the manner he has expressed.

The minister has made a very serious accusation with respect to Mr. Clark and you should hear some argumentation about that. Mr. Clark is a highly respected political commentator, certainly by all members of our party. He is a man of tremendous neutrality and stature in this province. I think Mr. Clark is entitled to an apology from the minister for the things he has said today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interesting as that may be, I am not going to be put in the position, nor can I be, of making a judgement as to who is right and who is wrong. I would just point out that it is up to the honourable members of this House to take action if they so wish.

LACK OF MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Downsview has been jumping up and down. I am sure he has something of great importance to say.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: If you listen to me for a minute with courtesy, you will see that I have a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I shall listen to you for one minute and then I will decide.

Mr. Martel: You didn't put a time limit on the minister.

Mr. Di Santo: My colleagues and I have been shocked by the fact that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has not made a statement in the House today. As members of the standing committee on resources development --

Mr. Speaker: With great respect, having said that, would the honourable member for Downsview please resume his seat?

Mr. Di Santo: You know what my intention is.

Mr. Speaker: I know, but I am not even going to allow that. It is not within my authority or jurisdiction to demand or ask or even know who is making statements and who is not.

I would ask the honourable member to resume his seat.

Mr. Wildman: You listened to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought I made that very clear. Misrepresentation by the media is a legitimate point of order.

The honourable member for Downsview will please resume his seat and we will get on with the business of the House.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid you are tempting my patience. Would the honourable member please resume his seat? That is the last time I will ask.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Sit down for goodness' sake.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No. Does the honourable member not wish to resume his seat? Obviously not.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard.

Mr. Speaker: There is no provision for you to be heard at this time.

Mr. Di Santo: You let the minister speak for five minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled that you are out of order. Will you resume your seat?

Mr. Di Santo: I would like to be heard, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This is not the appropriate time to do it.

Mr. Di Santo: You are abusing my privileges.

Mr. Speaker: Then you give me no choice but to name you, the honourable member for Downsview, and I ask you to leave the House for the rest of the day.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing to appeal. You are on your way.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No no. Out.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

3:40 p.m.

RIGHTS OF MEMBERS

Mr. Martel: I would like to, Mr. Speaker, under one of the rules --

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. My order has not been complied with.

Mr. Martel: I have a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: No, you have not.

Mr. Martel: But I do.

Mr. Speaker: I will make that decision.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I move that the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) now be heard. That is the rule. Now would you like to hear him? Tell me that is out of order.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: The Speaker is standing. You do not have the right to move it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: You want to rule me out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Suddenly everybody is an expert. I cannot see how I can legitimately hear a person who is not in this House.

Mr. Martel: He is here. I can see him.

Mr. Speaker: No, he is not.

Mr. Martel: I can see him over there in the third seat.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He has been named.

Mr. Speaker: The Sargeant at Arms will perform his duty.

Mr. Di Santo was escorted from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order. There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Martel: Yes, there is.

Mr. Speaker: No, there is not. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will just resume his seat, please.

Mr. Martel: No, I will not.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you will.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, today I have watched you allow a member get up and prattle on for an hour. You do not allow a rnember over on this side of the House even to finish a sentence --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: -- but the minister can get up and prattle on forever and you do not say a word. In fact you help him. What kind of nonsense is that?

Mr. Speaker: The memb er for Sudbury East will please resume his seat.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Throw him out too.

Mr. Martel: Try it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: You might answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I do not have to answer questions.

Mr. Martel: I do not have to answer that nonsense either.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you do.

Mr. Martel: You are supposed to be impartial in here, my friend.

Mr. Speaker: However, only because I have great respect and affection for the member for Sudbury East, I will tell him the minister had a legitmate point of privilege, as I said.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What was the member for Downsview's point of privilege? You do not know what it was.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Yes, I do. He preaced his remarks quite clearly.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, might I ask your assistance?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing --

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you heard the minister out. On both occasions, earlier in the clay and now, my friend the member for Downsview did not even finish a sentence and you determined he did not have a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: You did not even hear what the point of pnivilege might have been.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As you know, the member prefaced his remarks, which was completely out of order. I am not going to argue about it. I have made a ruling that is not appealable. We will get on with the business of the House.

Mr. Martel: You say he prefaced the beginning of his remarks, but you did not hear him out. Are you or are you not a mind-reader? What you are doing --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Sudbury East please resume his seat?

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, if I heard you correctly, you did say that the rninister in his remarks had a legitimate point of privilege and you had made a ruling the member's privileges were in some way abridged.Might I now inquire what action you winow take? Having made a ruling that a member made a point of privilege that was valid, what are you going to do about it?

Mr. Speaker: That is interesting. I think I have already answered that to the member for York South (Mr. Rae). I just pointed out to the honourable members, as you all know, there is no provision in the standing orders for questioning of the Speaker. However, again, because the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has asked this question, it is not up to me to do anything; it is up to the House if it so desires.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: First, it seems to me as a legislator who has been in this House some 12 years, more than passing stange that you would allow the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) to make a point of privilege at the length he did and then cut off my colleague the rnember for Downsview on a serious matter having to do with allowances for workers' compensation, without hearng his argument or his case.

Second, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to you that, on the so-called matterof privilege raised by the Ministcr of Industry arid Trade, in which he alleged that Mr. Clark misrepresented him, the minister himself quoted his own book out of context, not the other way around.

Mr. Speaker, you did not allow my colleague the member for Sudbury East to make his motion that the member for Downsview be now heard when two people had risen to catch your eye at the same time, the member for Downsview and and myself. I was going to speak about the Minister of lndustry and Trade as a matter of privilege. At that point, the member for Downsview had not been ejected by the Speaker or escorted from the House. It has always been the rule of the House that, if a majority vote on a matter of procedure carries, the House has the right to set those rules. You did not even allow the member to make the motion under standing order 19.

Mr. Speaker: Surely, the member had been named. I asked him to leave and he chose not to.

Mr. Mackenzie: We have a guillotine working in this House.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, you had not at that point instructed the Sergeant at Arms to escort the member for Downsview out.

Mr. Speaker: No, that is right, but I had asked him to leave of his own volition which he chose not to do.

Mr. Martel: Right.

Mr. Foulds: Right; he was still in the House.

Mr. Speaker: But he was named.

Mr. Martel: He had not been escorted out yet. You just admitted he had not been escorted out yet.

Mr. Speaker: No, you are right. He was named because it was out of order.

Mr. Martel: It depends on whose ox is being gored, does it not?

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Use the rules to your advantage, if they don't work for you --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: You are telling us the rules.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can understand the feelings of the members involved. However, I thought we had addressed this completely and thoroughly before. Certainly, I have dealt with the matters as they are provided for in the standing orders.

Mr. Renwick: You have not. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. I cannot stand while you are on your feet.

Mr. Speaker: No, you cannot.

Mr. Renwck: May I rise on a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: A new point of order?

Mr Renwick: Yes, sir.

Mir. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Standing order 20(a) reads, "If a member on being called to order for an offence, the Speaker may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if such member refuses to resume his seat, the Speaker shall name him." You named the member for Downsview, but you did not on any occasion in the course of your remarks state what the offence was which he had committed.

l refer to standing order 19(c): "A member called to order shall sit down, but may afterwards explain. The House, if appealed to, shall decide on the case, but without debate. If there be no appeal, the decision of the Speaker shall be final."

My colleague the member for Downsview rose on an item under standing order 18(a), "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, you are not the repository within your cranium of all the matters with respect to privilege. My colleague the member for Downsview was denied the opportunity to place his question of privilege before the House.

I say to you, sir, that if you require him to sit down, my colleague the member for Downsview did not offend against any standing order. If you would point out to me what standing order he offended against, then perhaps I can direct my atterition to that question, but you do not have any arbitrary authority in this House to order a imember of this House out of this assembly unless you, sir, can point to the rules.

What is the offence that my colleague the member for Downsview committed that allowed you, sir, to take the action against him which you have taken, when you set it in contradistinction, sir, to the offence you committed by not allowing my colleague the member for Downsview to state what he believed to be his point of privilege?

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Well, that is all very interesting and I guess you --

Mr Renwick: It is not interesting at all, it is serious.

Mr. Speaker: It is indeed.

Mr Renwick: If you are not careful, we will name you.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You know better than that.

Mr Renwick: You know he is wrong as well as we do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Riverdale knows better than that.

Mr Renwick: I refuse to take that kind of language. What offence did my colleague commit against the standing orders of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. He chose not to obey a direction of the Speaker.

Mr. Martel: You chose not to listen to him.

Mr. Speaker: Now, getting back --

Mr. McClellan: Pursuant to which standing order?

Mr. Speaker: I am not going to answer any more questions. I have gone far beyond what I am required to do.

