Journal des débats 1983-nov-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. As you and other members know, annual reports of the various ministries frequently cross our desks. I believe there is a point of privilege in the annual report of the Ministry of Government Services, but I seek your direction in that regard.

Invariably in the annual reports, on the front page there is a message from the minister with an appropriate picture and on page 2 there is a message from the deputy minister with an appropriate picture. In the annual report of Ministry of Government Services, on the front page there is a message with an appropriate picture of the deputy minister, Mr. Alan Gordon, and on page 2 a picture and a message from the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe).

I wonder whether you think there may have been a bloodless coup d'état in the Ministry of Government Services and whether you think there is a threat to the traditions of this honourable institution.

Mr. Speaker: Quite obviously that is not a point of privilege; how they arrange their affairs in the ministries is really no concern of mine.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, family violence is a problem which is of the highest priority for the Ontario government. It is a particularly repugnant act, focusing as it does on those who are often the most vulnerable and most deserving of our help, such as women, children and the elderly.

Recognizing the importance of this issue, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues the Deputy Premier and Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch) and the Provincial Secretary for Social Development and acting Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. McCaffrey) in announcing today the government's new initiatives on family violence, particularly in the area of wife battering.

Earlier this year, as Provincial Secretary for Justice, I was charged with the responsibility of co-ordinating the response of Ontario government ministries to the first report on family violence: wife battering, prepared by the standing committee on social development.

To give this task the high priority it deserves and to develop detailed responses to the committee's 47 recommendations, it has been necessary to solicit the utmost in co-operation from virtually every ministry in this government. I believe the quality of our joint response reflects the excellent spirit of co-operation and enthusiasm that all ministries brought to this important task.

At this point, I would like to acknowledge and commend the standing committee on social development on a job well done. Its report has been most instrumental in raising public awareness of this important problem. The committee's report was of great assistance to us in developing the Ontario government initiatives we are announcing today.

There are no quick and easy solutions to the complex problem of family violence. The problem demands an integrated and comprehensive approach which not only will respond to the needs of current victims but will also serve to prevent a future chain of violence in generations to come.

The issue we are addressing today is an enormously complex and destructive one which touches many segments of society. As has been pointed out before, wife battering is not just one problem; it is a composite of many problems. It is a health problem, a legal problem, an economic problem and an educational problem.

Most immediately, it is a physical problem. Battery is the single major cause of injury to women -- more than auto accidents, rapes or muggings. Although it is almost impossible to obtain exact statistics, it should be mentioned that in the United States up to 4,000 women are beaten to death annually, and nearly six million women are abused by their husbands every year.

Finally, wife battering is an information and communication problem. It has been a closet issue for so long that very few people, whether they are friends, relatives, co-workers or even legal authorities, are really aware of the victim's plight. Therefore, the victim faces an uphill struggle in explaining the battering situation and in recovering from it.

The complexity of family violence demands action on many fronts. In recognition of this fact, I have been working with other government ministers in both the justice policy and social policy fields to develop a wide range of initiatives.

In addition to reviewing carefully the report of the standing committee on social development, we have also considered the problem more broadly through a study of other reports such as the report of the Federal-Provincial Task Force on Justice for Victims of Crime, the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police Task Force Report on Public Violence against Women and Children, and various reports produced by the Ontario and Canadian Status of Women Councils.

Needless to say, there are no easy solutions. No one example dictates the norm. In fact, the victims of battering do not always speak with a uniform voice when they ask for help. One victim may want to return to her spouse, another may want to arrange a trial separation, yet another may want to get as far away as possible; but all want the battering to end.

To begin this government's announcements today, I would like to announce the following new initiatives to be undertaken by the government of Ontario.

First, to better identify the root causes of wife battering and the most effective means of preventing it, a special research, information and pilot project fund has been established to support projects in this area. This fund, to which several hundred thousand dollars have been committed, will be used to finance a variety of projects over the next two to three years.

Projects supported by this fund will include such things as (1) a research project to consolidate and assess information on the causes of the most effective means of preventing wife battering; (2) a special project on counselling programs and self-help groups for batterers; (3) a project to assist victims of wife battering who live in rural areas; (4) a project to assess the speediest and most effective methods of providing effective protection to battered wives; and (5) a special project on the most cost-effective ways and means of providing legal information and support services to battered wives. This will include an assessment of the victim advocacy programs, victim witness assistance projects, complainant support programs, etc.

Second, a major provincial conference on wife battering will be organized to bring the dedicated personnel providing front-line services face to face with the policymakers. Together, they will develop specific action plans to address individual problem areas. Following this conference, an implementation group consisting of representatives from both groups will be established to advise and follow up on the implementation of the action plans.

Third, major new initiatives undertaken by the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in the past year are being expanded and reinforced. In November 1982, my colleague the Solicitor General directed the Ontario Police Commission to encourage all police forces in the province to lay charges in wife battering incidents where reasonable and probable grounds exist. In conjunction with this move, the Attorney General directed Ontario's crown attorneys to vigorously prosecute assailants in domestic violence cases. To monitor progress in this area, the Solicitor General has now requested all police forces to provide a report by the end of 1983 on the results of implementing the November 1982 directive.

2:10 p.m.

Fourth, we are expressing our serious concern to the federal government about the special irony in current immigration laws concerning battering victims. Many victims -- sponsored immigrant wives, for example -- may be dependent on spouses who are battering them for their very right to stay in this country. Therefore, I have written to the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, requesting that specific changes be made in the Immigration Act to prevent such sad and unfair dilemmas from occurring.

During a major conference on family violence held this past week at the Ontario Police College in Aylmer, the Honourable Robert Kaplan, Solicitor General of Canada, acknowledged the need to address problems I had raised. Both he and the Honourable John Roberts have indicated the willingness of the federal government to undertake a review of this matter.

I wish to point out that the initiatives I have outlined today are in addition to the numerous other actions taken in direct response to the social development committee's recommendations. Those initiatives are outlined in a rather extensive document I am tabling today in conjunction with the Deputy Premier.

I am also pleased to note that the dozens of initiatives outlined in our response to the committee's recommendations cover virtually every area of concern raised by the committee.

The members will note that many of the recommendations contained in the committee's report require action on the part of the federal government. In all these cases, either I or my colleagues have written to request the federal government to undertake the desired action.

I am delighted to be able to say that the ministries have accepted the majority of the standing committee's recommendations. Indeed, action was already planned or under way to address all the major issues raised in the report. There are, of course, some areas where the ministry involved accepts the intent of the recommendation but believes the problem can be addressed better by a different mechanism which past experience dictates is more suitable to the task.

For example, the standing committee has made a proposal in regard to the development of uniform sentencing in wife battering cases. It is the view of the Attorney General that uniform sentencing would present particular difficulties in family violence cases because of the wide degree of differences in circumstances and fact. Rather, the Ministry of the Attorney General has directed the crown attorneys on the importance of making vigorous representations on adequate sentencing in each individual case in order that the sentencing can reflect the severity of the particular case.

In all, however, I feel this document should be regarded as a most positive response by all the ministries involved to one of the most difficult issues facing this government.

It should also be regarded as further evidence of this government's commitment to better serving the victims of crime. I believe that too often a victim is actually victimized twice, first by the perpetrator of the crime itself and then by a society which fails to understand the extent of the damage brought on by the crime.

I am therefore confident that although with these measures we do not pretend to solve this acute sickness in our society, we are making bold, progressive steps towards the resolution of the sad inequities that exist today and the prevention of the human tragedies of tomorrow.

I would like at this time to table the report of this government in respect of Family Violence: Wife Battering, Ontario Government Initiatives.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Provincial Secretary for Justice has expressed this government's commitment to meeting the needs of women who are the victims of family violence.

It is an issue the Ministry of Community and Social Services considers a top priority. Right now, in partnership with municipalities, we are providing funding for some 40 emergency shelters primarily for battered women and their children across the province.

We are in the process of developing 12 family resource centres in small underserviced communities across the north for women in crisis. I am pleased to be able to inform the members today that we now have agreements with six municipalities to begin construction of family resource centres this fiscal year.

I will not go into the details of other initiatives being undertaken in this important area because we have gone into them before, both in estimates and in the document being tabled today, the government's response to the report of the standing committee on social development.

Although the number of emergency shelters for women who are the victims of family violence has increased significantly in recent years, a number of these shelters are experiencing funding difficulties. Because of the crisis nature of the service, fluctuating occupancy levels and funding based on actual occupancy, some shelters are experiencing severe cash flow problems.

Other shelters are located in smaller, more remote centres and rural areas, with a smaller base of community support; consequently, they have not had the opportunity to co-operate with local municipalities and voluntary organizations. It is possible that still other shelters are offering more capacity than is required. In addition, a significant number of shelters are at risk of losing federal support in the very near future.

We recognize these as very real and pressing problems for a number of shelters. As acting Minister of Community and Social Services, I would like to announce that the government of Ontario is committing an additional $4 million for services for battered women. The majority of this new money will be spent on improved funding for shelters for battered women.

First, we will be providing short-term assistance to those particular shelters with the most pressing financial difficulties caused by such factors as federal withdrawals and fluctuating occupancy. It is our intent to ensure that no emergency shelter that is operating efficiently will be closed as a result of the withdrawal of federal funding or for any other reason.

Second, we will be stabilizing the funding of all emergency shelters for battered women. We will be consulting with municipalities and operators of these shelters to develop an equitable funding formula that will provide stability to all shelters and at the same time recognize unique community needs.

In addition, we will be approaching the federal government to resolve some of the problems with current cost-sharing restrictions.

At present, Ontario receives financial support from the federal government on a cost- sharing basis to assist the victims of family violence in crisis situations. The drawback in this system is that it involves a needs test. It does not seem either appropriate or fair to subject people in the midst of pain and suffering to questions on their ability to pay for assistance, especially in a short-term situation, and this government is negotiating with the federal authorities to change these conditions.

We will also be discussing federal priorities in the area of capital funding for these shelters to cover startup costs, renovations and repairs as well as new construction.

While the funding of emergency shelters is certainly the most pressing need in this area of services to battered women, there are other areas of need as well. We plan to address some of these other needs through the appointment of special ministry staff to work with the women's directorate in the office of the Deputy Premier and with other ministries in developing an integrated family violence prevention program.

These initiatives demonstrate the province's deep concern about this important social problem, and I am confident they will go a long way towards meeting the social service needs of women who are the victims of family violence.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join today with my colleagues the Provincial Secretary for Justice and the Provincial Secretary for Social Development and acting Minister of Community and Social Services in their announcements of a number of initiatives to help victims of domestic violence and to help prevent that most unacceptable of offences. May I extend my congratulations to the two ministers for their leadership in developing a slate of initiatives that move to address this urgent concern.

You will remember, sir, as members of the House will, that last December you received the report on wife battering from the standing committee on social development. That committee courageously looked at ways that our criminal justice system and our social service support systems deal with this pervasive and persistent offence. The response to the social development committee's report, which has now been tabled by my colleague, reinforces our ongoing measures and reaffirms our commitment.

2:20 p.m.

The hearings and the deliberations of the committee must, I believe, be credited with bringing the sad plight of these women on to the public agenda. The crime of domestic violence has been called a hidden tragedy, because so many victims feel helpless and powerless.

In a sense, any response to their suffering seems inadequate. Yet I stand with my colleagues in this assembly completely committed to ensuring that the full weight of our legal and social support systems be brought to the service of victims of domestic violence.

I am sure members of the assembly would agree with me that it is really shattering to learn, as we did from the committee's report, that one woman in 10 in Canada is the unfortunate victim of brutality in her own home. It is a fact as well that many of these people do not know that they do not have to tolerate such treatment. Many such women and many batterers do not know that our laws entitle everyone to safety and security of person. Indeed, we all have the legal right not to be assaulted.

The dissemination of that information among families and among professional groups ranging from law enforcement authorities to medical personnel, clergy and social workers is one of the challenges facing us at this time. We believe, moreover, that as a government and as a society we must move at this time to be more assertive in providing concrete help for victims of domestic violence.

Therefore, I am pleased to be able to announce two additional measures that are being undertaken by this government.

First, we are appointing a provincial co-ordinator for family violence to be located in the office of the Deputy Premier. Further details of this appointment will be made shortly. The provincial co-ordinator will enter discussions with other levels of government, particularly the government of Canada, aimed at ensuring adequate services for victims.

Among other functions, the co-ordinator will chair a steering committee of Ontario government ministries, including the Justice and Social Development policy secretariats, the Attorney General, Correctional Services, the Solicitor General, Health, Education, Colleges and Universities, and Citizenship and Culture, to name a few.

The co-ordinator will liaise with community groups involved in providing shelter and other services to battered women. Furthermore, the co-ordinator will provide assistance in the development of education and public awareness and help us assess and prioritize projects to address specific problems facing these victims.

This initiative will be supported by a public education program to begin in the early part of the new year, and that program will have a number of purposes. One is to make people aware that assaulting vulnerable members of the family group is a crime. The program will also focus attention on the help that is now available to assist victims of these crimes and will aim at prevention.

We do not really know the causes of wife abuse, as we have been told, but we do know that they are complex. We can address this offence by letting people know without any qualms that it is unacceptable and is in fact a criminal offence that need not, must not and will not be tolerated in this jurisdiction.

I want to commend my colleagues the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for their work in this area. They have undertaken many initiatives, which are having a major impact, particularly in improving the attention given to this difficult matter by law enforcement officials and specifically in encouraging the police to lay charges against batterers instead of placing the onus on the victims to lay these charges.

Their work is turning around a philosophy that has tended to distinguish acceptable behaviour in public from acceptable behaviour in private and we are well on the way to operating on the principle that family members do indeed have the right to personal safety and security.

Finally, I want to extend the personal thanks and commendation of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the members of this government to the many people of Ontario who have acted on their own initiative to help victims of family violence in a myriad of ways, in particular, the many community and volunteer groups, which include the Ontario Association of Transition and Interval Houses, all of which have made such a valuable contribution, and I hope we can continue to have their support and involvement.

It is my earnest hope that we will never be a society of passive onlookers at the misfortunes of others. I trust that these initiatives that we as a government are undertaking will be but a part of the response of the people of Ontario to this challenge, and I hope that we shall see organizations like our service clubs, churches and community groups accept an even greater and more public responsibility in preserving peace and stability in our families. Personal responsibility for protecting rather than abusing is at the heart of this issue just as it is at the heart of the family values we cherish in this province.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members in not carrying on private conversations in the House, and if they have business to transact in doing it outside this chamber.