Mr. McClellan: Is this a parliamentary democracy or is this some kind of Reichstag?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What are you trying to demonstrate?

Mr. McClellan: Just because you have a majority you think you can do anything you please, you can throw us out. Why don't you throw us all out?

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[Later]

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: During your exchange with the member for Downsview it appeared to me that the member asked you to reconsider your decision and you said there was no appeal, but he did in fact appeal to you to reconsider the matter.

I would suggest, with the greatest of seriousness, that you call for the member for Downsview to come into the House and explain his appeal to you under standing order 19(c).

Mr. Speaker: Now that is not provided for and the member knows that.

Mr. Foulds: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: It may not, in your words, be provided for, but I would like you to tell me what in the rules precludes you from doing that. You have not named the member for any length of time. You may do so for 10 minutes, so he can then reappear in the House. I would advise you. very much, to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Having had the benefit of his advice, I would point out to the honourable member that the standing order he is citing quite clearly pertains to the rules of debate.

Mr. Foulds: There are no rules of debate in this House. There is one rule for them and one rule for us.

Mr. Martel: The minister was allowed all kinds of time for his point of privilege but this guy doesn't even get a chance.

Mr. Foulds: The minister could go on and apologize for his book but my colleague from Downsview couldn't even make a point ahout workmen's compensation.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to all honourable members that pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling) to his question concerning the social development committee report on wife battering and the ministry's response thereto. This matter will be debated at 10.30 p.m. today.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Eves from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Solicitor General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984:

Ministry administration program. $5,685,800; public safety program, $24,516,000; policing services program, $10,241,000, and Ontario Provincial Police program. $253,769,000.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Runciman from the select committee on the Ombudsman presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, I have some very brief remarks.

This report from the select committee on the Ombudsman deals with several specific cases detailed by the Ombudsman in his annual reports. In addition to following up on earlier recommendations from this committee, there are recommendations on new cases involving the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Ministry of Health and the Workers' Compensation Board. The report also discusses the impasse reached in the fall between the Ombudsman and the committee over the committee's jurisdiction with respect to the Office of the Ombudsman.

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

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to sit until 1:30p.m. on Wednesday, June 8, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to sit the afternoon of Tuesday, June 7, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to travel to Oshawa the morning of Thursday, June 23, 1983.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay.'

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the order for consideration by the committee of the whole House of Bill 34, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, be discharged and that the bill be ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have no comments to add to my earlier statement, Mr. Speaker. I do have another bill, though.

Mr. Speaker: We will hear it now, then.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 52, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ramsay moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, first reading of Bill 53, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the amendments are of a technical nature and are aimed at improving the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

As the members know, this act has been in force since October 1979, and experience indicates housekeeping changes are required.

The amendment to section 21 of the act clarifies the definition of a new chemical substance. The amendment to section 22 of the act is needed to facilitate the notification and consultative process of designating a biological, chemical or physical agent by regulation.

The final amendment is to section 41 of the act and empowers the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations with regard to training.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Philip, first reading of Bill 54, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have introduced this same bill for several years in a row but I am introducing it again today to highlight particularly the debate that is going to take place later if we get any time on Bill 15.

The bill of the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) is more confined than mine but one section is the same, and that is the one to require every product offered for sale bearing the product code to be marked also with its purchase price.

My bill prohibits increases in the purchase price of a product above the price initially marked on it by the retailer.

This bill also provides that if the price marked on the product differs from the price associated with the product code, the purchase price of the product is to be the lower of the two prices.

PROFITS FROM CRIME ACT

Mr. Renwick moved, seconded by Mr. Martel, first reading of Bill 55, An Act to prevent Unjust Enrichment through the Financial Exploitation of Crime.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am reintroducing this session the bill to make moneys earned by accused criminals from the sale of their memoirs payable to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which would use the funds received in each case to satisfy judgements obtained by victims of the crime.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT

Mr. Renwick moved, seconded by Mr. Martel, first reading of Bill 56, An Act to provide for the Readjustment of Electoral Boundaries.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader (Mr. Wells) has circulated to the House leaders of the other two parties for consideration an archaic resolution with respect to the redistribution of the seats in this assembly which is designed to gerrymander certain of the electoral ridings in the province.

The bill I have introduced today will provide for a representative commission, giving all due regard to the position of the government on that commission but allowing representation on the commission from each political party with respect to the redistribution of the ridings and providing that all the ridings, on a permanent basis, be redistributed after each decennial census of the province.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege: First, my friend should withdraw the charge that I submitted a resolution that would result in a gerrymandering of the province, because the resolution would do nothing of the sort.

I also want to draw to the attention of my friends in this House, who are continually talking about co-operation and the sharing of ideas, that I shared with the other parties a draft resolution. I gave no indication that it was to be introduced; it was merely for study and the comment back. This kind of action from the member for Riverdale is the kind of action that makes us very leery of ever co-operating with his party at all.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to have the comments of the govemment House leader on matters with respect to co-operation.

The thought that, at this particular juncture of the history of this province, a commission would be established by the Lieutenant Governor of the province to distribute the electoral seats in this assembly, rather than a commission established by a statute of this assembly to provide for a regular and orderly redistribution of the seats, is totally contrary to the democratic tradition that I trust the members of this House adhere to.

4:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Again, on a point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: I think we are entering into a debate, with all due respect.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I am not entering into a debate. But my friend is indicating that there has been some matter of policy already decided. That has not been the case. I also ask that he withdraw the comment about gerrymandering, because that is certainly uncalled for.

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable member give consideration to withdrawing the reference to gerrymandering?

Mr. Renwick: Of course, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you kindly.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some temerity on a point of order. I want to point out to you that under standing order 81 the government is required to reply at least in an interim fashion to a written question on the order paper. Question 292 was submitted on May 16 and, as yet, we have not had even the courtesy of an interim reply from the government. I ask you to do what you can to encourage the ministers on that side of the House to obey the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the appropriate minister and the government House leader will take note of your remarks and, it is to be hoped, will act accordingly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS SEASONAL RESORT BUSINESS TAXES

Mr. Lane moved, seconded by Mr. Eves, resolution 6.

That this House acknowledges the outstanding contribution of thie seasonal resort and tourist industry to the economy of Ontario, in particular the significant economic contrbution of small operators and family-run businesses. Further, that this House recognizes that seasonal resorts and tourism operations pay business taxes for the whole of the year yet they operate for only part of the year; and that in order to sustain small seasonal tourist businesses in northern Ontario and encourage them to take advantage of opportunities for further development and expand capacities for additional employment, this House recommends that the Minister of Revenue review the application of business taxes to the owners of these properties so as to minimize the impact of these taxes on their seasonal operations.

Mr. Speaker: I point out to the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes to submit his case and he may reserve any time he may wish for a roundup.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, I will not be taking the 20 minutes. I want as many people as possible to participate in this debate. We have wasted a lot of time this afternoon; so I will state my case as quickly and as adequately as I can and listen to the next member.

None of us likes to pay taxes but, as we all know, it is one of the sure things of life. Having accepted the fact that we must pay taxes, we must be sure the tax system is as fair as possible. That is why I am bringing foward this resolution this afternoon.

I do not feel the present business tax system is fair to the people who own and operate seasonal tourist operations, some of whom operate only eight or 10 weeks during the entire year. The issue in this debate is whether operaters of seasonal resorts and tourist properties should be given a measure of relief from business taxes and, if so, in what form this relief should come.

Most of the municipalities in the north, where these seasonal operations are located, have a limited tax base because for the most part they are small municipalities. Therefore, I would not want the results of this debate to erode the tax dollars these municipalities must have to manage the affairs of the municipalities.

If we are to provide some relief to the seasonal operators, it must be given in some form from the provincial government, as a rebate to the operators or a grant in lieu of taxes to the municipalities, or by whatever means the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) and his staff decide is the most feasible way to correct the situation these operators face.

I have discussed this problem with the Minister of Revenue, and he is aware of the need for some change. This afternoon I hope not only that I will get support for this resolution from all members of all parties but also that several options will he put forth so as to be as helpful as possible to the minister and his staff to correct the situation in the most suitable manner for all.

We all know that most government programs requiring funding are funded either directly or indirectly by some sort of tax. I realize when we talk about giving tax relief to a group or operation, we are going to have to collect that amount of money by increasing tax income from some other source. For that reason, I hope every speaker on this resolution this afternoon will give serious thought as to how to accomplish what this resolution is meant to do.

I have some business tax figures on a few seasonal businesses and a few nonseasonal businesses from one small municipality on Manitoulin Island and will take three of each to provide some comparison. For the three seasonal operations, the business tax for 1982 was: $670.76, $604.42 and $457. For the three nonseasonal businesses.,operating on a full year and not tourist-oriented, the business tax for 1982 was: for a grocery store, $331.70; for a service station, $126. and for a body shop, $14.42.

These facts prove what I said earlier, that the present system is unfair to the seasonal tourist operator. I am very concerned about this situation. The government is trying to encourage people to go into the tourist business or to remain in it and perhaps to expand. Yet in northern Ontario we have just scratched the surface of what the tourist business can be. Many jobs can be provided, a great deal of cash flow can be created and many thousands more visitors can enjoy the great north country if we make it possible for the tourist business to expand.

If we are going to accomplish this, we must deal with the business tax problem this resolution is addressing. Otherwise, we will have people going out of business and others not expanding or getting into business, and all the benefits I have mentioned will have been lost.

The hospitality industry is one of the largest employers in the province. There are many opportunities for expansion, especially in northern Ontario. For the most part, the tourist business does not cause pollution; nor does it cause the other environmental problems that many industries do.

All northern members will agree with me when I say we should do all we can to encourage expansion of the tourist industry. If this debate this afternoon can result in a correction of the unfair business tax this industry is now saddled with, then we will have taken a big step forward.

I am sure many here have as great an interest as I in tourist development in this province, and not only for the jobs it will provide or the cash that will flow from a healthy tourist business. It will also enable us to better share the natural beauty of our province with as many people as possible from all parts of the world, because there is much in Ontario unique to this province. For example, in my riding, the north channel between the mainland and Manitoulin Island is said by many to be the best boating area in the world.

Now to talk about how this problem can best be solved. If a municipality were making a rebate to the operators or cutting the percentage from 30 per cent to 15, which is about what I think should happen, then I would expect that section 112 of the Municipal Act, which currently prohibits municipalities from making grants to commercial businesses, would have to be amended.

Section 112 of the Municipal Act now reads, "Notwithstanding any general or special act, a council shall not grant bonuses in aid of any manufacturing business or other industrial or commercial enterprise."

4:20 p.m.

As I have already said, if the matter were to be handled in that manner, the municipality would get a grant in lieu of taxes because of its very limited tax base.

However, if the matter were to be handled directly through the province to the seasonal tourist operator, similar to the farm tax reduction program, then section 7 of the Assessment Act would have to be amended. If this were to be the route followed by the Minister of Revenue to correct the situation I am bringing to his attention this afternoon, would assume he would add an additional subsection to section 7 that would clearly define the seasonal tourist operator's business. Seasonal operations now come under clause 7(l)(j) which reads, "every person carrying on any business not specifically mentionedbefore in this section, for a sum equal to 30 per cent of the assessed value."

Regardless of how the minister and his staff decide to deal with this matter -- and it must be dealt with -- we must encourage, not discourage, seasonal tourist operators.

Another matter that would have to be decided is how one defines "seasonal." Certainly I am trying to encourage many tourist operators to try to lengthen the season and thus get more return on their investment. However, we will always have a fair number in the business who will operate only about three months out of the year.

I do not think there would be many complaints from operators who are open for business eight months or more of each year about paying a full year's business tax. But those who operate less than eight months a year really must get some relief from the present system.

I have been talking about the need for business tax changes for seasonal operators in northern Ontario because I am a northerner. However, I suspect this same problem exists across the province. Should there be any change made to accommodate this situation, it may very well apply on a province-wide basis.

Within the next 20 years, tourism will be the world's largest industry. Therefore, I think it is imperative that we make sure Ontario gets its fair share of the expansion opportunities. For this reason, I feel we should deal with this tax problem now.

I will listen with interest to other speakers from all parties and hope I will receive the support of all members in the House,

The Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable member like to reserve some time?

Mr. Lane: No, I would not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a resolution that addresses one of the primary concerns of this province's second largest industry, the tourism industry. That concern centres on our industry's ability to compete, which is dependent upon its cost structure and in turn upon taxation levels.

I want to begin my remarks with the following quote:

"At the base of our problem of overpricing is our cost structure and our tax structure. Assessment for tax purposes is currently carried out on buildings, presumably on the assumption that they are used over an entire year even though they may be in operation for a short season, for as much as three or four months.

"Obviously we cannot hope to compete with hotels in other jurisdictions -- such as Florida, for example -- that can charge much lower rates because they are in operation for the whole year. This is not the case for many hotels in Ontario, yet they must pay taxes for an entire year.

"Therefore, in light of the unique nature of our tourism industry, we recommend that the provincial government study the feasibility of granting a tax credit for hotels and motels that can operate only for a limited season."

That quote is taken from the report of the Liberal task force on tourism, published in 1978. The government has had the benefit of that report ever since that time, but it has not seen fit to move on some of its proposals until now. I appreciate the fact that one of the members of the government party has now introduced such a recommendation.

This party has been well aware of the problems and concerns of Ontario's tourist operators. In the fall of 1977, we set up a task force, of which I was pleased to be the chairman, to travel around the province and hear at first hand from those who are carrying on business in one of the many segments of Ontario's tourism industry.

The task force held a total of 12 public meetings across the province, but after only a few of these meetings it became obvious that the problems facing the tourism industry operators could be summarized into three main areas: overregulation, attitude and the one we are discussing today, taxation.

First, the degree of government regulation in this sector of our economy has hampered the effective operation of tourist establishments. As many as 14 different ministries all make decisions that affect the tourist operators. We believe the industry must be allowed to function without undue government interference before it can solve its serious problems. The ministries that are involved with our tourism sector must co-ordinate their activities. At present, there is a sense that the rulings or decisions of many inspectors and regulators demonstrate a serious lack of understanding about the industry they regulate.

In order to foster prosperity in the tourism industry we recommended the realignment of the provincial ministries to couple Tourism with Culture and Recreation in order to give tourism the higher profile it deserved in this province. That recommendation was finally accepted last year, as everyone is well aware, with the creation of the new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

Second, tourist operators were particularly bothered by the attitude of some local merchants and residents that they do not need tourists, so to speak. This stems, of course, from a lack of awareness of the importance of the tourism industry to the local economy and to their own wellbeing. When a tourist spends money he injects new dollars into the local economy and that benefits everyone.

We have made some recommendations as to how we might increase awareness of the importance of tourism to the residents of tourist areas. The establishment of the Ontario Hostelry Institute has been a step towards increasing tourism awareness, but improvements in the existing courses at community colleges might even accomplish much more than the establishment of a new separate facility.

We also felt that a short-term initiative was needed now to get our tourism industry rolling again and to alert Ontarians to the exciting vacation opportunities in their own province. Towards this end we recommended that Ontario work with the federal government and the other provinces to develop and implement a tax credit scheme for all Canadians vacationing throughout Canada.

The third main area we addressed in our report was the one with which we are dealing today, taxation. We stated firmly that the provincial government must relieve the tax burden that is stifling our tourism industry. We recognize that the provincial government has taken steps to reduce the retail sales tax on meals over $6 from 10 per cent to seven per cent, but to couple that with the imposition of a similar seven per cent sales tax on all meals, in my estimation removes any positive effect achieved by the reduction of the tax on meals over $6.

With respect to property taxation, no permanent steps have been taken to relieve the municipal property tax burden, which is particularly inequitable for seasonal tourist establishments. Of course, the tourism industry with its high taxes is a victim of the high cost structure in this province and this country. Our interest rates are higher than those in many other jurisdictions with whom we have to compete. and for this and other reasons our costs are higher from the outset.

The burden of property taxes is not unique to the tourism industry, but the seasonality of tourism is unique. Our recommendation was that the government determine the feasibility of granting a seasonal tax credit for operators who can function for only a portion of the year. But our report went even further with regard to property taxation on tourist establishments than does the resolution that we are discussing today: we also dealt with the anticipated reforms of our property tax system.

Again I will quote: "The nature of the proposed property tax reforms now under study by the provincial government could have very serious implications for the tourism industry in this province. This is due to the proposed market value assessment of vacant lands, which is obviously one of the major requirements of a tourist resort." Because of the land-intensive nature of tourist resorts, we recommended that they be assessed in a manner that would take into account the fact that vacant land is one of their most important requirements.

We presented this report, with its 24 recommendations to get our tourism industry rolling again, to the provincial government in May 1978. Since that time we have continued to offer to this government what we feel are constructive alternatives to its present policies with respect to tourism.

4:30 p.m.

Within one year of the publication of that report, the goverment had either acted upon or addressed in some manner almost one half of those 24 recommendations. Little by little, this report has been picked up by the government in its tourism policy formulation. Today, we deal with another aspect of its discussions and that is the taxation of tourist establishments.