PROPANE-POWERED VEHICLES

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of this House are aware of the increasing popularity of propane as an alternative fuel for motor vehicles. In fact, to date there are about 30,000 propane-powered vehicles and trucks using Ontario's roads and that number is expected to climb to 40,000 by 1985.

The growth in the popularity of propane has, in part, been fostered by the federal off-oil and provincial government alternative fuel programs. During the last fiscal year alone an estimated 15,000 vehicles were converted, mostly for company fleet operations. Facilities for storing, handling and dispensing propane have also grown from 1,000 in 1981-82 to more than 1,700 this year.

in view of the economic importance of the use of propane as an alternative fuel, we wish to ensure its use goes ahead with the minimum number of adverse situations arising.

As is often the case with new and rapidly employed technologies, some problems have developed in connection with the use of propane as a vehicle fuel. Such problems include concerns for the quality of conversion work, the existence of unregistered conversion shops and vehicle component problems, particularly in regard to hoses, connections and fittings.

The purpose of this statement is to inform the House of the measures that have been and will be taken to deal with those situations where the equipping of cars to permit the use of propane fuel has resulted in problems.

I wish to describe briefly what will be happening in the near future, to review recent regulatory and licensing improvements and to explain a safety program launched about 12 days ago.

The most significant problems to date have been associated with inadequate installation of fuel systems designed to convert existing gasoline-fueled vehicles to propane. I want to make it clear that all the evidence to date indicates vehicles with properly installed propane systems, and that is by far the largest number, are just as safe as traditional gasoline-powered vehicles.

The major problem my ministry's fuel safety branch has detected is the possibility of a leak developing as a result of an incorrectly sealed propane system. Because propane is under pressure and is heavier than air, a leak can lead to an accumulation of gas inside the vehicle which, not surprisingly, takes only a spark to ignite.

To assist in the correction of these problems, my honourable colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) has agreed to implement a mandatory safety inspection program for propane fuel systems on over-the-road vehicles.

Under the umbrella of MTC's existing motor vehicle inspection station program, those facilities already holding an inspection licence as well as all registered propane conversion shops and insurance appraisal centres will be invited to participate in this propane equipment inspection program and, providing their facilities and staff meet the standards set by both MTC and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, a propane endorsement or inspection licence will be issued.

It is the intention of the Minister of Transportation and Communications to have this inspection program in place and operational early in 1984. Once the program is operational, all vehicles which are converted to propane fuel will be required to submit to an inspection. In addition, all owners of previously converted propane vehicles will have until January 1, 1985, to submit their vehicles for an inspection and to obtain a sticker. After that date, a propane-powered vehicle without a sticker will be denied fuel at all propane-equipped automotive filling stations in Ontario.

2:30 p.m.

In addition, under the MTC safety standards certificate program, propane fuel systems will be included in the inspection requirements when vehicle ownership is transferred to another person.

This new mandatory inspection and sticker program should go a long way towards raising the standards of propane equipment in vehicles operating on Ontario's roads. The fuels safety branch will monitor and analyse the results of the 30,000 inspections to determine the need, if any, for better standards and/or more frequent inspections.

In the meantime, the fuels safety branch of my ministry will continue with its inspection, registration and certification of conversion shops, installers and propane fuel handlers. Later this year, the regulations will be amended to require that anyone applying to become a licensed propane system installer must first be a licensed automotive mechanic. As part of this effort to upgrade the qualifications and skills of those involved in the industry, Centennial College in Toronto will also develop a training program this fall for use at Ontario community colleges for those wanting to qualify as propane fuel system inspectors.

During the summer we upgraded the regulations regarding the procedures that must be followed in the filling of automotive propane fuel tanks by licensed propane fuel handlers. This past summer the branch also stiffened its technical and equipment requirements needed to qualify for propane conversion shop registration. All new shops must now first pass a preregistration checklist requiring them to have an automotive hoist, an exhaust gas analyser or dynamometer, pressure testing equipment and at least one licensed propane conversion installer on staff.

Equipment standards are changing as well. Last December my ministry hired a consultant to study the permeation rate of steel-reinforced synthetic rubber fuel lines used in propane-powered vehicles. That report led directly to regulatory changes that will also go into force later this year. These new regulations will require the eventual replacement of all existing so-called type-2 hoses with type-3 hoses equipped with a nylon inner liner.

An entire package of regulatory amendments is currently being developed by the fuels safety branch for introduction before the end of 1983. These include provisions for special enclosures around the tank fittings and a sleeve over the fuel lines, both vented to the exterior; a requirement that nylon ties, where they are used to secure fuel lines, be of the heavy duty metal reinforced type; new standards and procedures for pressure testing propane fuel systems; and requirements that all bolts and straps be rustproofed. In the past, individual conversion shops were allowed to assemble their own hoses and fittings from component parts as needed but proposed regulations will require that hoses and fittings be assembled by the manufacturer or supplier.

I would like to emphasize that these changes will result in the safety standards in Ontario being more stringent than they currently are under the national standards established by the Canadian Gas Association.

I would now like to turn to the information and warning program under way at this moment. The fuels safety branch recently discovered a problem area in some propane conversions where leakage may be occurring, more specifically in some remote-fill valve compartments where a poor seal may allow propane fumes present during refuelling to gain access to the interior of the vehicle.

Some remote-fill valves are installed in the side or back of a vehicle in the same location as the filling pipe on a regular gasoline-powered vehicle. Vehicles, generally trucks, with their fill-valve nozzle attached directly to the fuel tank are not affected by this potential problem, the Premier will be pleased to know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Fuels safety branch inspectors had discovered that some remote-fill compartments or enclosures were not properly sealed off from the interior of the vehicle. Naturally this concerns us, since any source of ignition could ignite this gas. All owners of propane vehicles are being urged to have an inspection carried out by a licensed conversion shop as soon as possible.

We have just sent individual letters to known propane vehicle owners, conversion shops and system installers notifying them of this potential problem. Detailed instructions for the adequate sealing of the compartment are also being added to regulations under the propane code. A special telephone information line has been set up at the branch and a press release was issued to the media on Friday, October 21. Any repairs required following such an inspection are relatively inexpensive and can be carried out quickly.

The potential dangers and mishaps associated with any new technology inevitably attract much more intense and focused attention than do the long-recognized dangers inherent in older, more commonly used technologies. Propane is no exception. It remains, however, a valid and economic alternative to gasoline. Propane has already established for itself a good safety record in this province, a safety record that can be improved only as a result of the kind of new industry standards and programs I have outlined today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FUNDING OF TRANSITION HOUSES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Justice. The minister and his colleagues have brought to the House today a series of statements, after taking roughly a year to respond to the committee's report. In spite of the three statements, the good intentions, the new bureaucrats and conferences he has added, he has failed to respond to one of the two most significant recommendations the committee made. I refer specifically to the suggestion that interval and transition houses should have block funding to guarantee their financial security. He is aware of the long list of homes that are in jeopardy of not surviving very long, as well as the figures that say per diems are not financing a very significant percentage of the cost of these homes --

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Peterson: Why did the minister and his colleagues choose to condemn the interval and transition houses to perpetual financial insecurity? Why did he not address one of the two most important recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, we have addressed this issue very responsibly. The member might take a look at the report and discover we have adopted virtually all the recommendations proposed. There are some variations in one, and there is a variation on the question of block funding.

True, we have a different approach to it in terms of the funding, but keeping in mind there are substantial funds now being provided by the province for this kind of funding purpose, to the extent that if a woman with two children were to be in an interval house for a period of a week, the amount of money paid to that house is over $450.

Keeping in mind that my colleague made reference to a $4-million program that is available at the moment for the purpose of resolving the problems of those homes that are in need, there are some homes that will not close in the next while on account of the monetary issue; keeping that in mind, and that a new formula will be established in the next few months, before the next year, a formula that involves participation from the federal and municipal governments and local participation, keeping in mind all of that, we have responded perfectly to the issue. It is just that we do not agree with the formula the member might have in mind. We have an approach that sees the acceptance of the majority of the recommendations put forward by the committee. Maybe the member should spend some time addressing those.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, after these three statements and this beautiful blue-bound report of highlights and details, in recommendation 23, under initiatives, there is a blank space which tells me that after one year the minister has done nothing. He has done absolutely nothing on one of the two crucial recommendations. In the highlights, it says the ministry is "reviewing options to stabilize the cash flow of transition houses."

What is he going to do for those transition houses which are in a crisis situation? As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) pointed out yesterday and again today, they could close. What is he going to do to prevent the continuation of this emergency? When are we going to get a recommendation from his ministry that makes some sense?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the elimination of the emergency is as of this moment. There is no longer an emergency. The emergency problems of some of the shelters that are in financial difficulties, primarily because of the withdrawal of federal funds, because of that kind of situation and other circumstances, will be resolved in an overnight situation. We will have resolved in a matter of days the issue that relates to this.

2:40 p.m.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services has instructed its regional directors at this very moment to be contacting the homes that are in some immediate distress to resolve that problem. A $4-million fund has been established for that particular purpose. There will not be an emergency difficulty in the next week.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as the member who called for this committee to hold the hearings it has, I am pleased to see the government has made as comprehensive a response as it has. I think it would be wrong for me not to say so in starting. However, I do have the same concern that has been expressed by the members of the Liberal Party about the failure to address our initial and major request.

Might I ask the minister if he could please explain to us the contradiction in the report he brought forward today. On the one hand, he said in one of his responses that he wants to get rid of needs testing while, on the other hand, he said we should stay with the General Welfare Assistance Act as the major formula for funding these houses, when he knows that one of the requirements is that the needs testing will have to stay and that as many as perhaps 20 per cent of the women who use these houses at the moment will, therefore, not get funding and the houses will continue to be in difficulty. There is a total contradiction there.

Hon. Mr. Walker: We recognize the problem and we intend to sort it out. We intend to embark upon a campaign with the federal government relative to that very issue. I expect that by the early new year it will be resolved in terms of the definition.

We do not feel that the federal government should be able to shirk its responsibility and its participation in the funding of the interval houses; nor, for that matter, do we feel that municipalities should be ignored in the process. We wish them, too, to share in the process.

We think we can come up with a better definition for needs from the point of view of the General Welfare Assistance Act; that is a proper vehicle by which to fund. We think the resolution will be forthcoming, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services is embarking upon that very direction post haste.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I might congratulate the minister on ensuring the survival of transition houses across this province for approximately one week because, with the recommendations he has listed here today, he has done that. I am sure Trudy Don, the co-ordinator of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, who is here today, will have a response to his alleged protection for transition houses.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: There is an issue that has to be dealt with, and I might ask the minister why he has not dealt with it in this report. We recognize that the federal government has a contribution to make and we recognize that communities have contributions to make in this area. In fact, communities across this province have risen to respond to the problem.

Why has the minister put this problem back in the closet by refusing to respond to a unanimous all-party committee report recommending block funding as one of the two key elements, one of the two key pinnacles, for finding a solution to this desperate problem in Ontario? The minister mouths a lot of platitudes. He has a lot of reports.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: He has set up a lot of committees. Why has he not responded positively to the question of block funding, which is crucial to the survival of existing transition houses across this province?

Hon. Mr. Walker: In responding to the member's unfortunate shrill comment at the beginning -- that it would be only enough to last for a week -- I would have to say that is a totally inaccurate and inappropriate statement to make. The fact of the matter is that no interval house will close in the next year as a result of a funding problem. That is the guarantee we are giving and that is the mission upon which the Ministry of Community and Social Services has embarked today, namely, to ensure that any homes that are in any difficulty whatsoever will have the matter sorted out. That will resolve the issue as far as we are concerned, and this is an ongoing acceptance of the program.

Second, in respect to the block funding issue, we have our own approach, which requires federal participation. The member would ask that to be eliminated entirely, but we find it absolutely imperative, as well as the municipal participation to determine the need for various homes in various locations. Because of all that, we are satisfied that the formula by which we will attack it and the resolution of the formula, which will be determined in the next few months, will answer the question properly. So the issue will be sorted out.

We just do not follow the same method by which the member happened to have arrived at a conclusion on the funding. We have our own approach to it and we are saying no house will close. We can make the statement that no interval house will close. That is the fact and that is the way it will be.

MEMBER'S RETURN TO HOUSE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, before my next question I know you will indulge me in welcoming back to the House our esteemed colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney).

[Applause]

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, before I joined this Legislature someone remarked to me that this is perhaps the most exclusive club in the province or in the country. After receiving the good wishes of members of all three parties in the form of letters, cards and flowers, I now know what they meant. Thank you all very much.

Mr. Speaker: I might say it is a happy day and we are very pleased to have you here. Quite obviously, everybody welcomes you back very sincerely.

Mr. Peterson: I think my esteemed colleague is wrong on one point. It is the Albany Club they were referring to as the exclusive club.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Jealousy will get you nowhere.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier can have my father-in-law. If he can stand him, that is his problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Those two deserve each other. I have always maintained that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition is in trouble now. I thought he was welcoming back the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) when he started.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) will attest to the fact that members come back to this House in even better repair after their little sojourns. I am sure he will attest to that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HYDRO REACTORS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister is aware that five out of the 11 nuclear reactors are currently down and another reactor is going down in the near future. What actions has the minister taken since he became minister to make sure that nuclear energy is fail-safe? Is he persuaded and can he assure us the nuclear reactors at Ontario Hydro are fail-safe?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I will only say at the outset that I was relieved yesterday to hear from the Leader of the Opposition that he had reconsidered the position he was taking last week and now considers it appropriate and agrees that we cannot proceed to discuss this issue and propose conclusions without the proper technical information. I think that is a constructive and responsible position for him to be taking in this regard.

I would like to report on the whole question of the activities relating to the status of the reactors. Pickering unit 1 is operating. Pickering units 3 and 4 are operating. Pickering unit 5 is scheduled to restart this evening. In Bruce, unit 1 is operating; it was restarted earlier this morning. Bruce unit 2 is scheduled to restart on November 6 after a scheduled downtime for maintenance. Bruce units 3 and 4 are operating.

Douglas Point is operating. NPD-2 at Rolphton will shut down because of a fuelling problem. The Leader of the Opposition will appreciate those two latter reactors, of course, are not the property of Ontario Hydro. They are merely operated by the utility in conjunction with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and the electrical energy is purchased from those reactors. They are not affecting the status of the system or the electrical consumers in the province.