Let us not forget what tourism means to this province. As an industry, it is strengthening its hold on second position behind only the manufacturing sector in terms of employment and provincial tax revenues. Tourism generated $1.3 billion in taxes last year and provided 541,000 man-years of direct and indirect employment. It is expected to bring in, or should bring in, about $9 billion in tourism revenues this year. Globally, the tourism market should be worth $120 billion on a worldwide basis before the end of the century.

Ontario must be in a position to compete with other jurisdictions in the tourism sector and benefit from this anticipated growth industry. We must adopt the kind of policies now that will enable us to grow with this sector.

This resolution today typifies the steps that must be taken to strengthen our tourism industry. This resolution is also typical of the recommendations contained in the report of the Liberal task force on tourism which could have encouraged my colleague to introduce it. It is a report which the government has had for almost five years now. It still has not adopted all of its recommendations, but we are still happy that at least one of its members has seen fit to propose this resolution, the endorsement for which was presented in this report some time ago.

I take the opportunity to commend and compliment the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for introducing this resolution today.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on this resolution, more from the perspective of a member from eastern Ontario. While I certainly sympathize with the thrust of the resolution, and I think the member's concern for the tourism industy is obviously a genuine one, as is that of the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), I want to stress to the member that not all the problems in our part of the province revolve around the question of taxation.

Of course, we have particular problems with taxation and just mere survival in competition with some of the attractions of central, southwestern and northern Ontario, but I want to call to the attention of the member some of the particular problems that small tourist operators, viable tourist operators, have down in my neck of the woods. I think they are fairly serious.

My own community is faced right now with a high unemployment problem, as are most communities. For the last five years or so our municipal government has been actively seeking the establishment of a major hotel facility in our downtown area because we think it is very important for the growth of tourism in the Cornwall-Seaway Valley area.

The problem we have had is trying to interest the private investor to locate next to the civic complex in our downtown area. Essentially, tourists in eastern Ontario will stop at Upper Canada Village. but once they have seen the basic facilities they move on to Quebec or to western Ontario. Various suggestions have been made in that regard. The problem with hotels is, obviously, the economy. When there is a downturn in the economy, especially in a low-income communities such as mine, tourism becomes less attractive.

We have operators along the St. Lawrence River and the Seaway Valley who are struggling and who are having a tough time making a go of it. Now all of a sudden we have the spectre of another Raj Mahal transplanted from Minaki down to eastern Ontario. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) has committed $30,000 for a study on a possible hotel facility at Upper Canada Village.

When one reads a quote such as this one from the Cornwall Standard Freeholder one begins to wonder if we are not going to repeat the whole Minaki fiasco: "If you like accommodations with a fireplace in every room, the option of your own whirlpool, a gourmet menu of indigenous game and the chance to play tennis under a bubble, and you do not mind paying $77 a night, Morrisburg could be the place in 1985." One can just imagine how the local tourist operators in m area reacted to this news: government money being pumped in for some sort of super-luxury, glamorous Minaki East in Morrisburg.

The last thing those operators need is competition from the government of Ontario. Of course, the minister denies it will be in direct competition. He says it will be an addendum to the general tourist economy of eastern Ontario.

It is kind of interesting how the operators themselves reacted. First of all, there was absolutely no consultation on this project. Private operators were not even asked their opinion. High-priced consultants were brought in and we are being told what is good for us, without any input or any consultation as to what would be good for the tourist industry in the Seaway Valley.

The president of the Seaway Valley tourist council, Pat Beavers, who is also president of Paddy's Inn in Morrisburg, spoke recently and said the new hotel "would be a severe blow to existing hotels and motels, which are having a hard enough time surviving." Mr. Beavers said he was speaking on behalf of all -- and I emphasize "all" -- hotel and motel owners from Iroquois to Long Sault, who account for 240 accommodation units in the immediate area. He went on to say there had been no consultation.

Another prominent tourist official, Roger Croxall, finance chairman of the council and manager of the Parkway Inn in Cornwall, said, "There is no question the hotel will have an impact on existing business."

They also stressed the fact that at no time were any private operators in the area allowed to construct any facility south of Highway 2 along the St. Lawrence River. which is obviously the most attractive site, So if one is a tourist operator in our area one has to deal with government competition. Taxation is not the key problem; it is the competition with government if this thing goes ahead. Second, if one is in the city of Cornwall, which has been trying for five years to attract private investors to construct a major facility, one is now competing with the government of Ontario.

If this thing goes ahead, whether it is Heritage Inn, the Taj Mahal, Buckingham Palace, whatever they want to call it, the losers will be the city of Cornwall and the small, independent private entrepreneurs who work their butts off between Morrisburg and the Quebec border to develop a viable tourist industry along the St. Lawrence.

I would like to see the member address the question of what role the government is playing in this. Is it there to help the private tourist operators survive, grow and prosper, or is it going into competition with them?

The fiasco of Minaki, starting from a $500,000 investment and mushrooming to a massive $45 million, is something no tourist operator in eastern Ontario ever wants to see repeated -- least of all in our part of the province. If the government is going to spend money to help tourism it should deal with the existing people in the field. We do not want some American chain or some major corporation brought in with massive aid from the government, whether in the form of tax assistance or grants, consultants or something else, to compete directly with small businessmen who do not have those resources or those facilities and who do not get those tax breaks.

The government has to make up its mind in tourism in our neck of the woods whether it will help the small, independent tourist operators or big business, big chains, corporate chains -- if not American corporate chains.

On behalf of the people in my riding in eastern Ontario, let me say we want to build up the existing infrastructure, because most operators in our area -- and I am sure the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) is in full agreement -- have had a tough fight over the past few years over a variety of things.

If the government wants to help them, let it first provide various forms of assistance for the existing operators, and second, do something to expand the range of facilities at Upper Canada Village; for instance, a major theatrical facility for the summer, not some sort of temporary bubble, not something completely dependent on private sources and goodwill volunteers, but a major, big-league summer attraction at Upper Canada Village.

Once people have seen the basic facilities of the village itself and the recreational facilities of the parkway, we need something of that sort. If government wants to help small business in tourism in our neck of the woods, that is where the funds should be, to try to promote what is there, to try to add, as I say, a major summer theatre facility which will give people another reason, another cause to stay rather than scoot on through to Montreal or up to Toronto.

That is what the tourist operators would want. Last of all, let me say that whatever development goes on in eastern or central or southwestern Ontario, we would like a government that consults with the private sector; not a government that dictates, not a government that imposes or surprises, but a government that sits down in advance and plans the future economic tourist potential for each region. The government should not spring one on us like this.

4:40 p.m.

As various people in our area have said, they would be willing to sit down with government people and try to work out what is best for the area. But the government should have the decency and the heart to sit down and consult and talk in advance instead of pulling stunts like this.

In closing, I am sure the good citizens of Stollery Park in the honourable member's riding would want the same process of consultation and protection of their rights. I would hope the good member for Algoma-Manitoulin would devote the same energy and attention to that end as he does to protecting and enhancing the legitimate interests of the private tourist operators in his area.

Mr. Eves: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Algoma-Manitoulin on his initiative and his foresight. I would also like to remind other honourable members that if it were not for the member for Algoma-Manitoulin we might not even have a Ministry of Northern Affairs in this province today.

I am pleased to support this call for a review by the Ministry of Revenue of the application of business taxes to the seasonal operations in the tourism industry. I am also pleased to note that the resolution makes specific mention of seasonal operators in northern Ontario. I think it is quite appropriate that this House encourages the development and expansion of the tourist industry in the north, because that industry has played and will continue to play a crucial role in the future growth in northern Ontario.

There was a time, not long ago, when the development of the tourism industry in the north was regarded with a certain degree of suspicion. It was felt by some people that the development of tourist resources was a less valuable type of economic development than others. It was thought that tourism development was the substitute for real development. Fortunately, the perception of the role of tourism in northern Ontario and its development has changed significantly. Tourism is no longer regarded by the vast majority as being a second-class industry.

The massive, current economic benefits of tourism in terms of revenue generation and job creation, and its tremendous potential, have made it obvious that this is one resource we must continue to develop.

If I may digress for a moment, I was most interested in the comments of the member for Victoria-Halib on, because in the last election, when my Liberal opponent was not too busy cooking bacon or making ads for doing the same, he was going around the riding stating that tourist operators were second-class citizens and tourism was somehow a second-class industry. I will be interested to see whether the Northern Affairs critic for his party has the same point of view when he stands up to speak in a few minutes.

The people in the north have long been aware of, and enthusiastic about, the positive impact which development of this industry could have on the economy of the region. A survey of the briefs presented to the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment revealed the positive attitude which northerners have adopted towards tourism development and the place they believe it has in the area's future growth.

By way of illustration, the town of Kapuskasing told the commission: "Our future lies in tourism. The overall investment for the tourist industry is comparatively less than for other industries and provides a good return."

The Kenora District Chamber of Commerce stated, "In our view this industry probably provides us our greatest future potential." The Kenora District Camp Owners' Association told the commission that tourism is the largest employer of native people, of student labour and of unskilled workers in the Kenora district.

It is because of the tremendous potential the tourism industry holds for economic expansion and development of the north that we should most seriously consider the resolution before us.

Some indication of the current economic significance of this industry in the north can be had from the following information released by the Northwest Ontario Travel Association. According to NOTA, there are over 1,600 fishing and hunting lodges in northern Ontario, which employ some 14,700 people. In fact, at peak periods these lodges employ as many as 20,000 people. In 1981 these operations generated revenues in excess of $110 million, over 50 per cent of which was spent in the local area for supplies and equipment.

Tourist lodge operators invest millions of dollars annually in their businesses and over half of this is spent on projects to expand and upgrade their facilities.

I know that each one of us who represents a northern area of the province has argued long and hard for the need for economic diversity in our regions, the need to look beyond the traditional strengths to new sources of economic opportunity. But that in no way means we can afford to overlook these traditional strengths, such as tourism, or take them for granted while we explore new options.

Tourism is, and always will be, the lifeblood of many communities in the north and throughout the province. A large part of the reason for this is the beauty and diversity of our province and the hard work and long hours tourist operators have put into making Ontario the ideal vacation spot it is. As well, though, the success of our tourism industry has been helped in no small measure by the willingness of this government to recognize its importance and promote its success wherever possible.

Mr. Stokes: Why do you need the resolution then?

Mr. Eves: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin's resolution will certainly go a long way towards promoting the success of our northern seasonal tourist operators as well as helping to address the long-standing problem. There is no doubt that the present business tax system is unfair to these seasonal operators.just as there is no doubt of the importance of these seasonal operations to the northern economy.

As the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has pointed out, we are trying wherever possible to encourage tourist operators to expand their season to get a better return on their investment. But as the member has also rightly pointed out, there will always be those businesses that are strictly seasonal in nature and those individuals are deserving of some relief from the inequities of the current system.

By the same token, I must also agree with the member when he points out that this must not be accomplished at the expense of the tax base of our northern municipalities. Many of these municipalities do not have a large enough tax base as it is, and to ask them to shoulder the burden of this reform would simply be to address one inequitable situation by putting another one in its place.

Rather, it is obvious that the solution must lie with provincial funding. Surely with the millions of dollars we spend each year on tourism marketing we can find the money needed to carry out this plan. It is a move that would be applauded throughout the north. As the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has suggested, there may well be a need in the province to bring greater equity to the taxation system for seasonal operators throughout the province and not just in northern Ontario.

As a government and as a province we have always taken great pride in the strength and success of tourism in Ontario. This resolution gives us the chance to offer additional help to this vital sector of our economy as well as to change the situation that has imposed an unfair burden on our seasonal tourist operators. I would urge all members of the House to support this resolution.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I too will gladly participate in this debate and speak in favour of the resolution.

As the member for Algoma-Manitoulin knows, I have some business colleagues who visit his riding on an annual fishing expedition, and they enjoy the hospitality of the people they meet on the island. They enjoy particularly the facility they go to. They have apprised me of the problems of the operator, during this past year in particular, a year in which I could not join my colleagues in their annual visit north. I must say that any break at all that can be given to these operators would be certainly most appreciated.

I have a couple of rather critical comments, and I hope the member will take them in his usual good humour and good stride. They are intended to be a reflection of the concern our party has for tourist operators and the tourist industry, not only in northern Ontario but in Ontario in general.

The first observation is that in the latter part of his resolution, the member makes reference, specifically in the fifth-last line, to northern Ontario. I hope the government, if it does pursue this resolution, will consider giving a similar break to operators in the eastern part of the province and the southern part of the province as it would to those in the northern part of the province, because generally they are all facing the same problems. They may be a little more severe in the north, but I would submit to members that when we are dealing in many cases with a one-man or a one-family operation and we have an economy that is tightening up, then that person, be he in the north or in the south, is facing basically the same general problems.

4:50 p.m.

Another criticism is I would like to see a broadening of the definition of business taxes here. I would have to assume the member is talking about the whole spectrum of taxes; accommodation tax, tax on food, property tax and so on. I know he made some reference to the Assessment Act and to the Municipal Act, but if we are talking about taxes, I would like us to give the operator the best possible break without penalizing the municipality, because municipalities -- and again particularly in the north -- who get anything back from a tourist operation or from a small resort or camp operation are also having to struggle because their base is reduced if the tourist operator is having a problem.

I would hate to see a municipality suffer in any way through a break being given to the operator. I hope if we get to the point of pursuing this resolution further through government action, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) will pursue that theme. The theme, again, is, "Don't penalize the municipality."

I had the pleasure of being on the tourism task force that my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton was chairing some five years ago, and I would have to submit to members that we were a little disappointed with the government for taking the report we presented and then more or less sitting on it until last year, when it did act on tourism.

Now in the second instance of action we see a resolution coming from a government frontbencher but not from the minister. I had hoped we could see the minister here along with the member for Algoma-Manitoulin because this is a very important part of the economy of our province. Again I commend him for his efforts, but I would like to see that additional support, clout or weight, if you will, through the attendance of the minister. If the government is really sincere about this, I hope there will be some statement that follows up from this resolution today, some sort of announcement that will be forthcoming to show us they are really serious about this issue.

I have a couple of items at random from talking with people in northern Ontario on my visits there and in my capacity as critic for Northern Affairs. I think I should say unequivocally in response to the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), who wondered whether or not I would say something positive about this, that not only am I supporting it but my predecessors had been very supportive of this theme; so there is no question as to where we stand in this party in relation to our support of the tourism industry. But I would like to point out a couple of items that have come to my attention that I think underline the problems of the operators of the north and again give some credence to our argument.

First of all, with respect to individual male groups heading up to a camp to spend three or four days or a week or so on a fishing expedition, the general number of those groups for camp operators, we are told by many of them, is declining. In order to make up the loss, some camp operators or tourist-place operators are having to change their facilities in order to attract families; they are having to take whatever minimal profit they may have realized and pour it back into their operation. So for another reason, then, things have squeezed in on them, and they are deserving of a break.

The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) said in a jocular aside a few moments ago when the number of camps was listed by the member for Parry Sound -- the number of tourist operations was 1,600 -- that that is about equivalent to the number of fish one would find in the north. That is not to be taken all in jest.

I point out to the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) that I had the pleasure of visiting Red Rock, among other places, last week and was told by some of the people there of the need for restocking some of the lakes. Here again is another concern we have for the whole tourist operation business.

How is this done? Of course, there is the Ministry of Natural Resources. There are some enterprising individuals who try to do a little stocking themselves. But no matter what is done in that area, if one is doing it oneself, one is talking about a dollar expenditure. So again there is another reason for giving some kind of break to the operators.

Of course, the whole environmental concern is a concern for all of us. About four weeks ago I attended a seminar in London, my home riding, a seminar chaired by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. He invited people from across southwestern Ontario to attend -- the various reeves and council members and small motel operators. I again point out to the house that we have many small operations not too far from London on the shores of Lake Erie and Lake Huron.

Essentially, the minister said free enterprisers in Ontario -- we, the operators of the small tourist industry -- would have to do more to attract business. We would have to do more to get the tourists to come to us from out of the province, and if we were going to keep people in the province, visiting from the south to the north, we had to spruce up our operations.

What he did not say, and what I hoped he would have said, was that we had to give the operators a break.

I see this resolution as an attempt to give the operator a break and to give the tourist industry a shot in the arm. For those reasons, I am quite happy to support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I recognize the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Stokes: For how long?

The Acting Speaker: Four minutes.

Mr. Stokes: Four minutes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it passing strange the member for Algoma-Manitoulin would introduce a resolution such as this, one that is so vague. It really does not ask the Minister of Revenue to do anything at all that is specific.

The members of the House will recall that on two recent occasions I asked the government to do something about a reduction in the retail sales tax as it applies to northern Ontario. That would have affected everybody, including small business and the tourist industry. Of course, that party over there blocked the resolution and would not even allow it to come to a vote.

I have on numerous occasions attempted to persuade ministers over there, particularly the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), to intervene with regard to the high cost of gasoline. There again, where it might have helped small business -- particularly the tourist operators -- nothing was done about it.

The members well know that taxes -- whether they are corporation taxes, whether they are business taxes, whether they are income taxes -- are based on the income of a particular operator. Now, if one is talking about land tax in unorganized territories, that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources through the provincial land tax.

If one is talking about property tax in organized municipalities, that is the responsibility of the municipality. If one is asking the Ministry of Revenue to provide relief for, tourist operators from what the member considers to be excessively high taxes imposed by the municipality, why did he not say so in his resolution?