2:50 p.m.

I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that Ontario Hydro, through the day-to-day monitoring of its operations and through the very careful discussions it is having with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and with the Atomic Energy Control Board, is in a position to assure me that, despite a spate of unfortunate and perhaps untimely breakdowns of reactors, with the exception of Pickering unit 2 the reactor breakdowns are part of normal operating problems. They are not items that would normally attract significant attention had it not been for the problems at Pickering unit 2.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister aware that in the first nine months of this year there have been 97 significant events at the Pickering reactor alone? One case, for example, was a set of air hoses in the emergency core cooling system that was installed backwards, which was not discovered during routine tests. Has the minister been fully informed of these 97 significant events? Is he, as the minister responsible now, persuaded that nuclear energy is fail-safe?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The 97 significant events are matters of public knowledge. They are not specifically brought to my attention on an hour-by-hour basis because they are matters relating to the normal operation of these reactors. I think it is interesting to have some perspective with respect to the nuclear system and to make some comparisons of that system with the thermal coal-fired generation system, of which --

Mr. Kerrio: Why does the minister not try hydraulic generation?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: -- the opposition members on occasion remind us we should have a greater component. Both the large thermal and nuclear plants operated by Ontario Hydro have been operating at a world-class level. In 1982, for instance, Pickering operated at an 87 per cent capacity, and in 1983, up to October 1, in spite of the problems with unit 2, it operated at an 84.4 per cent capacity. In 1982 Bruce A operated at 86.8 per cent capacity, and in 1983, up to October 1, at 88.4 per cent capacity.

For thermal plants the capacity and capability are separately stated since they are not always in full use. That is no news to this House.

Mr. J. A. Reed: It was 99.5 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Nuclear, on the other hand, as the Leader of the Opposition will understand, is used as a base load and, therefore, the capability and the capacity are the same figure.

I think if he were to compare the Lambton station, for instance, which is a world-class, thermal-fired generating plant, which ranks very high in comparison with all other stations in North America, the member would find that even the capacity of that station has not been nearly as efficient and as effective as our nuclear system.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would care to comment on what appears to have been a rather significant switch in energy policy without any debate in this Legislature. That is the switch from the Energy Security for the Eighties document, which stated the need for the introduction of alternatives, for experiments in the smaller hydraulic stations, for moving with alternative energy supplies, to the stated objective the minister himself described in the House, that Ontario was witnessing the conversion of an electrical generating system to a nuclear generating system.

Does the minister not feel there is a direct contradiction between the policy that was set out just a short couple of years ago in Energy Security for the Eighties and the proposals that are now being made, such as the cutbacks at Little Jackfish River and the end of other projects that would provide a more flexible and a more balanced system, towards a system that is now exclusively relying on one technology?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that is a supplementary, but the minister may answer it if he chooses to.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Neither am I, Mr. Speaker, but I will endeavour to answer it. No, I would not agree with the leader of the third party. The search for and development of alternatives, the kinds of programs we are running to encourage hydraulic generation of electricity, are well known. They are part of the ongoing policies and programs of the ministry and will continue to be.

I think it is important that we continue to look at the demands in the system to meet the economic requirements of the province. In making those observations in a very objective way, one has to look at the nuclear option as being the most efficient and the most effective.

Mr. Peterson: The minister chose not to answer the question I asked him. He referred to the significant events as normal events. By definition they are not normal events; they are by definition significant events. They are untoward things that could lead to more trouble.

I asked the minister if he was informed about them when they occurred. I gather he said he was not. This is not surprising. Since the material on them is now in the Legislative Library, would the minister not feel he should at least be informed as to the potential consequences of those significant events? I pointed out to him at least one case which could have been serious. There are many others as well.

I ask the minister again, is he persuaded the system is fail-safe? I am not asking him about the efficiency per unit compared to any other system. Is he persuaded it is fail-safe? Given the broad public concern about this issue, would he subject it to a hearing of a select committee of this House so that we could have a full, open, public discussion of the kinds of events that society is facing in general?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I have every confidence -- and I can say this to the Leader of the Opposition with all honesty -- that the question of safety in the system has been examined by a royal commission. It has been examined by a select committee of this Legislature, with a parade of experts coming before that committee. I think if he were to read the results of that discussion, he would find that has been confirmed. The whole premise on which the Candu reactor has been judged around the world is on its safety record.

Regarding the question of referring this whole issue to a select committee of the Legislature, when asked on occasions before about this particular subject I have said we have to resolve the problems with Pickering unit 2. Those problems and the startup of that reactor are in the hands of the Atomic Energy Control Board. The research and the kind of information the Leader of the Opposition is seeking with respect to Pickering unit 2 are coming forward as a result of some fairly intensive research at Chalk River. When that issue has been resolved, we will give this some further consideration.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy. It concerns Hydro rates. The minister will be aware that Ontario Hydro's financial forecast for 1983-86 estimated it will require revenues of $4.8 billion in 1986, which is more than $1.5 billion more than it needs in 1983. The minister will also be aware that Hydro has projected that this means a three-year rate increase, with projected increases of sales, of 36.2 per cent. If sales are flat, the increases will be as much as 47 per cent in the next three years.

I would like to ask the minister how he squares those facts contained in Hydro's own documents with the statement he made in the House the other day when he referred to Hydro and said: "They are confident that those rates over the next number of years can be kept below the level of inflation." How does he square those two statements? They seem on the face of it to be contradictory.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the projections Ontario Hydro makes with respect to the rates over the next decade allows it to say realistically it can keep the rates on average over the next decade below the rate of inflation.

Notwithstanding that, the member clearly understands that as new units come into operation, as they will at Pickering and Bruce over the next two years, the method of accounting requires that the capital costs and interest accrued on the construction of those new units are brought into the rate base. This will no doubt affect the rate base for that period of time.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Unless the minister has some kind of a crystal ball that allows him to know what the rate of inflation is going to be in 1989 or 1990, I do not know how he can make the statements he has been making --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: The facts with respect to the cost of interest and depreciation are as follows: Whereas 35 per cent of the rates in 1983 went to pay for interest and depreciation, in two years 50 cents out of every dollar we pay on electricity will go for interest payments and depreciation expenses, by and large on the nuclear plants that are going to be brought on stream in the next three years. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I was not paying very close attention to the member's question. May he repeat the question?

Mr. Rae: Since I asked the first question to the minister, I thought he might have assumed the second question was also going to go to him, but I will ask it again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Rather than do that, perhaps the minister can take it as notice, read Hansard and come back with a reply.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We are just taking too much

time.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, may he not repeat the question? The minister indicated he did not get the full tenor of the question, and we are waiting for a response. Surely the Speaker should not be interfering in that way.

Mr. Speaker: I am just trying to protect the rights of all members. I am not interfering.

Mr. Cassidy: Just trying to protect the government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre will retract that statement, please.

Mr. Cassidy: I will.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly read Hansard and try to provide the member with an answer to the question at a future date.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary; the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree --

Mr. Foulds: Oh, come on, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClellan: Don't be so silly.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for York South raised a supplementary question. The minister did not understand the question. Surely the leader of this party has an opportunity to place the question again so the minister can respond.

Mr. Speaker: As I said before, it is my duty to protect the interests of all members. You agree with that, quite obviously. The minister did not hear the question for whatever reason; so I am going to recognize the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: How can he ask a supplementary to a question that was not even heard?

Mr. Speaker: You are just wasting more time.

Mr. Martel: That is fine, Mr. Speaker, but the supplementary comes to the leader here; surely he is allowed to repeat the question when the minister says he has not heard it. What are we being so childish about and taking so much time for? Surely you are penalizing the House by not letting him place the question again so the minister could understand it.

An hon. member: It was a bad call.

Mr. Speaker: No. I thought it was very fair.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We obviously have mixed opinions here. Is it the pleasure of the House that the question goes?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: All right. The member for York South.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister confirm that whereas today 33 cents on every dollar of rates goes to interest and depreciation, in a short two years' time that figure will be raised to 50 cents on every dollar of rates for interest and depreciation because of the commitment to nuclear expansion?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I can confirm that, but I also want to remind the leader of the third party that as these costs continue to increase, fuelling costs will continue to decrease because of the efficiency of the Candu reactor program and the fact that we will not be buying the coal needed for coal-fired generation.

Mr. Peterson: The minister will adding in billions for interest he is now capitalizing and not paying for. It is an extraordinary situation.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree with me that his statement that Hydro rates will be below inflation is already out the window? We are now experiencing about five per cent inflation and probably will next year. The new Hydro rates for next year are 7.8 per cent. Already the minister is making a mockery of his own statement. Would he not agree?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not agree. One wants to make these comparisons over a period of time. If one does that over the past five years, Ontario Hydro's rates compare very favourably with the rate of inflation.

Mr. Rae: When the matter of a rate increase goes to the Ontario Energy Board from the gas industry, for example, that increase is binding on that industry, whereas with Ontario Hydro, it is merely advisory. Can the minister explain to the House why that is so? How can he possibly justify that kind of double standard?

Will the minister ensure that at the next hearing of the Ontario Energy Board with respect to rate increases at Hydro, it will be enforceable and will be enforced by the government of Ontario and will deal with the cost of system expansion which the government has systematically kept away from the jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board? Why does he not give some power to the regulators who are supposed to be protecting the interests of the consumers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The leader of the third party will clearly understand that Hydro is regulated by a piece of legislation called the Power Corporation Act. Within that act the Hydro board, a board appointed by the government, will set the rate for the year hence. That is their mandate under that piece of legislation.

LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Labour. I would like to ask the minister a question that focuses on the problem of long-term unemployment, particularly for the older workers in the province.

The minister will know that whatever changes to the unemployment figures there may have been over the past couple of years, one of the very hard and harsh facts we are going to have to face up to in this province is that the length of unemployment has increased substantially. For example, whereas two years ago the average length of unemployment for a worker over 45 was less than 20 weeks, today it is more than 28 weeks.

The minister has said in this House and is quoted in the press as saying that he is depressed and dismayed by the extent of this problem of structural unemployment, especially as it affects the older worker. I would like to ask him, therefore, what initiatives does he plan to take before we enter a potentially long winter of higher unemployment rates and even more difficult times for the families of the province?

What particular initiatives does the minister plan to take to ensure that we get the length of unemployment down for the older workers and all the workers in the province and to provide these people with some degree of hope for the skills they have invested in themselves over the past 20 and 30 years?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, first, in the short term I could refer the honourable member to the Canada-Ontario employment development program, which will extend over the winter months and which has been extremely successful. I believe the number of projects was something like 2,784 all told, and it triggered an amount of money from the federal government of $110 million, which was matched with a like amount by the provincial government.

The interesting part is that in addition to the $220 million of government money, the private sector, the municipalities and the nonprofit sector contributed $183 million, an amount that almost matched it. That was a figure we had never counted upon. We had thought that if we got around a 20 per cent contribution from those sources, it would be gratifying indeed. Instead, we reached a figure of around 80 per cent. That has resulted not only in direct jobs but also in a spinoff effect for goods and services that has helped the economy of this province.

I also remind the member that the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has announced various initiatives, accelerated capital programs within this government, that will address the problem of unemployment during these winter months.

These are just two programs that will partially answer, I would say to a considerable extent, the matter that the member has brought forward.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: If I may say, and I hope the minister will agree, there is a dramatic discrepancy between the kinds of things that government is doing, both at the provincial level and the federal level, and the size and the magnitude of the problem. Nearly 100,000 people in this province are actually unemployed and have been unemployed for more than a year. That is not even counting the people who have gone on welfare and who have stopped looking for work.

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Mr. Rae: What steps does the minister plan to take with respect to provincial legislation in terms of the Employment Standards Act, the Pension Benefits Act and company law and with respect to company obligations to the workers in this province to ensure that we do not have this absurd discrepancy of profits and shareholders' benefits going up as they have gone up at Canadian General Electric and Canada Packers, to give the minister just two examples, while at the same time literally hundreds of workers, many of them older and having a difficult time finding retraining, are simply being left out on the street?

What is the minister going to do in terms of the laws of this province to guarantee a fairer shake for the average employee as opposed to the average shareholder in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is a fact that this province has the most generous severance pay arrangements of any jurisdiction on the North American continent. The member is obviously referring to legislation for justification of closures, layoffs and so on. As I have said before in this Legislature, and I will say again, I have no intention at this time of bringing forward legislation of that nature.

We have to maintain a balance in this province so that we can entice industry and business to an atmosphere that will contribute to a recovery from the circumstances we are now facing. To bring forward legislation as suggested by the third party would aggravate the situation, not assist it.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question, the minister referred to the Canada-Ontario employment development program, which he operates in conjunction with the federal government.

The minister will also be aware that his colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) operates a different program, the Ontario career action program, which is running out of money just as the winter months are about to begin.

Is there any co-ordination between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities about putting additional funding into that program, which I might say has proven to be quite successful and which is desperately in need of being continued over the winter months? That falls totally within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. Before answering it, since I have the opportunity to do so, I wish to express my personal best wishes to the honourable member, who has just returned to the Legislature. It is very good to see him back.

I agree completely with him when he talks about the benefits of OCAP. It is truly an excellent program and has all sorts of success related to it. Another program that will be available for the winter months is the winter Experience program, which was a new initiative of this government a year ago. It worked out well last year and I am sure it will work out again this year.

As far as liaison between the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and our ministry is concerned, there is every imaginable type of liaison and exchange. We also have the Ontario Manpower Commission, which operates out of my ministry. One of its mandates is to ensure there is co-operation and co-ordination in the matter of manpower among the various ministries of this government.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is aware that at the same time as we are heading trade missions to the Far East to find new investment for Ontario, the Premier (Mr. Davis) will not even meet with the CGE workers in terms of protecting one of the most modern heavy industrial plants we have in the province. They are 429 of the workers my leader is telling us about. They have a lot of seniority. They are older workers. Can the minister tell us specifically what he is doing in terms of the 429 CGE workers when he cannot even get the Premier to meet with them?

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I must caution all our guests in the galleries that we cannot have any demonstrations of any kind. If there is any further outbreak, I will have to clear the galleries.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I think we should clarify a matter, and that is that the Premier did not refuse to meet with the union involved with Canadian General Electric. I had had a long meeting -- we had had several meetings, in fact -- but the last meeting we had was with both union and management people in attendance. We met for a considerable length of time. We talked over just about every concern that was on the minds of the union officials who were there, and we had the senior management people of General Electric there to try to answer those concerns.