5 p.m.

I called the Ministry of Revenue to find out just what kind of taxes are imposed on the operators the member mentions in his resolution. There is a business tax by the municipalities. There is income tax paid at the federal and provincial levels based on the level of income of any business or any individual. There is a capital tax that is very small which is based on the capitalization of a particular industry and on the capital on hand.

I would have hoped the member would have been much more specific on the kinds of taxes and the burden of tax on the people he is trying to assist -- that he would have been much more specific in terms of what it is he wants the Minister of Revenue to do. We realize there are a number of small businesses, wherever they are in Ontario, that are entitled to some assistance or relief from taxes. I suppose half a loaf is better than none.

If I were to ask the Minister of Revenue to look into something that would assist the tourism industry, particularly in northern Ontario, I could have been much more specific, but again I suppose half a loaf is better than none.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Newman moved second reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of my bill, Bill 15, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act. I hope my comments will be convincing enough so it will be accepted by all clear-thinking members of this House.

As members are undoubtedly aware, this is not the first time I have spoken on this subject. I have introduced this bill numerous times. It was first introduced on April 25, 1977, and in a new session on July 7, 1977. In the following year it was introduced on May 29, 1978, when it was debated, and again on March 27, 1979. The last time was March 13, 1980. The members of this House are familiar with the bill and its contents.

I have introduced this bill hoping to be able to convince the government to react to the demands of the consumer. In view of this government's relentless, impassible opposition to my suggestion contained in this bill, one might imagine the idea is the worst form of regulatory intrusion into the area of free enterprise, intended more to confound the merchant than to protect the consumer. Those who know me and know this amendment know it could only be otherwise.

My amendment is a worthy one, simple in its form and concept. It requires that every product offered for sale by a retailer that is marked with the universal product code must also b e clearly marked with its individual purchase price.

My first attempt at the passage of this innocent yet forceful amendment was prompted by the advent into our shopping world of the electronic marketing wizardry known as the universal product code. Six years later, I still attempt. The code is no longer novel. We are as accustomed to it in supermarkets and grocery stores as we are to shopping carts. Still, the arguments on behalf of the amendment are as salient today as they were six years ago.

In the opinion of the Consumers' Association of Canada, the need today may be even greater than it was six years ago. The association fears that the commitment given to the government by the supermarket industry, while the present Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) was the minister, to price each product voluntarily may be wavering.

According to the association, the exception to mandatory unit pricing originally accepted by the ministry with respect to boxed and warehoused items appears today to be slowly becoming the rule as more and more stores are transformed to bulk and warehouse stores.

I have never argued against the universal product code. I have never opposed the phenomenon of electronic supermarket checkout. I have never set myself against the introduction of the computer in the world of the consumer. To do so would be tantamount to setting oneself against the ending to a lovely day. Though they be both regrettable, they are alas both inevitable.

My purpose has always been and will always be to balance the scale to ensure that fairness and clarity are not sacrificed to the idols of efficiency and cost control. To paraphrase a great American educator, my objective is to stress "the importance of mind and of heart in a civilization of machines.'

The arguments in favour of my amendment may be made on two levels, the functional and purely pragmatic, and also at the deeper symbolic level.

First, I shall deal with the former aspect, namely the pragmatism involved. These are largely the arguments I have raised in the past. In order to deal with the subject thoroughly, they warrant being mentioned again.

Most consumers, especially senior citizens and persons on fixed incomes, and trade unions -- but for reasons apart from consumer reasons per se -- advocate the adoption of mandatory price marking on UPC goods. In other words, UPC and the individual program plan go together. The universal product code must have individual purchase price.

Mandatory price marking is necessary because mandatory unit pricing encourages the only form of selling which is truly consistent with comparative shopping. In times such as these, with rising prices and falling or constrained incomes, comparative shopping is a commercial imperative for the prudent consumer. Therefore, our policies must aim to assist the prudent consumer wherever reasonably possible.

This was the very message I received as far back as April 1977 when I received the following recommendation from the London Conference of United Church Women:

"Since the supermarket industry is concurrently in the process of introducing the use of the universal product code on all items sold in their stores, which would result in the possible elimination of individual item pricing, thereby denying the consumer the right of comparison shopping, we ask you to petition your government to enact adequate protective legislation to ensure the rights of the consumer to the privilege of comparison shopping by individual item pricing."

5:10 p.m.

The sentiments of this group were echoed in the editorial writings at the time, and I am reading from the Detroit Free Press editorial:

"We believe that there is a legitimate public interest in assuring that retailers, in embracing the universal product code, do not abandon the price marking of an individual item on their shelves. The marking of individual items is an essential aid to intelligent shopping. The universal product code can produce worthwhile efficiencies even if the individual prices are retained. In fact, grocery chains have begun backing off their original intention to abandon individual price posting."

The state of Michigan has since enacted mandatory unit pricing legislation. So too have other jurisdictions. In Canada such a law is in effect in the province of Quebec.

While there are advantages to the universal product code's non-individually-priced, electronically scanned checkout at the supermarket -- such as speedier checkouts, itemized tape receipts and more efficient inventory control -- these advantages, even in sum, do not outweigh the benefit to the consumer of fundamental fairness in shopping. The consumer ought to have the right to be able to choose freely on the basis of clear, unambiguous information.

The Detroit editorial writer referred to this process as "intelligent shopping." Intelligent shopping means fair shopping. No merchant need fear the condition of fair shopping. Free enterprise is not inconsistent with fair, intelligent shopping.

Maryland, California and Florida also have similar legislation. However, there is another dimension, another level to the arguments in favour of such an amendment. It is the nature of the symbolic.

Let us look at the precise wording of the proposal and focus on its three key elements, and this is one paragraph from the bill:

"No retail seller shall offer for sale a product that is marked with a computer code unless the individual purchase price of such product is clearly expressed on the product, its wrapper or container."

The critical words in the section are "computer," "individual" and "clearly." These elements tie into the earlier statement regarding the importance of the mind, of one individual human mind and heart in a civilization of machines, especially as embodied by the computer.

The computer code will undeniably be a boon to the individual consumer, but at its core it is equally undeniably a seller's device aimed at facilitating market entry, inventory control and more efficient sales on vast mass levels. Therefore, it is characterized by the flawless execution and the anonymity of our madly advancing technology.

Juxtaposed in bold contrast to the indifference of the computer stand the requirements for clearly expressed, individual pricing. Whereas the computer code is the embodiment of vast economies of scale, cost efficiencies and masses of consumers, the individual purchase price represents the very opposite. It represents each of us, you and I, individual shoppers who, by our various consumer selections, express our unique, personal preferences and needs.

To stress the importance of this individual act of choosing, the price must he clearly expressed. There must be no ambiguity or possibility of deception surrounding this significant though mundane manifestation of one's individuality, namely, that of freely choosing on the basis of the best information. That information also should be readily readable. The inks quite often used on some of the cash register tapes have been used too often and as a result the printouts are not legible.

What are the competing values in the issue of mandatory unit pricing on universal product code goods? In my view, the values that confront each other, though not to the exclusion of one over the other, are the values of well-informed purchasing versus efficient selling, of identity versus anonymity, of the individual versus the machine. By accepting the principle of my bill, we can demonstrate the harmony possible in integrating technology with "personology."

We cannot be so obsessed with systems that we disregard the character. It is my hope, therefore, that all honourable members will find in their hearts the inclination to vote in favour of the principle contained in Bill 15. Let us send it to committee. Any legitimate reservations felt at this stage can surely be allayed by a thorough review of the matter, a review replete with interest group testimony in committee. Let us not, without the fullest understanding, refuse even to consider such a worthy amendment.

I remind my colleagues that the universal product code and the individual purchase price are two items that must go together. I sincerely request the support of all honourable members in this House.

I would like to know how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Four minutes.

Mr. Newman: I will reserve that time.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously going to support the bill that is before us today; first of all, because the bill I tabled in the Hlouse today and have tabled for the last five or six years, although it is more comprehensive than this bill, has a clause identical to this bill.

Beyond that, the action proposed in this bill is desperately needed in our society, particularly because there is no individual pricing on products in the no-frills stores and the warehouse type stores. Those types of stores are rapidly taking over a large volume of the grocery and supermarket sales in this province and in this nation: individual pricing on articles is rapidly disappearing.

I suggest that there are three arguments in favour of this bill. First, there is the tremendous advantage to consumers with a prices-on policy, and the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) has dealt with that. Second, the voluntary prices-on policy, a commitment of this Tory government, has broken down completely. Third, this Tory government is totally indifferent to the whole issue of consumer prices in Ontario.

5:20 p.m.