We simply did not feel that anything further could be accomplished by having a similar type of meeting with the Premier acting as chairman rather than with me acting as chairman. So there was no attempt to refuse to hold such a meeting.

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Clear the galleries, please.

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This House will stand adjourned for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 3:16 p.m.

3:26 p.m.

EDUCATION IN NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities and it concerns the fate of the report of the Committee on University Education in Northeastern Ontario. The minister will recall that a few days ago we debated this report at a preliminary level in the estimates of her ministry.

In view of the very deeply felt and increasingly widespread concern within the affected communities of northeastern Ontario about what this report proposes for the university community in northeastern Ontario, can she indicate today whether she would be prepared to allow for a public forum in northeastern Ontario for a public discussion of the very important and vital questions raised by the proposed restructuring as set out in the Parrott committee report?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the honourable member that there have to this point been two major opportunities for that kind of discussion. In the examination of the subject initially, Dr. Arthur Bourns, a former president of McMaster University, whose graduates are ensconsed in parts of this chamber, held meetings throughout northeastern Ontario in the examination of the proposals that might be put forward to ensure there would be greater viability and greater attention to educational opportunities for northeastern Ontario.

In response to the Bourns report, the chairman of the Ontario Council on University Affairs himself had some meetings in northeastern Ontario with members of the various institutions involved before the final statement of OCUA regarding the Bourns report, the advisement that I received from OCUA on the Bourns report, was delivered to me.

As a result of that advisement, the member is aware, we appointed a committee, which he persistently calls the Parrott committee, which had representation from all of the institutions and all of the areas involved in northeastern Ontario as well as three representatives appointed by government. That body held public hearings throughout northeastern Ontario and amassed a fairly large volume of paper and a good deal of listened-to opinion before the report was drafted.

I have said very clearly to the member that it seems to me the one term of reference that was not addressed by the committee and one that is of vital interest to all, must in fact be looked at very carefully through a mechanism which we are in the process of developing within the ministry. When we have addressed that matter of cost, I shall be pleased to consider the way in which we will proceed.

I would remind the member that even now there are meetings being held throughout northeastern Ontario to provide responses to the Parrott committee report. Apparently it is not necessary for the ministry to organize such meetings; they are being held spontaneously. I am delighted to know that is happening.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Conway: Would the minister not agree it would be most useful to provide a public forum in the light of the gathering storm of protest, involving such people as my eminent colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) who has said this report is flawed? The executive vice-president of Laurentian, Dr. Frank Turner, is quoted in the most recent edition of the Laurentian Gazette as saying the problem is one of cost, not of structure.

Given the very deeply held views of many people in the affected community, does the minister not agree with me that it would be very useful for her to ensure that a public forum is provided for the people in northeastern Ontario who have a vital interest in this?

Furthermore, can the minister indicate whether or not it is still her intention to have a restructured university system in northeastern Ontario in place by the summer of 1984?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I thought I had stated very clearly for the benefit of the member that the very important factor of the cost of implementing anything like the recommendations of the committee which has looked at the restructuring of those institutions must be in place. We must have that very important information in our hands before we can discuss with anyone, including those in northeastern Ontario and Dr. Frank Turner, whether we can proceed in the direction suggested by the committee or whether there should be some modification thereof.

I am sure the member will be generous enough to give us time to find that information and to provide it to him, so if he wishes he may organize meetings in northeastern Ontario in order to hear what those very worthy individuals have to say.

I have to tell the member that it seems to me the individuals and groups involved in that area are very articulate and have no difficulty in communicating amongst themselves or transmitting their ideas to the government on a regular basis.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, people in that area are indeed articulate. Arthur Wishart, the former provincial Attorney General, commented recently that a lot of space is spent in the report setting up a tremendous administrative system which is extremely top-heavy and unnecessary. He said it did not bother to address some of the fundamental questions of funding he has been calling for for some time.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: Given the reaction the minister is getting from some sources in the north, given her own statement in the estimates that she would not even in principle endorse proceeding with a university of northeastern Ontario, however modified from the Parrott commission proposals, a lot of doubt is being cast on the whole future possibility of an institution of that nature for the north.

Will the minister give us her assurances that however many modifications she might wish to make to that report, she will in fact proceed with a university in northeastern Ontario of which the north can be proud?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There are in fact institutions in northeastern Ontario now of which the north is proud.

Mr. Martel: What a silly statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I challenge you to get up and say it is not so.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It would seem to me to be unnecessarily chauvinistic of the former member of the McMaster University staff to ignore the pride which northerners have in their current institutions.

If the honourable member will take the trouble to quote me fairly, clearly and accurately, he will recall I said I was most sympathetic to the recommendations of the report, but I felt strongly I could not in all honesty make any statement beyond that without having the vital information regarding the cost of the structure that is recommended.

PRIVATE NURSING HOMES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton).

On November 22, 1982, the Willson Nursing Home in St. Thomas went into receivership. Since then the employees, the residents and the relatives of the residents have not received any clear-cut information as to exactly what their future holds, other than that we know Caressent Care nursing home has been promised the licence by the Minister of Health. There are no guarantees for the residents and there are no guarantees for the staff.

Would the Provincial Secretary for Social Development ask the Minister of Health to get the nursing home branch of his ministry to meet with the staff and residents to clarify the position, to make guarantees before they agree to that licence being transferred to Caressent Care, to give guarantees that successor rights for the union and the staff will be accepted and honoured and that the residents in the Willson Nursing Home will in fact be guaranteed a place in the new nursing home that is now being built in St. Thomas by Caressent Care?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the appropriate people within the ministry this afternoon.

Mr. Cooke: On a policy matter, does the minister not realize that because of the process used by the Minister of Health, which is the policy of his government -- private ownership of nursing homes and the way licences are transferred to new owners, where we basically, as I have said before, sell residents -- these types of problems are occurring on a regular basis where there are no guarantees for anyone and that in fact this is simply another symptom of the profit, private ownership of nursing homes in Ontario?

Will he and his government not finally come to grips with this problem and review the policy and the ramifications of private ownership of nursing homes in this province?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: I think it is important not to confuse the principle of private ownership, which has an important role to play in the field of health in this province, and difficulties that may follow a transfer or a sale.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is investigating this situation would he talk to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) particularly to make sure that the closing down of the Willson Nursing Home and the transfer to Caressent was not just a device to beat the union? Would he involve the Minister of Labour in using his good offices to try to persuade the new owners of the new home that will be taking those residents, presumably, to hire on a preferential basis the staff who currently exist and stand in jeopardy of losing their jobs?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: My colleague the Minister of Labour, who is here and heard that question, will be as anxious as I am to report back later this week on it.

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD RULING

Mr. Kells: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour.

An. hon. member: Be nice today, Morley.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kells: I am nice every day.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kells: The minister will be aware that in a recent ruling the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Local 12 as a designated bargaining agent for all bricklayers, stonemasons and apprentices for those trades employed by the city of Kitchener. In granting certification, the board rejected the city's arguments that the employees in question were already represented by Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 68 and were classified as maintenance men, not bricklayers.

Three employees are affected by this ruling. All are full-time temporary workers and two are hired under the Canada-Ontario employment development program. As a consequence of this ruling, the city of Kitchener is of the opinion that it has been involuntarily made a party to the bricklayers' provincial agreement.

Mr. Foulds: Question.

Mr. Kells: This takes a while. As a result, not only does the wage bill of the city increase but the city believes that under clause 1(c) of the agreement it will be restricted to tendering contracts for bricklaying and stonemasonry work solely to unionized subcontractors.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kells: Here is the question. In that this ruling has serious implications for other municipalities in the province, would the minister please advise if the city of Kitchener's interpretation of the effect of the ruling on its ability to tender is correct? Further, given that the effectiveness of programs such as COED --

Mr. Ruston: You are making a speech.

Mr. Kells: You guys do it; let me do it.

-- depends on the co-operation of municipalities, private sector employers and unions, does the minister not believe that this ruling significantly reduces incentives for municipalities and private firms to participate in our job-creation efforts?

Finally, how can we expect municipalities and private firms to participate in job-creation programs if, as a consequence of their participation, they risk being made party to agreements they had no role in negotiating and which limit their right to tender work?

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me as Minister of Labour to comment on a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. However, I will put the Ontario Labour Relations Board in touch with the appropriate authorities in Kitchener to follow up in that respect.

As far as the other part of the question is concerned, the member refers to the difficulties in the COED program with the organized sector. I want to tell him that was an exception rather than the rule during the COED program. We had excellent co-operation from unions, from the organized sector. We did have problems in some areas, but they were very few in comparison with 2,784 projects, as I said earlier in the House this afternoon. In almost all cases we were able to resolve those problems. The situation in Kitchener, while not alone, was in a sense unique.

Mr. Kells: I know that was a little confusing and possibly it was meant to be. However, with all due respect I do not think the minister has answered the question.

Mr. McClellan: How can you say that?

Mr. Foulds: Let him have it, fight back.

Mr. Martel: Don't take that from him.

Interjections.

Mr. Kells: I cannot repeat the whole question.

The municipalities are confused. If by participating in a COED program, one leaves himself open to this kind of interpretation, which is going to have severe repercussions down the line -- I guess the point is, how can the minister assure the municipalities this will not happen to them as it has happened to Kitchener?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I did understand the question and I thought I had responded to it by indicating that while it would be inappropriate for me as minister to comment on a ruling of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, I would have the appropriate officials at the Ontario Labour Relations Board contact the officials of the municipality of Kitchener to give them an interpretation of the ruling.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I had an excellent question for the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). I think he heard about it because he stepped out and has not come back. I will have to defer to my colleague.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. The minister is aware that our northern and rural communities are being hard hit by the current state of the economy. In the short term these communities are going to need increased government support, but in the long term they are looking for long-term initiatives that will create jobs and help diversify their economies so that they do not have continually to depend on government grants just to survive.

Since some initiatives are being taken by certain private entrepreneurs in the development of an information economy for northern Ontario, which could provide Teleguide tourism information to the public, for example, will the minister take the initiative and leadership in the area of information system development for the north and, through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development or other government vehicles, provide the funding necessary for such companies as InfoNorth, which is at present trying to develop an information system in the north which could create jobs, improve northern access to vital information and help in diversifying the economy?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member's question and his concern for the small communities in northern Ontario.

I would ask him to go back to Hansard for last June. He will recall I made a statement in this Legislature outlining a community economic development program which my ministry was embarking on, a very ambitious program following on the heels of our successes in the Atikokan area, whereby we would work very closely with each community that was interested in planning and diversifying its economic base in the long term. That particular program is being well accepted. Some 25 communities across northern Ontario have embarked on that particular program with my ministry. We have budgeted something like $750,000 this year to start the program. It is working in a number of different fields.

I would also like to point out to the honourable member that I just returned from the Red Lake area yesterday and was pleased to learn that particular area had a tourist increase of more than 30 per cent.

Mr. Eakins: Since we are speaking of the InfoNorth submission, the minister might be aware that the resources for use in developing an information economy in the north already exist, such as the longest private cable microwave system in the world, the first full-channel teletext system in Canada and the largest capacity system ever produced, as well as the commitment of people at Laurentian University to make their own time available in developing such a system.

As well, should the Northeastern Ontario Chamber of Commerce form an economic development council centre, which is being considered, this centre could play an important role. Will the minister assure this House, as well as the communities of northern Ontario, that his government will provide the support necessary to make this vision a reality for northern Ontario and encourage InfoNorth in its endeavours?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have been actively involved in the promotion of tourism right across northern Ontario since my ministry came into being. We will continue that with even more enthusiasm. I want to point out this government, and certainly this ministry, is very supportive of any new initiatives that will create new activity in northern Ontario in co-operation with the private sector.

PETITIONS

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, which reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned teachers, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

This petition was signed by some 156 teachers in the Kitchener-Waterloo area from the following schools, among others: Meadowlane Elementary School, Margaret Avenue Senior School, Lincoln Avenue Elementary School, Rosemount School. Queensmount Senior School and William G. Davis Senior School.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

This petition is signed by 27 teachers representing Kirkfield Elementary School and Mariposa Elementary School in the great county of Victoria.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a similarly worded petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by 117 teachers from the following schools: Admaston Elementary School, Alexander Reid Elementary School, Fitzroy Centennial/Harbour Elementary School, Huntley Centennial Elementary School, McNab Elementary School, Torbolton Elementary School, Walter Zadow Elementary School, and the Eganville and District Elementary School.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned teachers, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

That is signed by the teachers of Oliver Road Elementary School in Thunder Bay.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from six teachers at the Niagara Child Development Centre, which is part of the Niagara South Board of Education, in which they petition for their rights, which were arbitrarily taken away by this government, to be restored.

Specifically, they petition the Ontario Legislature to restore their free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. I support them in this petition.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which is signed by 17 teachers from the Belle River Unit Public School.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present several petitions.

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

"We, the undersigned teachers, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

As chairman of the government caucus and on their behalf, I am tabling the petitions addressed to my Progressive Conservative caucus colleagues.

BROADWAY AVENUE REOPENING

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on a different topic. The petition is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"We, the residents of west Windsor, do not want Broadway Avenue closed. We also want Broadway reopened at Highway 18 and at the Broadway extension. We realize that these roads will have to be closed to the expressway cloverleaf, but that is possibly 10 years down the road."

It is signed by 130 residents of the area and workers at Dainty Foods Ltd., the major employer in the area. I might add that I support the petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Timbrell, first reading of Bill 106, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Timbrell, first reading of Bill 107, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act.

Motion agreed to.

WOMEN'S ECONOMIC EQUALITY ACT

Mr. Rae moved, seconded by Mr. Martel, first reading of Bill 108, An Act to provide for Affirmative Action and Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, this bill would require that all employers with more than 20 employees, unless exempted by regulation, establish joint committees of workers and managers to provide affirmative action programs, which would become binding upon the employer when approved by the director of the affirmative action office or by the affirmative action tribunal. The Minister of Labour could by order extend the same requirements to individual employers with 20 or fewer employees, all employers to be required to file reports at intervals concerning matters relating to the participation of women in their work forces.

Failure to establish a joint committee or comply with a binding affirmative action program would lead to a compliance order by the director or by the tribunal. Failure to comply with such an order would constitute an offence punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000, $25,000 in the case of a corporation, and higher fines to be imposed on subsequent convictions.

The affirmative action office that is created by the bill is intended to assist joint committees in the preparation of affirmative action programs, to analyse the programs for the director, to monitor their implementation, to identify occupational categories in which women are now underrepresented, including new occupations, to provide research, support and public educational services and generally to promote affirmative action.

The bill provides for a comprehensive skills training, retraining and apprenticeship program designed to increase to at least 50 per cent the numbers of women in occupational categories in which they are now underrepresented. The bill also contains an amendment to the Employment Standards Act that would repeal part IX of the act, equal pay for equal work, and substitute instead a new part entitled equal pay for work of equal value.

The new part IX would require an employer to pay his or her male and female employees equal amounts for work of equal value. An assessment of the value of work may be made by an employment standards officer, and the criterion to be applied is the composite of the skill, effort or responsibility required in the performance of the work and the conditions under which the work is performed.

The reduction of wages to achieve compliance is prohibited. Employees and employee organizations are entitled to make complaints and are given appeal rights that correspond to those available to employers.

Given the commitment of the government after the vote on the resolution the other day, I anticipate when this bill is discussed in the Legislature, which it will be very soon, it will have the support of all the parties in the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES ACT

Consideration of Bill 61, An Act to Regulate Off-Road Vehicles.

On section 2:

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, we had Bill 61 referred back to the committee. It was dealt with a couple of weeks ago, but before it received third reading we found there was a slight error in the drafting of one of the amendments. I have a new amendment to place to section 2 of the bill, if there are no other concerns.

4 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that clause 2(2)(a) be amended by striking out "if the vehicle is designed to travel on not more than two wheels" in the first and second lines.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, as is always our custom, we are anxious to co-operate with the minister. I understand the purpose of this amendment is to allow not only farmers but also nonfarmers to operate those vehicles and hence to remove any discrimination that might cause any possible embarrassment for the Attorney General and the Supreme Court of Canada at a future date.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, in view of the controversial nature of the amendment, we will support it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Snow, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment.

CROP INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT (ONTARIO)

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved second reading of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario).

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the amendments, which I think are straightforward, are to empower the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario to make regulations regarding extended coverage for the loss of fruit trees from a variety of stipulated perils.

The so-called apple tree loss rider for 1983 is covered under the Canada-Ontario crop insurance plan. The rider covers hazards like winter freeze, ice damage, hail, flood, wind, tornadoes and uncontrollable diseases. The growers must have production insurance and a minimum insurable tree value of $3,000 to qualify.

Under the Canada-Ontario crop insurance program, as I am sure all members are aware, the federal government provides half of the total premium required, with the Ontario government picking up all the administrative costs. These contributions enable the grower to buy insurance protection at an affordable price, in this case one per cent of the coverage for the rider. The maximum amount payable under apple tree insurance for 1983 is $40 for a standard tree and $12 for a dwarf tree.

I commend these amendments to the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario) to my colleagues to clarify the commission's authority to extend insurance to cover loss of fruit trees, as well as loss from destruction of perennial plants such as asparagus if plans for these are ever required in the future.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, we are naturally going to support this amendment to the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario). I suppose one has to wonder why it has taken the minister or his predecessors so long to bring in this amendment to give protection to the apple growers.

I suppose politics are played outside this Legislature as well as inside. As far back as 10 years ago, I believe, and perhaps further back than that, my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), when he was the chairman of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, made a request that the apple growers be given some protection under the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario). It has taken all this time for not only this minister but also his predecessors to act on this request.

But I suppose, as I said, that some politics are being played. I do not believe the Niagara fruit growers were very favourable to protection being given to the apple producers or other fruit growers, mainly because they are in rather a unique area where they probably do not suffer the same losses as a result of weather conditions and other hazards as do the growers, say, in eastern Ontario or down in the extreme southwest.

The Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, consisting predominantly of Niagara fruit growers, since that is certainly the most heavily concentrated area for fruit production, did not look very favourably on giving this kind of protection. I should say that they did not go out of their way to make the request. I will not say that they did not look favourably on protection extended to fruit growers, but they certainly did not go out of their way to request this kind of protection. Therefore, the ministry, knowing they were by far the largest number of fruit growers in this province, decided, "We won't do anything about it."

We have a by-election coming up in eastern Ontario now, and it is rather interesting that we should be dealing with this act at this time because there is no question that the government will want to curry favour with the farmers in -- what was that area?

Mr. Conway: Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Mr. Riddell: In the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You don't even know the name of the riding.

Mr. Riddell: That is right. I do not profess to know the names of the ridings. Furthermore, I would ask the minister to get up and name the ridings of the various members. He could not do it, either; so he should not kid himself.

Mr. Nixon: He's the one member who could.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Riddell: But it just looks to me as if there is a little politics being played; it is more than coincidental that this act happens to be coming in at this time. However, we are grateful that the minister has seen fit, even though he is playing a little bit of politics, to bring in this kind of amendment to give the protection that the fruit growers should have had for some years.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Huron-Middlesex is having too many interruptions, and he is listening to them.

Mr. Riddell: There needs to be a lot of work done yet with the Crop Insurance Act. Many farmers complain about the system -- I will wait until the conversation between the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) is finished. Thank you.

Many farmers are not happy about the present system under which we see the Crop Insurance Act being administered. For example, those farmers who tend to own 400, 500 or 600 acres of land, which are in different parcels consisting of maybe 50 to 100 acres, find that all of their land is averaged in when an assessment is made for the crop insurance for which they apply.

The farmers are saying there is such a diversity of conditions prevailing on those various farms that we should not be averaging all the farms in but should be taking a look at the 100-acre parcel, making an assessment on that and basing the crop insurance on that 100 acres, and then taking the other 100 acres, making an assessment there and basing the crop insurance on that.

The farmers say we should do that rather than lump all these acreages together and then come up with an average yield on which we are going to pay crop insurance if there is a loss as a result of weather conditions or some other kind of hazard. That is one complaint many farmers have. They would like to see this part of the Crop Insurance Act amended.

4:10 p.m.

We had occasion to meet with the Northern Ontario Farmers' Association a few weeks ago as our task force was moving across the province. I have to tell the minister that the farmers in northern Ontario are not very happy with the way crop insurance applies to forage crops, hay crops. It seems to me the government uses a simulated yield, and I do not know where it gets this from. It is pulled out of a computer without even knowing what the conditions are in northern Ontario or without ever going out to make an assessment of forage crops in that area.

In other words, the farmers there say that part of the crop insurance program is a total farce as far as they are concerned. They are not being treated in the same way as farmers growing other crops. That may be because forage crops do not go directly into human consumption; they go through livestock and therefore we do not consider them in the same way.

I do not know what the minister's thinking is on that, but I think he has to take a look at the way crop insurance applies to forage crops and treat those farmers fairly. There is no question that they can lose a forage crop and get a very low yield because of a number of conditions affecting that crop. They could be weather conditions or insect infestations; you name it. They can lose their crops just the same as apple producers can lose their crops.

I ask the minister to take a look at the way crop insurance applies to forage crops and to take another look at the way he assesses the yield on the farms the farmers own. He should consider making an assessment on the individual 100-acre farm instead of lumping them all together and saying: "This is what the average yield should be. This is how we are going to make our assessment. This is how you are going to get paid if you happen to have a loss."

I commend the minister for coming in with an amendment to give protection to fruit growers. I ask him to kindly look at the other two matters I raised. Not only were they expressed to me by farmers as we were moving across the province on the task force, but they have also come up time and time again, any time I happen to meet some of the farmers in the farm organizations.

With those comments, I will say once again that we support the amendment to the Crop Insurance Act.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we too will be supporting this bill because, first, it is largely a replica of the one they have in British Columbia. It has been working reasonably well out there, where they have more damage, particularly frost damage, to their apple trees than we do in this area.

Second, we will be supporting it because it meets to a very substantial degree the wishes of the apple growers in this province. I have talked to Mr. John Van der Zalm, who is the executive secretary of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, and to Michael Rokeby, who is chairman of the apple section of that organization. It would be fair to say they both feel it is a substantial step in the right direction.

The question can be rightly asked, as it was asked by the member for Huron-Middlesex, why it has taken so long to bring this bill in. It is a very simple amendment. It certainly could not have taken much time to prepare. It has been asked for over a number of years. We have known since the cold winter of 1980-81 and the loss of many apple trees in eastern Ontario that it was needed.

I recognize that some ad hoc assistance has been given, but surely it should not take almost three years to bring in a simple bill such as this one to deal with a very major problem that can face the apple producers and other fruit producers at least on occasion.

The member for Huron-Middlesex blames the long delay partly on politics, and I think I would concur with him on that. I am not sure it has to do with the by-election in eastern Ontario; it perhaps has more to do with the general election, which will be coming up either next year or the year after, and they want to have it in place and working. It would not have been appropriate if they had brought it in during the summer of 1981 or 1982, because that would have been too far away for the people to remember when the next election comes up. This is a very appropriate time to do it.

The member for Huron-Middlesex may have retracted it, but he implied that the fruit growers in the Niagara region were not too favourable towards this. I recognize that there are not many apples grown in the Niagara Peninsula, but in my conversations with the fruit growers over the years, and even more recently, I have heard no opposition to this kind of legislation. In fact, there is support for this legislation.

Many of the fruit farmers -- particularly those in the Fonthill area, on the plateau, the cherry growers and particularly the peach growers -- feel that this bill should be applied to the peach trees as well as the apple trees in this province because on occasion there is a substantial amount of winterkill to the peach trees, particularly those that are up on the plateau as compared to those that are below the escarpment.

I want to say immediately that I do not profess to be an expert on apple production, but certainly there is one in this House, and I am looking forward to his comments, in the person of the member for Kent-Elgin. Not only has he had long experience in apple growing but he has also headed the local apple growers' organization -- I am not sure -- or perhaps the provincial one.

My understanding is that this apple kill takes place, on average, about once every 40 or 50 years. However, they tell me it is rather an insidious type of damage. It may show up only on the north side of a tree, or it may show up only in the bark coming loose from the tree a year or two later, but ultimately much of the production on the tree is lost and it kills the tree over a period of years.

When the minister rises, I presume to answer questions on this bill, perhaps he could talk about the regulations and how they will apply in those cases where it may take two or three years before the total production or the tree is lost. I hope he will comment on how the regulations will cover that.

This legislation is important to an important industry in this province. There are certainly ramifications. They may not be overly large in this particular bill but certainly the wellbeing of the apple industry has ramifications in self-sufficiency and in export.

4:20 p.m.

It is my understanding that the consumption of apples has increased quite substantially in this nation and province and that exports generally are increasing. Unfortunately, it is also my understanding that the apple trade between Canada and the United States is shifting in favour of the United States. I am told that Oswego county, for instance -- I am fully aware of this county; I go down there occasionally during the summer to take in the stock car races -- produces more apples than are produced in the whole of Ontario. I am also told that the state of Washington produces two or three times as many apples as are produced in all of Canada, although of course British Columbia is a big producer.

I am sure every member of this House would concur completely that none of those apples has as much flavour or quality as the Ontario apples. If our producers are given the same opportunity as the rest of the producers, their apples will outsell those from the other places. Anybody who has tasted the apples from the west coast, and I am sure we all have, will realize the validity of that statement.

This is tree insurance legislation. Certainly it is not income insurance and it is not intended to be. It is purely for the purpose of replacing the stock. There is still going to be a tremendous loss to the producer. Even with the small trees it takes a minimum of four years to get back into production and a producer can be substantially hurt. However, at least it will be some incentive to get back into production and we need that kind of incentive. This, therefore, is a minor step to assist the producers.

It is interesting to note, of course, that it is going to cost the Ontario government nothing, or very little. The premiums are going to be paid by the federal government and by the producers themselves. The Ontario government has to pay only the cost of administration. About the only kind of improvement and assistance to the farmer that this government provides is when somebody else is paying the bill. The government is making this improvement largely at somebody else's cost.

Last year or the year before, the government took away some of the farm property tax credit, a move which affected some of the apple producers. I would say to the minister, if the government proceeds with its plan he will be taking more of the farm property tax credit away from them as the amount goes up from $8,000 to $12,000. I hope the minister will recognize the difficulties of the apple producers as well as those of many of the other primary producers in this province and will make a statement that the government is going to return the qualifying amount for farm property tax credit to the $5,000 it was previously.

A lot of people in this province, perhaps 20 per cent of the farmers, are anxious to hear the minister make that statement. It might be appropriate for him to make it while he is speaking on this bill which is costing him nothing.

When the minister rises I hope he will comment on the application of the provisions of this bill to other fruit trees. I have already mentioned that there has been a desire expressed by some farmers in some areas to have this applied to other fruit trees. I presume this is true in southwestern Ontario, where we have a few peach producers who would like to have this kind of insurance applied to the peach trees in that area.

I also want to make the point that this legislation will really be beneficial only if it is promoted. It so happens that tree loss is rather rare. There may be many people who have not suffered any tree loss. They will not see the need to get into this program. If it is going to serve a really useful purpose in this province, as I think it will, then it will have to be promoted.

I would like the minister to comment on what plans he has to ensure that every apple producer knows about this plan and is encouraged to participate in it. Of course, it is voluntary, the final decision will be up to them, but I think it is terribly important that this be promoted among the apple producers.

Finally, I hope that when the minister rises he will make some further comments -- I think he alluded to it very briefly -- on subclause 1(ba)(ii) of this bill, which says:

"'extended coverage' means insurance against… loss arising when the seeding or planting of land intended to be used to grow an insured crop is prevented by a peril designated in the regulations."

Will he be making regulations that this applies to all crops that are possibly covered at the present time by insurance? Does it mean, for instance, that corn producers, such as those who could not get their corn in the ground this last year, would be covered if they had insurance?

I hope he will make some comment on what he really intends to put in the regulations. There has certainly been no fanfare about that clause and I am a bit suspicious that there is going to be very little application of it but perhaps the minister will cover that.

With those relatively brief comments. I am going to take my seat and I will listen for the replies that the minister will make and the commitments that I hope he will give.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of satisfaction that I rise and commend the minister for bringing this bill in. I guess I have to say it is too little and too late, especially for the tender fruit growers, the growers of peaches and, to a lesser extent, cherries.