Dealing first with the need, I have here a study, perhaps the most comprehensive study that has ever been done on this subject, by three universities in the United States entitled, "An analysis comparing shopping behaviour in stores employing standard assisted checkout system without prices on products, with stores using conventional item pricing." It showed very clearly that consumers are much more knowledgeable about prices if there is an individual price on each product.

The study was done very comprehensively. People were contacted in the aisles of stores where prices were on and stores where they were not on. The study found that of the people who had just picked up articles in the store where there were no prices on, 12 per cent did not know the price of the product they had just picked up. Where the prices were on the article, only four per cent did not know.

Even on the very act of seeing or observing prices -- knowing what the price was -- when people were asked the price of the commodity on the shelf in front of them, 15 per cent did not know or could not say what price was on the article where items were not individually marked, compared with nine per cent where the prices were on them.

Of customers who were asked whether they did comparative pricing, only 21 per cent did comparative pricing in the stores without the individual pricing, and 32 per cent did it where there was a kind of individual marking. And so on and so on. This study showed that consumers were more knowledgeable faced with item pricing and that the consumers overwhelmingly wanted it.

The then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, now the Minister of Community and Social Services, dealt with this by doing a study, largely at the urging of the member for Windsor-Walkerville and myself. He was forced into a study, and what did it show? I quote from his statement to the House on August 1, 1980: "Results of a March 1980 survey showed overwhelmingly that consumers do not want prices removed."

The first page of this two-page Ontario survey showed that almost 90 per cent of the consumers questioned had a strong preference for retaining prices on individual items, and only 6.1 per cent of those questioned said they preferred a computerized checkout system with the prices removed from the individual items.

Yet in spite of that, the Ontario government has flagrantly broken the commitment it gave to the people back in 1980. Let me quote the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in the Globe and Mail on May 15, 1980: "If consumers want prices to remain on individual products, we will keep them on." That was a commitment given by the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

He brought in a report on August 1, 1980, and said in a press release:

"Ontario's supermarket industry has agreed to keep price stickers on individual products in response to consumer preference, Ontario consumer minister Frank Drea announced today. 'For the first time the consumer has had a direct voice in the decision-making process in the marketplace. Until now they have had to rely on consumers' associations or government intervention. Formal responses from the Retail Council of Canada, representing all major food retail chains and the individual supermarket chains, indicate that prices will remain on those items which have traditionally carried individual stickers.'"

A similar commitment was made by the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers, a commitment stated in a letter to the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The federation is made up of independent grocers across the province. The minister was quoted as saying, "The industry has responded with a responsible and mature decision and at the same time established a precedent-setting leadership position in the marketplace." Thus spoke the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for the government of Ontario.

What took place after that? A survey was made in August of that year and reported in the Toronto Star, from which I quote: "A provincial government survey found more unmarked products on supermarket shelves in August than a similar survey found in July. The number of products without individual price stickers rose from 11.2 per cent to 15.1 per cent." This was after that promise had been given.

Then in 1982 there was a newspaper report in the Ottawa Citizen, headlined "Dominion Removes its Price Tags from Items in Area No-Frill stores." The article stated:

"Dominion Stores Ltd. has broken an agreement with the Ontario government by dropping individual price tags on most items in its two new Ottawa no-frill stores.

"The consumer and commercial relations ministry says consumer minister Gordon Walker" -- who is sitting in the House today -- "is disappointed Dominion did not consult the government or consumer groups before making the move, but the government plans no action." The government planned no action after that kind of commitment was given.

The Consumers' Association of Canada wrote a letter to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) on August 4, 1982, complaining about this and asking for a reply. My information, when I called a month or two ago, was that a reply had never been given by the minister.

Those kinds of commitments by that government have gone down the drain. The only way we can get item pricing on these products is to have legislation to enforce it. That is what we advocate in this party, and that is why I and the rest of my colleagues will be supporting this bill.

This government has shown an amazing disinterest in the whole issue of consumer pricing. Less than a month ago, when I asked a question on the reason for the increase in the price of birth control pills, which had gone up something like 18 per cent, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations stated in his reply, "Had the member stood up and said in all honesty, as I suspect he really wanted to but his seat was a little sticky, that from April 1982 to April 1983 the consumer price index rose only 3.2 per cent, we might have a better understanding of the overall price issue that faces the citizens of this province."

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who has responsibility for prices, said the consumer price index went up only 3.2 per cent in the year when Statistics Canada said it went up 7.2 per cent. That is the measure of concern that they have over on that side of the House about prices.

Just a few days ago, when I raised the issue of natural gas prices and asked whether he would have them investigated because they are an administered price, the minister's final statement was: "This is a matter that has not been referred to the cabinet committee on administered prices. When it is, and if it is, we shall certainly review it."

Who refers it to the Inflation Restraint Board? The minister. He is the only one who can refer it. He does not even know his own legislation.

What this bill really does is to assure competition, and that government over there is not even interested in competition. The former minister proved it in his statement on the new competition legislation federally.

This bill should pass, but it will not because the Tory government, in addition to not caring about providing consumer price protection, has no interest in preserving competition if it interferes with the wishes of its corporate friends.

I challenge those on that side of the House to vote in favour of this bill and to show that they care about competition and prices to consumers.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill and to put forward the reasons why this bill is not needed. I am especially pleased to speak after the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

One problem that I see in this Legislature is the fact that there are not enough members who have had any business experience. They are too academic and maybe too much inclined to live off the public purse. They only understand receiving a paycheque; they do not know how to go about earning one.

The members opposite are very critical of the merchants in this province. Some people have the tendency to think that every merchant is going to rip off his customer, but it just is not happening. One can cite all kinds of special exceptions, and I will accept them, but the majority of the retailers in this province are as fine a group of people as one would want to meet.

5:30 p.m.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville brought this bill forward with the best intentions possible. It was to protect the consumers and I commend him for that. His intentions are good, but I might point out to the member that the bill is not needed. As my good friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) has stated on numerous occasions, "If it ain't broken, why fix it?''

Quite simply, this legislation is not needed and simply adds to the bureaucratic red tape that drives the small business community crazy. If the members give me a chance, I will try to explain what I mean.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I state quite clearly that I strongly support the concept that the customers are entitled to have the merchandise they purchase individually priced. I agree with that. It is only fair and reasonable they should have that choice. The smart retailers in this province are providing that service now without this legislation. The ones who are not providing the service customers want will not be around for very long. I simply reiterate that the merchants are complying without legislation.

There are two points I wish to make. First, nine out of 10 consumers want individual pricing. Second, individual pricing costs money, which consumers end up paying. The reasons consumers demand individual pricing are quite simple. The member for Windsor-Walkerville has outlined them so I will not elaborate further. I agree entirely we should have individual pricing.

The one area that has been mentioned by some of the larger merchants is that new computer technology allows them to have better stock control and, also, with the new computer cash registers there is a printout that states the individual item that is sold and the price. It is a very easy way for the customer to compare the list at home with the purchases he or she made and see if there has been an error. It is reasonable to believe the merchants feel that by providing better service they will be able to pass on the savings to the customers.

John Gillespie, president of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, Ontario branch, made the following statement: "In the United States where use of the universal product code and scanning has had more time to develop and evolve than in Canada, it is estimated that consumers shopping at retail outlets implementing this better system realize up to 25 per cent savings on their purchases."

I do not want to get into an argument today defending this figure or, indeed, even defending supermarkets. Personally, I have a love affair with independents. The supermarkets can fight their own wars. Having been an independent retailer myself for over 30 years, I happen to think there are many thousands of small retailers providing excellent service to their customers. They also form the backbone of their individual communities. Something we tend to forget is that they do more than just sell; they are also very supportive of the communities within which they operate.

I realize the problem that was presented today with this legislation. I agree there should be individual pricing. I also agree there should be some incentive for the merchants to have the opportunity to get into the computer age, to see if they can improve their service to the public. To make sure I had a handle on the situation, I made a small survey. I talked to many individual merchants in my riding.

Without question. they agreed on two points: there is absolutely no question their customers want individual pricing and there is also absolutely no question they were quite prepared to give this to their customers. The whole basis of retailing is satisfied customers. If one does not provide the customer with what he wants, one will not stay in business. It is as simple as that.

I was elected in 1975 and I did not make many promises because I always felt it was easier to make them than keep them; but one promise or commitment I did make was that if I was elected I would work to cut out some bureaucratic red tape in this Legislative Assembly.

That was one goal I have always worked towards and I think I have been successful in some areas. This is just one example of an area in which we do not need more bureaucratic red tape. One does not have to pound the merchants on the head with a piece of legislation and tell them to do something that they are doing now. I fail to understand why members feel it is so important.

If they were not doing it there would be a problem, but they are doing it. One will find cases in which they are not, but I am simply telling members that those people will not stay in business. If nine out of 10 consumers want this type of pricing, I assure members they will get it. That is what I said earlier.

If members had served 10 or 20 years in business they would realize one has to satisfy customers to stay in business. Repeat business is the only way to make a success of a business. I do not know why they think some type of legislation is going to force store owners to do something they do not want to do.

If one is talking about someone who wants to rip off a customer, there are other ways in which one can do it. I do not think they would deliberately do it in this way. If it is simply a matter of an honest mistake, that is going to happen regardless of what legislation we bring in.

I have a great deal of confidence in the small business community in this province and especially in the retailers. Having worked with them in many forums, as a member of their association, at different business functions, in chambers of commerce and the Retail Merchants Association, I think they are a decent group. Most members who have merchants in their ridings -- and all of us do -- would have to agree they are not all that bad. We do not have to legislate something that is so simple.

I will close by quoting the last paragraph from John Gillespie's letter to me on this subject. He states: "On behalf of the Retail Merchants Association, we ask that you oppose and defeat this proposed legislation. It will serve neither consumer nor retailer." I propose to do just that.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of the bill introduced by my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

I would like to start off by quoting Mrs. Mary Pepper, chairman of the computerized supermarket committee of the Consumers' Association of Canada. In April 1980, she stated the following:

"A revolution has occurred in the retail food industry for the first time since Clarence Saunders introduced self-service to his Piggly-Wiggly store in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1916."

We are not dealing here with something that has been in existence for a long time; we are discussing a major departure from the traditional methods we have had of shopping in Ontario and everywhere.

This universal product code, or as it is called in this country, the Canadian grocery product code, is such a major departure from the conventional system of doing business in the grocery trade that we have to enact progressive legislation to reflect these changing circumstances.

5:40 p.m.

If the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) were to review Hansard from when they adopted the Weights and Measures Act, I am sure he would find there was probably some Tory at that time who said it was unnecessary legislation because most of the businessmen in his own constituency were honest and, therefore, legislation was not in order and not required.

That is a poor rationale for not protecting the consumers of Ontario. It is important for us to realize this is not an assault on the small businessman, as has perhaps been insinuated or suggested by others. We have to remember that in 1980, some three years ago, 60.4 per cent of the grocery sales in this country belonged to the large supermarket chains. We are not discussing Mr. Jones's corner grocery store here; we are discussing the large stores.

The other thing the member seems to be concerned about is that all the small grocery stores seem to be getting these facilities to have the universal product code. Of course, that is not the case. To change over a store to the universal product code system costs in the neighbourhood of $150,000. Assorted computers and cash registers are required to make it work. This is not something the confectionery store around the corner in North Bay is going to be implementing next week, nor is any other confectionery store in Prescott-Russell or Durham East. This applies strictly to the very large grocery stores, against which we have to protect the consumers of this province.

We have to remember some of the reasons this is necessary. First, as has been stated by the member for Welland-Thorold, the Consumers' Association of Canada has indicated the necessity for such legislation and rightly so. They have a right to be concerned and to be in favour of such legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as a person who does the grocery shopping for your own family, as I do occasionally, you will undoubtedly know that when you are walking down the aisles of those great big grocery stores it would be easy for the owners or the persons making decisions in those large grocery stores purposely to scatter similar products throughout the store to confuse the customer.

If a product in a store is not properly indicated with a price and one wants to confuse the customers, what one does is place, say, tomato juice in three different locations in the store. Seeing that only the shelves and not the cans are labelled, how will the customer know, when he gets to the second area for tomato juice, what price he is paying for the can be picked up in the first area?

It is absolutely impossible to tell such things unless one has prices on products to enable one to do comparison shopping; not only between stores to remind oneself what one paid for a product the last time one went to a store, but to enable one to do comparison shopping inside those massive grocery stores we now have in Ontario.

One area that has not been covered yet, and it is an area I am personally very concerned about, is the whole business of the cash registers in those large stores. Often the display area on which one can view the prices one is paying for products is not as large as it could be, and it always seems to be facing in the wrong direction, so that the customer does not see what is being printed and the cashier does.

I know it is important for the cashier to see what is being printed on the cash register tape, but I think efforts should be made on the part of grocery stores to ensure that the customer can view the price he is paying for a product just as we can view the time left for me to speak in this debate on that clock on the wall over there. I think it is important for us to be able to do those things.

The other concern, of course, is that a customer should have the right to verify the cash register slips in order to ensure he has in fact gotten what he has paid for. It is not a privilege for a customer to be able to go home, take the grocery bag, itemize the items one by one and verify whether or not he has received the products. Just as you or I would verify the change we get when we go to a commercial establishment and are getting change back, surely we have the right to verify we have received all the goods we have paid for.

I do not think this entails such a major departure even from the philosophy of this government. There is certainly nothing radically far out in the view that a customer should have the right to verify whether he has received the merchandise he has paid for.

The Deputy Speaker: To allow your colleague time, you have about one minute and 34 seconds, not two minutes.

Mr. Boudria: If shortening my remarks will enable my colleague to conclude at greater length, I will gladly give the time that remains to him to make a careful wrapup of what he has to say.

Just briefly I would like to give some details on what the universal product code is. It is a series of 10 numbers that are assigned, five of them coming from the manufacturer and the other five identifying the product. A universal product code is not an identification of price; it is only an identification of a certain product. Therefore, if anybody thinks the universal product code is a way of identifying the price, if there ever were such a thing, he is wrong. It is a way of identifying the product, and conceivably it would even be possible for a store to have more than one price for the same universal product code.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the members who took part in this debate, whether they --

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Are there more than four minutes left for the windup? If there are, we are entitled to one minute or a half a minute or something.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): No. In fact, it is right at four minutcs, and that is what is left.

Mr. Newman: I will not repeat what I have said, because I need the four minutes.

The universal product code in use is of such great advantage to the businessman that one would wonder why businessmen would not actually adopt the thing. For example, in inventory operations the computer system provides the business, supermarket or whatever with the ability to track item sales patterns and inventory positions. It reduces stock-outs and eliminates expensive manual stock counts. They have more accurate inventory and sales information. It improves control, reduces shrinkage and spoilage, improves product freshness, reduces shelf and storage requirements, etc.

It improves checkout capabilities and productivity. The scanning system allows the cashier to process customers more rapidly and more accurately and simplifies the cashier's function.

In addition, it gives more detailed information on sales patterns and customer accounts. It enables the supermarket to schedule labour to maximize the efficiency of labour and the quality of service to the customer.

It gives price accuracy, since scanning renders manual price marking unnecessary. From the firm's point of view it eliminates the potential for human error when prices are stamped on the item and again when they are keyed into the manual cash register. Central computer control over prices also eliminates local discretion over pricing in a supermarket chain and introduces more flexibility in changing prices.

It processes an awful lot of information for the wholesaler or the retailer. The increased information-generating and processing capabilities of computerized checkout systems have many applications in addition to those in inventory control and labour scheduling. These include the ability to customize stores to meet the unique demands of each market. For example, volumes, sizes and shelf locations can be tailored to the purchasing habits of each store's customers. The ability to measure the effect of advertising and special promotions; the impact of variables such as shelf position, seasonality, price; and the ability to measure and forecast the success of new items are further advantages.

We can see the advantage the universal product code and the new types of systems give the operator or owner of the establishment. Granted, the equipment is extremely expensive and it may be difficult for the small store to use it. but at least let us get after the big stores to keep the price on the article so the individual shopper can compare. This is especially important when we are talking about senior citizens who have difficulty seeing the price on the items; at least they could check the price of the items against the sales slip later.

Ms. Bryden: I think this bill gives the members opposite a chance to stand up and show whose side they are on. The supermarkets want this; the consumers of Canada do not want it; the trade unions do not want it; the sociologists do not want it because of the --

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member.

SEASONAL RESORT BUSINESS TAXES

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Lane has moved resolution 6.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 15:

Baetz, Birch, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Lane, Leluk, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Piché, Ramsay, Runciman, Sheppard, Treleaven, Watson, Wells -- 25.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House the business for the rest of this week and next week.

Tonight we will be engaging in debate on the budget.

Tomorrow morning, Friday, June 3, we will deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue.

On Monday afternoon, June 6 and Tuesday afternoon and evening, June 7, we will deal with legislation in the following order: Bills 41, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 23, 49 and 42. If there is any time remaining on Tuesday evening, we will continue the budget debate.

On Wednesday, June 8, the usual three committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday afternoon, June 9, we will deal with private members' ballot items in the name of Mr. Kolyn and Mr. Van Horne. As previously announced, we will not sit on Thursday evening, June 9 nor on Friday, June 10.

The House recessed at 5:55 p.m.

2 juin 1983