We often hear in this chamber about the demise of the peach growing industry, particularly from the member who has just spoken, the member for Welland-Thorold, and about the fact that we have only one peach processor in the Niagara area. He often blames that on the imports, and I share some of those sentiments. But I would say the real reason we have lost the peach industry in Ontario has been largely by default, and the lack of an insurance scheme to cover the trees has been one of the main reasons we have lost that industry.

If I can just touch on some of the things that have already been mentioned, the change in attitude in the producers in the Niagara Peninsula came about as a result of a very cold winter three years ago. We have to look at the map of Ontario to see the picture. The Niagara Peninsula is tucked under the western end of Lake Ontario, and when those cold winds come from the north they customarily cross open waters at the western end of the lake. It is a very rare event, because of the depth of the water, to have Lake Ontario frozen, as compared to Lake Erie, which freezes fairly quickly. In fact, the odd year it freezes from shore to shore; people have actually walked across Lake Erie.

But a cold northern wind coming across that open water is always warmed by the water and goes up about 20 degrees, so we might have air that is 20 below zero Fahrenheit, but by the time it reaches Niagara it is zero. That is not too damaging. You get into damage with the tender fruits, peaches in particular, at about 10 to 12 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. In that particular year the lake was frozen and they had a lot of tree damage.

This leads me to a point I wanted to mention. With the stone fruits, the tender fruits, the site is very crucial and it is because of the unique qualities of the Niagara Peninsula that the loss ratio in Niagara has run something like one year in 32 years, whereas in southwestern Ontario, where I come from, the loss ratio will be more like one in 12 years. If one goes up along Lake Huron, I think it is getting up into the one to four or five. The site is very important as to the weather. It is also very important as to the soil because these trees, in the words of fruit growers, will not stand wet feet. That means they must have almost perfect natural drainage.

4:30 p.m.

One can get away with tile draining -- there are some orchards that are tile drained -- but that adds to the cost and it is not as effective as natural drainage. So one will find those crops are actually growing on the old beach soil of the province. Some thousands of years ago when most of the St. Lawrence River was plugged with glaciers the water from this area is reputed to have been taken down the Mississippi River. At that time, the Great Lakes were about 100 feet higher than they are today. If one follows Highway 3 along the shore of Lake Erie and then on up to Lambton and follows the same traces of the old beach, that is where one will find the good fruit soil.

What the minister will find is that when an orchard area becomes successful and people establish a tender fruit orchard on the good soils and the good sites, then it spawns or encourages people on marginal sites to get into this great business of making money as a fruit grower. The sad part is that it takes a person a lifetime to learn what are the good sites and where these are, and it is constantly changing.

I do not know if the minister is familiar with my area but he should be, because a year ago he put a control order on our area preventing people from using that good gravel soil for mining purposes. That was a move that was in the best interests of all the people in Ontario. People like myself and some of my neighbours who find ourselves restricted are not quite so sure about it, but it is certainly in the best interests of the province.

What happens is that this very narrow band of land attracts people who are on the marginal areas of it to plant orchards. The soil is shallow; usually what one finds is that all of this gravel and sand is overlaying the natural clay base. The whole of southwestern Ontario is clay underneath. If one goes to the lake, one will find that the bottom of the lake is not sand, as people suspect from the beaches. The bottom of the lake is heavy clay. So one gets these areas where there is a foot or two of gravel overlaying the clay. A person plants an orchard and it looks beautiful until about the fourth or fifth year as those roots go down and they hit that clay, and then there is a nasty winter and the whole thing dies.

As a result of that, I think it was in 1974, when I was president of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association I made a presentation to the Crop Insurance Commission asking that trees be insured. In order to maintain a reasonable premium and to get away from paying for the cost of losses in this marginal situation, I had proposed that the agricultural representative or the fruit specialist or a committee -- it could be other fruit growers in the area -- would look at a site.

One of the easiest ways to look at a site is to bring along a shovel, if one is not inclined to bring along a backhoe, and dig down to find what is underneath of it. If there is not good drainage, then it was my thinking that one should perhaps be denied crop insurance on that acreage or that the premium should be put so high that it will cover the losses. I would hate to see this program abused to the point that the government might back away from it or to the point that those people who have a chance to be successful find the rates are simply too high.

I will return to my original theme and point out the changing conditions that take place in the growing of tender fruit. Just a half mile north of the Cedar Springs Ridge, which is the prime area for growing fruit, there is a terminal moraine. The terminal moraine is still to be seen in some instances. It was where the glacier came south and brought down rocks with it from the pre-Cambrian shield. People in the area have some nice stone houses built of rock that really came from northern Ontario.

As the glacier advanced, it reached a point of no growth, melting as fast as it was advancing. It deposited all that rock and rubble in a line 30 to 40 miles long and about half a mile wide. Because of the difficulty of clearing that land and the fact that farmers avoided it, there was a strip of trees, a forest about half a mile wide along that area. In my father's and grandfather's time, when they were growing fruit they always had the protection of that strip of trees some half mile north of the ridge. Now land has a higher value and stone-pickers and bulldozers have made it easy to clear the land and there are not too many pieces still visible.

That is one instance of how the ecology is changing. Another instance is, partly because of the grants and so on given by this government, fields have been enlarged, fence rows have been removed and there have not been enough trees available to really get into a good tree planting program, although some are starting to appear to put in windbreaks.

I think it was in 1975 we had a very severe winter storm, a blizzard. There was probably something like eight or 10 inches of snow dropped on the flat in Kent county, along with very cold weather. The day after, one could look at newly ploughed fields, because they fall-plough in the area, and the hummocks of the ploughing were showing through. There was only an inch or two of snow on the ground. It was all in the cemetery because the tombstones collected it. The snow covered them and you could not see the cemetery. The small fruits orchards were covered, to a depth of eight and 10 feet in my orchard. In the cities and small towns people just could not move. It was a three-day storm. People could not get out of their houses. Snow was up to the roofs of houses in many instances.

A week from now I will be 60, and in all my years I have never seen mice attack peach trees. They love apples but they never attack peach trees. That snow stayed there for two or three months. We were not looking for mice or thinking about them. I had my apple trees in mind and I was watching them. When the snow melted I had 35 acres of fairly newly planted peach trees -- all just coming into good production after five or six years at a cost of about $2,000 an acre -- that were girdled. They were not just girdled down at ground level. The mice had gone up the trees a distance of six feet. You could take a shovel at the bottom of one of the peach trees and shovel up a bushelful of bark. I mention that because that is part of the life of a fruit grower and that is the kind of thing that influences fruit growing.

4:40 p.m.

This bill is a good bill because it touches another area. Because of the risk in growing these crops, producers such as our family and others have always diversified their production. There are a few acres of peaches, pears, plums, cherries, apricots, strawberries, raspberries and vegetables. It made for diversification and it shared the risk among those items.

The one thing it guaranteed was that one never went broke. One never made any money either. One always lost on -- I was going to say oranges and apples, but it would not be appropriate -- one or two of those crops that took away from the others, and one could not use the economy of scale either. We are competing with people who are doing these things on a tremendous scale.

The member for Welland-Thorold mentioned the state of Washington. The apple production in Washington is over 50 million bushels. All of Canada produces about 25 million or 26 million bushels. In Ontario there are about 9 million bushels. They have whole counties and river valleys in Washington that are planted to apples. They have a cost of about $3 to $4 per bushel shipping them down here, so we still have some room to grow apples, but because of the risk the producers were taking, they diversified too much.

To come back, compete and grow large acreage of these tender fruits, we need the protection of this act. I am sorry to say to the minister it has come 10 years too late. If he drops into my neighbouring county of Essex, he will find a great deal of the peach land -- and they have valuable peach land in Essex -- has now been taken over by the processing tomato people.

Without big harvesting machines, if they happen to get into a wet fall, they have absolute chaos on poorly drained soil. They have moved into those valuable fruit lands and are now growing processing tomatoes on them.

I hope this will help us come back to having a viable peach industry here in Ontario. What I have said applies to other tender fruits as well, but peaches are the main item.

On the matter of perennial plants, the member for Huron-Middlesex has mentioned hay. That is one of the most neglected crops we have in Ontario from the standpoint of soil erosion, building soil, marketing, pricing and so on. At the same time, we have a huge market for hay in the southern United States that cannot be filled.

A bale of hay down in Florida sells for $15 or $16. There are all sorts of empty trucks that have brought up those semi-tropical fruits to Ontario in the proper season of the year if they want the hay for the tourist season to feed all those horses. I was going to say nags, but I might insult some of my constituents who are race horse fans.

It reminds me of a story my grandfather always told. He sent some cattle to the stockyards in Toronto years ago. The prices were not what he wanted at the time, so he had them hold those cattle over for about a week or 10 days. When his cattle were finally sold, they sent him the proceeds of the cattle sale, which was not very much, but they sent him a bill for the hay. When he looked at the bill for the hay, he said, "I took the wrong product to Toronto. I should have taken hay to Toronto." They had charged him an exorbitant price for that hay.

We have an opportunity in soil building, diversifying, to improve balance of trade and sell an Ontario product. We need a lot of work done in that area besides the one we are talking about. We need compactors, balers that will compact the hay so one can get a good-sized load on a van. There are two or three machines in Ontario now that compact hay eight or 10 times greater than the normal bale without affecting the quality of it. I would like to see the minister step into that area and do something about it.

I just want to finish on the note that the reason they would not listen to me on the matter of putting some conditions on whether or not one was granted crop insurance for a particular crop was that the commission did not want to get into making management decisions. Yet I find they do make management decisions because I had one fellow who wanted to grow black tobacco and he did not have a contract. That is a crop that is grown strictly on contract. He was growing it for a speculative market in the United States. He had investigated all of the ramifications of it, and it appeared there was no reason to stop him selling his tobacco in the states.

Southern Kent county is acknowledged to be the best place in the world to grow black-fired tobacco. There is only about 200 to 300 acres of it grown there, but it is better than the tobacco they grow in the states, as is the flue-cured tobacco. I have a few growers in my riding too.

Mr. Nixon: Do you snuff that stuff, put it in your --

Mr. McGuigan: You put it under your tongue. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has brought up the point that a lot of people working in mines, in the forests, refineries --

Mr. Nixon: Pitchball.

Mr. Swart: Baseball.

Mr. McGuigan: -- baseball, whatever, who require the use of tobacco are quite appreciative of the fact that they can use that snuff tobacco.

Mr. Nixon: Bubble gum is replacing it.

Mr. McGuigan: It gets on your shoes or your face.

The main point I want to make to the minister, if I can have his attention just for a moment and then I will close, is they would not give him crop insurance on his tobacco because they said they did not want to get into a management situation where the producer might want to sell that crop to the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario. They cited tomatoes as an example. Apparently, the odd, unscrupulous producer will try to let the tomatoes freeze by leaving them in the fields and then sell them to the commission. It is not a widespread thing, but the odd person is accused of doing that, or at least the crop insurance commission made that accusation.

I pointed out to them that in the case of tobacco a grower would not know whether he faced any sort of a market situation until it was in the barn. He would not be able to make any determination or any guess in the field. It is only when it is in the barn. The hazard in the barn is fire because fires are burned underneath the tobacco. In fact, a neighbour of mine lost a barn just a couple of weeks ago. Every two or three years somebody loses one of these barns. The hazard in the barn is fire and it is covered by insurance.

The crop insurance commission did take notice of what I thought was a cultural and growing condition. Yet they always said they did not want to take any recognition of that in the matter of these trees.

I suggest the minister can think about whether or not he wants to look at some of these orchard sites. I know it is a ticklish area and he may make a few bad friends, but it would be a terrible disservice to the industry if this bill failed to do what we hope it will do.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity of speaking on Bill 85, An Act to amend the Crop Insurance Act of Ontario. I think it is a step forward. It will be useful for the areas it is designed for, particularly the fruit and perennial plants and the seeding of our fields.

I would like to point out to the minister that the record of this government has not been all that great over the past years. I can recall when Norfolk county was a major peach-growing area and there were peach farms there for many years that provided an excellent quality of fruit. In the last few years, perhaps due to the weather conditions, the peach industry has gone downhill in that area of Ontario.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Grant Fox?

Mr. G. I. Miller: Yes, Grant Fox. That is known as the Fox Peach Farms. They had outlets at Delhi and Simcoe. They had several outlets which provided an excellent quality of peaches. They certainly can grow them, this insurance policy should encourage the development of the industry. We do have ideal soil conditions and windbreaks, etc., to provide for a good producing area.

I would like to take the opportunity while discussing crop insurance to say we have had some complaints about the manner in which crop insurance has been operated. As the minister knows, many big operators are not taking crop insurance because of the averaging system. If a farmer has a failure in one area and the average, across the board, is at a certain level, the farmer is not able to qualify.

In Alberta, for instance -- this is a good comparison -- there are many large farms. We have a nephew working just out of Blackfalds. They had a hail storm that wiped out a share of the crop on the farm he is working on. They had several thousand acres and were able to collect insurance immediately after the storm. The damage was assessed, the payments made and the farmer had his return within a few weeks of the storm.

In Ontario that is not possible. One has to wait until the crop is harvested to get the average. Perhaps the ministry could look into that. It would get a higher use and a better return on the investment. The insurance could be broken down on a smaller area basis. This would encourage farmers to take the insurance.

Another area brought to our attention was the grassland in northern Ontario. The critic mentioned it in his opening remarks, but it was brought to our attention again that the grass farmers in that area have not been able to collect when they had poor crops because of the computer. Again, averaging was utilized and they were not very enthusiastic about taking insurance to protect that good area of northern Ontario where there is a lot of potential. Again, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is not carrying out its responsibility.

The third area brought to our attention concerned the tobacco crop. Again, this year a hail storm had gone through Walsingham and several of the tobacco-growing areas. They were hit with sporadic showers of hail which did considerable damage, particularly in the Walsingham area. The complaint I received from there was that some farmers were allowed to cut down and some had to work hard to clean it up and maintain it. There seemed to be a little discrepancy in the way it was assessed.

I had the opportunity of taking a tour of the area shortly after the storm had gone through, and the farms I looked at certainly had a tremendous amount of damage. The neighbouring farm had already cut it down. It appeared there was some unfairness, and I am not pointing my finger at the people who are calling the shots there. I just want to bring it to the attention of the minister that there were some different philosophies used in assessing the damage of that crop.

I know this is a step forward. The government is not putting all that much money from the provincial treasury into it. The federal government matches it. I believe the other provinces deal with on the same basis. They match it on a 50-50 basis.

One wants to encourage the use of the insurance in Ontario and to give our farmers the protection they need because farming is a difficult and hazardous occupation. Farmers depend on the elements. They are at the whim of the weatherman. I think they need all the support they can get. Perhaps the ministry can revamp this so we can get a better deal for the farmers.

Mr. Nixon: The tobacco farmers in my constituency are very glad indeed that this extended coverage is now being enacted. Mr. Speaker, you will notice it is retroactive to the end of last year, so the damage that took place last winter would be included, I presume.

I was also quite interested that the second part of the extended coverage applies to land where a crop would have been planted but was not planted because the weather was bad. Certainly, this spring there were many farmers who availed themselves of a claim on that basis.

I thought I would be making a similar claim myself on our own farm. While I was engaged in the urgencies of the meetings of this House last spring and the weather was so bad, along with my neighbours I found it was increasingly difficult to get a crop in on land that has produced a crop every year for probably 150 years in that area.

The member for Kent-Elgin was quoting his dad. My father used to say, "We have had a crop off this land, the old farm in South Dumfries, without fail every year since about 1840." Even this year we were able to get our crop in. While it did not look too hot, at least so far the yields, together with the prices, have been good enough so that, thank God, there will be no claim on crop insurance.

We are well served by our local crop insurance agent, who looks after the farmers very well indeed and looks after the interests of the crop insurance commission. He is a good salesman and he is not too soft in the head when it comes to dealing with claims. He is a very highly respected farmer himself, who is now retired and certainly serves the community and the commission extremely well indeed.

I noticed in the application I signed this spring that there was at least one significant change. I do not know whether it is attributed to the new chairman or not. The involvement of the government of Canada in the financing of the program is very clearly set out in type that cannot be mistaken. A lot of the farmers think we owe this whole thing to good old Bill Stewart or good old Dennis Timbrell when, of course, half the cost of the actual premiums -- I am informed by my colleague, our critic in agriculture, that this amounts to approximately $15 million -- is paid up front by the federal taxpayers. In other words, Eugene Whelan's generosity accrues to the benefit of the farmers in this regard.

I believe instead of it being the chairman of our own commission, although he would be inclined to give it the credit if he possibly could, it may have been the insistence of the government of Canada itself, which for once decided it would not hand over the money, no strings attached, to an upwardly mobile Conservative politician in Ontario to buy whatever benefit he might with the generosity of another level of government.

I do not want to get political in this regard, but I often feel the generosity or thoughtfulness of the federal programs, which are heavily financed at the federal level, are not properly attributed. Therefore, I was glad to see that the applications this year brought this out very clearly.

To get back to the provisions of the bill, particularly section 1, I was also interested that my colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), when speaking about the apple and peach crop in the area, spoke about the fact that peaches used to be grown in large quantities and excellent quality. Interestingly enough, as one gets near the climate border for growing peaches, the quality does not deteriorate. Some people think they have something special.

The problem is that about every five years all the trees are killed. People tend to think, "Peaches perhaps are bred a bit hardier or maybe our winters are a little milder; we can plant an acre or two of peach trees." Normally, they grow very well and give marvellous quality harvests, and yet the chances of them surviving any reasonable length of time is a bit slim. I know in our own backyard, we plant peach trees every now and then; we have a few coming on now. They just gave us an excellent yield this very summer, but the chances of them surviving as a proper marketable crop are questionable. I do not know what the policy of the Crop Insurance Commission is in that regard.

5 p.m.

I was interested to hear my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin say that the inspectors perhaps ought to examine the drainage of an orchard; it has so much to do with the productivity and longevity of the trees. The same certainly is true of peach trees; the geographical location can almost be set out with a clear line as to whether they will survive the frost over a five-year period.

I also want to draw the minister's attention to something that might have been included, and that is perhaps a more generous approach in crop insurance to emerging or experimental crops.

The minister and his colleagues are aware of the difficulties experienced by those agricultural pioneers in Norfolk county who are establishing a peanut industry. The minister will know, and will be glad to hear again, that the crops this year in the peanut industry are excellent. It appears that the returns are even approaching the projections of the minister's research experts, made some years ago after the experimental plots were grown under the aegis, I believe, of the Ontario Agricultural College. These experiments are now largely conducted at the federal Delhi research station.

By the way, in this province now, OAC is usually thought to be the Ontario Arts Council since the reputation of the real OAC has been allowed to sag so substantially by the inadequacies of the funding and leadership at the ministry lately.

We know that this crop has now established itself very well indeed, and we are hoping very much that the returns this year will be such that a number of other farmers who own fox sand -- I believe that is the designation of the soil best equipped to produce a good peanut crop -- will be brought into this industry.

I want to say to the minister that I feel his ministry's approach to crop insurance in a new crop -- and peanuts is certainly the one I have in mind -- is something less than it might have been. Everybody -- the minister and his predecessors, the farmers themselves -- is very anxious that an alternative crop that can be grown parallel to tobacco can be established. I personally believe that peanuts will be the crop. It does not return nearly as much dollar value, but at least it is better than some of the alternatives that those of us who are farming on clay soil still have to put up with.

The minister knows that the farmers had a difficult time in three of the last crop years and that the returns were far short of what was predicted by the minister's own contract specialists in this regard. During the emerging years, when the crop was still experimental, it would have been far better to establish some sort of insurance program on the basis of what the productivity could have been, based on the research.

Instead of that, a rather elaborate formula was established that led to a good deal of dissatisfaction. The minister knows it also led to appeals, which even themselves were anything but satisfactory to at least some of the farmers concerned. The minister was good enough to have his officials review some of these complaints with my constituents, but the whole business -- not the hearing -- was a very unsatisfactory circumstance. It is something that, perhaps on another occasion, we will discuss in some detail.

It seems to me that since the government assisted the farmers moving into the new peanut industry in a rather useful way, it might very well have put a safety net under the industry for the first few years by saying it would pay insurance up to a certain percentage of the experimentally predicted yields.

To go into the fields and mess around counting the actual peanuts on the ground and to make pejorative comments about the adequacies of the farmers who were actually doing the growing and trying to harvest the crop using equipment developed for Georgia and other locales where the peanut harvest is much different, was something very difficult to take.

The farmers felt they had suffered a lot of economic pressures, and the problems with crop insurance in this connection were something they felt they did not merit. They felt that by moving into this in an experimental way they should have had more protection from the Crop Insurance Commission, aided by the policy established by the ministry for the commission, than they did.

Otherwise, we think the bill is well worth while. We are not going to oppose it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill has been generated by the apple industry, and we have heard from members opposite about the apple industry, but in the main we have heard about many other parts of the agricultural industry. I will not take the time now to respond to all the suggestions. Some of them are perhaps more worthwhile than others, but I will take them under consideration.

I want to respond to three or four points. Perhaps I could start with the last of the opposition spokesmen.

In any of the ministries in which I officiated as minister, I have never ever hesitated to give to the federal government, or to any other level of government, the credit that is due to them. I have also never hesitated to apply criticism where I think it is warranted.

The honourable member is quite correct when he said that in the past two years we have taken steps to ensure that the federal government gets more of the recognition to which it is entitled with respect to the crop insurance program. This is not universal in all of Canada, there are still some provinces that do not do this, but I have no hesitation in doing it.

I want to point out to the member that when he talks about the problems of insuring the peanut crop, to the best of my knowledge the only way any commodity can be added under the crop insurance program is (a) if it is requested by a group of growers, whether it be the Tender Fruit Growers' Marketing Board, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, the Apple Marketing Commission or whomsoever; and (b) if the federal government, which does in fact pay 50 per cent of the premiums, agrees with any proposal from the commission, based on those representations, to add either a new plan or some features.

I could be corrected, but I believe 1982 was the first year we offered peanut insurance. In fact, there was an error on our part, because the federal government did not agree in 1982. In order that the contracts that were offered and sold to growers in the province would be honoured, I got cabinet approval to cover those contracts even though the federal government at that point was still standing on the principle that because it was still an experimental crop it could not be insured or, in its view, should not be insured. Notwithstanding all that, the growers who bought the insurance that was made available to them were held safe.

The member is quite right. Some of the growers did go to arbitration. That is a provision of the crop insurance program. I think it is a very good provision, because while we do make every possible effort to employ the services of well-qualified, knowledgeable, respected farmers and people with a farm background or a business background, even they can make mistakes. Their decisions are appealable to the arbitration board.

This year, I went to Ottawa in April. It was one of my visits to Ottawa where I had a long list of things to discuss with my federal colleague. That was one of them. Fortunately, he and I were able to resolve that across the table in a matter of minutes. He accepted immediately my arguments that the peanut industry is past the experimental stage in this province and that surely it is time it is accepted by the federal government. Virtually in a matter of minutes it was solved. I give credit to my federal colleague where it is due.

5:10 p.m.

I must say I was a little taken aback with the member's comments about the Ontario Agricultural College. Perhaps when we are next in estimates in the spring he would come and elaborate on that. I think they do an incredibly good job. I think the member meant to take a shot at OVC, the Ontario Veterinary College, not at OAC, which has had its own particular problems.

Mr. Nixon: The Ministry of Colleges and Universities didn't want to help them out.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In fact, both of the problems at OVC have been resolved. In the spring of 1982, I announced additional funding of $1.8 million a year for clinical education. Over the past year, I have given them the assurance that, based on discussions with my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), the former Treasurer and now the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague), the Ontario government is prepared to pay its share of the cost of designing and building any necessary new buildings or renovations to safeguard OVC's accreditation and, therefore, its role in veterinary medicine.

Mr. Nixon: But the upgrading money came from the federal government to begin with.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am glad the member interjected that. To date, the position of the federal government -- and one wants to give credit where credit is due; so let us also look at the other side -- is that they are prepared to put up money only for the design stage for OVC. They are not prepared to make any commitment with regard to any necessary construction. In other words, they are saying, "We are prepared to pay for the conceptual work, the design work -- all the engineering work, the architectural work and so forth -- but we are not prepared to give you a commitment to build anything." I think that is wrong.

Mr. Nixon: Without them, nothing would have been done. You were letting it fall into rack and ruin; you and the minister in front of you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In point of fact, that is incorrect.

Mr. Nixon: They've given you half the cost.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has had his opportunity to participate.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to go over that with the member because -- The Acting Speaker: No. There are ways, and you are responding to his points.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not about to respond to the interjections except to say, with respect, that the member is mistaken. I would be happy to discuss it with him if he would come to my next estimates so that I could go over it with him. I will share with him correspondence, as I did at my last estimates, setting out very clearly the position of the government of Ontario with respect to OVC.

Both the member for Haldiman-Norfolk and the member for Huron-Middlesex raised a question with respect to calculations of coverage and benefits from crop insurance being based on individual fields or farms as opposed to the total holdings of the insured. Obviously, it would be possible to do it that way, except that the cost of crop insurance would be exceedingly high as compared to the present level.

From time to time, I have had the argument made to me in written and oral submissions that it be narrowed down to 'a" field -- not just "a" farm, but "a" field. When one narrows it down that far, as opposed to overall yield from the farming operation for that crop, the risk is very much greater. Therefore, the premiums must be very much higher.

Again, I remind the members that for changes to take place in any or all of the plans that we offer for sale -- and there are dozens of them, as we know -- the federal government, which pays the other half of the premium, would have to agree. To this point, I have seen no indication whatsoever that they are prepared to agree to this, nor have I seen any widespread willingness in the agricultural community to pay much higher premiums for that kind of coverage.

Mr. G. I. Miller: They do it in Alberta. Why not do it in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am told the cost of crop insurance in Alberta is much higher than in Ontario. I have noted the member's comments. I am going to look into what he has described to see whether what has been reported to him is accurate and, if so, why it would work there and not here.

The member for Welland-Thorold is quite right in the point he raised. It is not unusual that an apple tree, to take that as an example, will not just die immediately; it may take two or three years. One of the things I pointed out in my opening statement was that to qualify for the tree loss rider, one must carry the other insurance for the loss of one's crop.

Through that insurance, the diminished yield will be covered over the one, two or three years, whatever it is, the tree in question is dying. Then, when it has been verified that it has died as a result of one of the listed perils and if it meets several criteria, the payment will be made as I outlined in my opening statement.

I should also tell the member that there are seven agents for fruit and, therefore, for fruit trees. We have placed advertisements in the media, and the Apple Marketing Commission itself has done a direct mailing to all apple producers in the province. We are making every effort to see that everyone is aware. Notwithstanding that, I have to tell the member the response has not been overwhelming.

We have 15 growers who have decided to avail themselves of the plan. I suppose a large part of that is a gamble. They realize, for instance, that in eastern Ontario the last time anything this serious hit was in the late 1930s or early 1940s, I believe. They are going to gamble; but if that is their choice, so be it.

We are making the plan available. We have made every effort, as has the apple commission, to make it well known that it is available and what its terms are. It is not a high premium; it is very low, in fact, compared to many other plans, at one per cent.

Mr. McGuigan: That has been the experience with most crops.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes; for some crops in some areas, because they take a look at the risk and say, "Well, what do we do?"

The other point the member for Welland-Thorold raised had to do with the question of unseeded acreage resulting from certain perils, which again are listed in the plans. This is covered for general crops, and in 1983 -- not surprisingly, given the kind of spring we have had -- we have made some very substantial payments because of that part of the plan.

Two or three members have raised the question of the peach industry and what is being done about it. I would not want to pass by the opportunity to remind the honourable members of two aspects of our Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. One, of course, is to improve our fruit and vegetable processing industry in the province. We have approved loans and grants to a variety of ventures in southwestern Ontario and in Niagara with respect to fruit and vegetable processing as well as apple storages around the province and various other storage and processing facilities.

We have also, since 1981, run a program through BILD providing the replacement of new peach and pear stock. If memory serves me correctly, because the last time I checked must have been six months ago now, up to that point we had paid out sums of money to fruit growers covering the planting of close to 40,000 new peach trees and close to 10,000 pear trees in the province as a result of that program.

The combination of encouraging the planting of new stock -- which obviously is going to take a couple of years to come into production -- and the improvement of storage and processing facilities on farms and the large processing facilities in the province will go a long way, we believe, to improving that part of the agricultural industry.

Hon. Mr. Dean: Very worthwhile; I really appreciated that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Thank you. That leads me to another point the member raised, and it concerns marketing. At present, my recollection is, 70 per cent of the apples we consume in Ontario are from domestic production. We are still importing some apples. There is a mistaken notion that some imported apples -- and I am thinking particularly of Granny Smiths from France -- because they are imported, because they are a little bit different, are somehow better. I have to agree with the member wholeheartedly that there are no finer apples to be found anywhere in the world than the varieties we produce in Ontario.

5:20 p.m.

I am constantly amazed when I come across some very interesting new varieties. Last year I sampled for the first time the new Empire variety which is an extremely good apple. I think it will be very popular in this market and in our export market. I was in Essex county in early September and I visited a large orchard there where I was introduced to an apple called the Jonamac. I had never heard of the Jonamac before. Undoubtedly the member for Kent-Elgin has. Again it is an exceedingly fine apple, one that stores well and I think will do extremely well in our domestic and foreign markets.

We do have some problems. Over the next two or three years we are going to have something in the order of one million new apple trees coming into production in the province. It behooves all of us in the trade and in the government to do everything possible to get the message across to domestic consumers about the wisdom, both in terms of quality and of price and availability, of consuming domestic products rather than imported, whether they be from Washington or France or South Africa or wherever, and also the need to watch very carefully our export markets.

Almost a month ago I came back from a mission to Israel and the United Kingdom. A large part of my four days in the United Kingdom was taken up with some of our leading onion and apple producers and sales operations. For instance, Keith Collver of the Norfolk Fruit Growers was there, and Jim Knight from Appleden Farms and people like that.

I had a very interesting letter from one of the gentlemen on the mission when we came back. I do not know if he was a little shaken or if the mission had jelled his ideas and confirmed his fears. We are a little naïve, quite frankly, in the way we trade in some of these foreign markets. I spent a morning at the Spittalfield and new Covent Garden markets in London. Most of the fruit and vegetables on those markets was there on consignment from various parts of the world. We are running a very real risk, unless our own trade can get together and not continue to operate in a fractured way in these various markets --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What impressed me most -- and I wrote back to the man just a day or two ago to thank him and ask him to come in to see me -- what impressed me was that here was somebody in the trade saying that the trade has to get its act together; they have to work together.

When I was in Israel a month ago I could not help but be impressed with the Carmel operation, where many of the kibbutzim and the moshavim have got together and formed their own marketing organization that assembles the product, ensures the quality and markets the product abroad. There is a lot for us to learn over there and the apple --

Mr. Wildman: That is collectivism.

Mr. Swart: Socialism.

Mr. Wildman: Collectivism and socialism.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We can discuss that some time. The apple industry is a good example of where we have been successful, but there are a lot of forces at work around the world and in our own markets, both in terms of new trees coming into production and new ways of marketing abroad. We have to change, we have to keep up with that or we are going to have an even bigger problem in the future.

I think I have covered --

Mr. Riddell: What about crop insurance on forage crops?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I recall, under the hay plan the actual yields are in fact sampled and they are included in the yield calculation.

Mr. Riddell: No, they are not.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can recall having been up north a number of times this year and having corresponded with some individuals on that very subject. As I said, I will follow up the various comments made by members opposite, but my understanding is that they are included.

Of course, crop insurance contracts relate to the individual farmer's experiences, the yields from his farm, so over time we have that base from which to work. We know what that farmer did last year, we know what he did the year before and what happens with the land in question.

I might just add, in response to something the member for Kent-Elgin said, that we, like him, recognize that hay is in fact a crop that could have or should have a tremendous potential and future for this province. To this point it is highly unorganized -- in fact, it is totally unorganized -- and we have an individual in the ministry who has been assigned the responsibility for developing a plan of action by the government to promote hay as an alternative crop and to improve on the marketing of that crop here, but particularly in the south.

Of course, that goes for so many commodities that we produce. That market, which is already our largest one, could be so much more lucrative for us and that is why we have done things like that with respect to hay, that is why we have put more resources into the marketing branch specifically aimed at the American market and that is why I intend to spend some time there over the coming year from time to time helping to make and strengthen our contacts.

I think I have covered most of the points. We will of course review the Hansard to make sure that if there are any I have missed we will respond to them.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Brandt moved second reading of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Mr. Conway: Another ex-Liberal who has done very well.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Interjections from the honourable member really just never stop.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, when the remarks are complimentary, let him roll on. I see nothing wrong with it.

The Acting Speaker: The Minister of the Environment will speak to the bill.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, today I am moving second reading of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act, which received first reading on June 2, 1983.

As indicated by my predecessor as Minister of the Environment, the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton), the act is being amended to improve its administration and application. Certain powers of approval under the act will be given directly to municipalities, thus reducing delays and costs. The provisions of the act dealing with rates and charges for sewer and waterworks are being expanded. The power to regulate wells and well drillers is being clarified. In addition, complementary changes in the authority to make regulations are made and certain obsolete powers are being revoked.

I have a few motions to amend to be dealt with in committee. As a result of a decision, which I believe the honourable members are aware of, by the Ontario Court of Appeal on October 17, 1983, I intend to move an amendment to provide that the authority to make an order under the act includes the authority to require the person to whom the order is directed to take such intermediate action or such procedural steps, or both, as are related to the action required by the order and as are specified in the order.

In the crown and CIP Inc., the Court of Appeal held that the act did not permit the inclusion in a control order under the Environmental Protection Act of an administrative direction requiring that an application for a certificate of approval be filed within a specific time. This decision could be applied to order-making powers under the Ontario Water Resources Act. Clauses of this kind provide a useful benchmark in order to test the willingness of a company to move ahead with abatement programs. We propose, therefore, to have this provision applied to existing orders.

I want to advise the members we will not appeal the Court of Appeal decision referred to in my earlier remarks. I will be making a few other motions to amend in committee to clarify and make fairer the provisions in Bill 51 related to rate setting as well.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, we in this party will be supporting the bill. We do have some reservations about increasing powers. Any time the government comes back and asks for increased powers, I think as the guardians of the individual citizen of Ontario -- which is one of the fundamental planks in the Liberal Party; I would remind our friends on the left that we regard the individual citizen as being the foundation of our society -- whenever we see increased powers being asked by government, it always puts a red flag in front of us.

Mr. Wildman: I thought you guys liked the colour red.

Mr. McGuigan: Yes, that is why we respond to it. Perhaps that is why it may have been established historically with our party, I do not know. Sometimes I think maybe it is because we bleed a lot.

Mr. Nixon: How true.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not think that is going to stop.

Mr. Riddell: Do not kid yourself.

Mr. McGuigan: Every member has a right to an opinion, but as my friend the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) always says, it is a long road that has no turnings.

Mr. Conway: And a longer road that has no trash cans, said John Diefenbaker.

The Deputy Speaker: In the meantime, back to the bill.

Mr. McGuigan: This bill is going to committee and at that point we will be looking at individual clauses. I have nothing further to add to it.

I have a concern that perhaps I will mention at this time. It is the powers under the section dealing with water wells. Where we have new people coming into a subdivision that depends upon water wells or we are developing a new subdivision, the question always comes up whether they are going to deplete the underground water supply.

I have asked this question a number of times to see what happens as far as the law is concerned. I am always told the water supply is looked at before approval is granted for the subdivision and it is determined by geological processes that there should be enough water down there.

But I have asked what happens if there is not enough water down there. They never seem to really know what happens. Who has to suffer, the people who were there first or the people who came later? I guess we can go back to the old English law of riparian rights as a law that established that the first people there were guaranteed a supply and those who came later took their chances.

This is a very big thing in the United States where there are irrigation districts and the water supply coming down from the mountains to irrigate that land is limited. As more people come along and want to get into irrigated farming, they wish to diminish the supply of the first people there. I hope we can address that part of the bill in committee.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I am also rising in support of Bill 51. I would like to make a few brief comments. The party on the left here is a party which also believes very firmly in the rights of the individual. That is exactly why we are not concerned or upset about the powers set out in this act, because they are all powers intended to protect the individual from irresponsible actions of other individuals, groups or companies, etc.

Mr. McGuigan: We are with you if it works out that way.

Mr. Charlton: A control order, which is what we are talking about here, and the regulations that regulate polluters, establish a mechanism for protection of the individual. It is not a mechanism to do anything other than to protect, or to stop something which is happening which should not be happening. We are supportive of the extended powers this bill includes.

We are also supportive of the approach the ministry is taking, although it is not well stated in the bill, to encourage municipalities to take over the operation of sewer and waterworks. We understand the intent of the ministry and the direction that has been set for some time. We have some reservations about exactly what that will mean in each case because, while the encouragement is set out here, the process is not clearly set out in black and white. We have talked to a few municipalities about the situation and no particular concerns have been raised with us at this point. If concerns do arise, we will have to raise them as they evolve in individual situations.

There are a couple of areas of the bill about which we have some concerns, not about what is included in the bill but about things which have not yet been dealt with in the sections set out. The bill has some sections that deal specifically with control orders and appeals to the appeal board, sections that deal with what happens when an appeal is made to the Environmental Appeal Board, and the question of a stay of a control order as a result of an appeal. Some specific situations dealt with are here. We are supportive of those situations. I have some concerns there can be other specific situations in which we would not want to see a stay.

The bill also sets out the power of the director to remove a stay in those cases, but we would at some point like to have some fuller discussion of the broader range and some guidelines under which the director would remove a stay in other cases which are not specifically mentioned. What I am saying to the minister is that we have no objections to the specific situations set out, but we have some concerns about the possibilities of those situations which are not set out where the director could remove a stay, because we are not in a position to know what those situations might be as a result of this bill.

We have some specifics in front of us on an extended power to remove a stay, but under what circumstances? Are there going to be some guidelines? Will some of this definition be done in regulations which we have not yet seen? Those are some of the things we would like the minister to respond to with respect to those situations around appeal and stay.

When we get to the next bill, Bill 52, I will have some additional concerns I will raise about the whole environmental appeal process.

5:40 p.m.

We also have some comments to make about the areas that deal with regulations governing the keeping of records and providing of information returns on the approval, construction and maintenance of wells and the requirements for the qualifications of well contractors and technicians. It is important that the ministry have these powers in these areas, but we would like to see some definition, some setting out of the guidelines, qualifications and expectations that will be made and perhaps have an assurance from the minister that when the regulations that will obviously be developed in this area are ready, he will be prepared to sit down with the critics from the two opposition parties and discuss those guidelines and regulations in more specific terms.

In other words, we clearly see the need for the powers that are being set out in this act, but there is always some degree of discomfort in not knowing specifically what qualifications will be set out for well contractors and well technicians, what the regulations will say about the records and providing of information returns, what exactly the approval processes will be, what the construction and maintenance processes will be and what requirements will be set out in those regulations.

We are a little bit concerned about the extent to which this minister and this ministry may be taking the direction we now fear they are taking. They may be taking an entirely different direction altogether because the specifics are not set out in the bill.

At some point when the regulations are ready, we would like to have a discussion with the minister about their impact and whether they cover all the things we see as problems from the past and as situations that should be dealt with in the regulations to protect consumers from some of the bad, inadequate and, in some cases, almost fraudulent things that have been done to them in well construction. We would very seriously like to see those regulations and go through them in detail with the minister at some point.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say something on second reading. The minister is to be congratulated for bringing forward these amendments. He is also to be congratulated for instructing his staff to ask opposition members to deliver government cheques. For the first time in 22 years I got a call from somebody on the minister's staff saying, "We have $81,000 for the town of Paris. Do you want to take it up? Do you want to drive the Brinks truck or not?"

I regretfully refused because I do not think it is the role of the elected members of the Legislature to take government money back; however, I felt that in conjunction with this bill we should know the minister is breaking new ground along with some other things. I do not think anybody should be delivering the money, but at least there is a new approach there. Now that the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) knows about it, it will probably be reversed without delay.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I regret very much what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has just said because I fear it might be another 22 years before the offer is made. On behalf of members who are temporarily in opposition, before we form a government, we cannot say --

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. Take your seat.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am glad we are sticking to the specific intent of the bill in this discussion. I would just like to say that while I appreciate and will accept the kind words from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, I also appreciate the indications of support for the bill from both of the opposition critics.

The intent of the bill, quite obviously, is for the amendments to strengthen the legislation very substantially. It is a matter that has been under discussion within our ministry for some long time and one we feel is going to bring about some very positive moves in a proper direction.

In particular, with respect to the area of charges that has been addressed by one of the earlier speakers with regard to increased powers, I think we have balanced that off within the proposals we have here by developing a whole new appeal procedure which does give a very substantial opportunity for municipalities to voice their concerns and opinions on these kinds of administrative charges.

Just to give you an idea of what those charges normally amount to, they are in the range of about 2.5 to three per cent of the total cost of the bill in that section alone. It is not a substantial percentage of the bill, but one that we have to keep our eyes on to make sure that it is in balance. We can deal with some of the other details as we go into committee of the whole House on the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Sections 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Brandt moves that clause 42a of the act as set out in subsection 2(1) of the bill be amended by adding at the end thereof "notwithstanding that the additional charges may not be attributable to costs incurred for the works or service."

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The present arrangement with respect to the charges for municipalities requires that my ministry, in effect, assess the charges on a volume basis for the cost to a municipality. What we are proposing here is that those costs be on an annual basis and that they be set in advance and on a more regular basis annually so that municipalities will know their costs up front before they establish their budgets. They will then be able to set their budgets in place far more easily than on the volume basis, which leaves a question in their minds as to what their actual costs are going to be.

5:50 p.m.

In effect, what this does is remove the surprises for the municipalities. It gives them a predictable time frame in which to operate and the charges are more understandable.

Mr. Nixon: Volume of what?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Volume of water.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I am having some of the problems other members are having in understanding this. I guess the city of Chatham this year is a pretty good example. I saw in the paper the other day that because of the warm summer and dry weather we had, its volume was up about 20 per cent and, therefore, its revenues were up about 20 per cent. I presume that means at the end of the year it will be in the black. The kind of surprise one would like to have is to end in the black.

My presumption is that in setting rates at the beginning of the year, most municipalities would set them on the expectation of a minimum volume rather than being caught the other way around. I do not have the background experience to know about that, but I would ask the minister to explain that to us.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Perhaps I could expand on what I was saying earlier. The objective of the new approach, as I have indicated, is to give the municipalities a clearer understanding of what their costs are going to be. On a volume basis that can fluctuate up and down quite dramatically. The bill could be considerably higher than what they anticipated before the time frame is up.

As an example, we have contracts that are in place for agreements with municipalities for a five-year period. What is proposed here is an annual review whereby the municipalities can adjust those rates to avoid those unnecessary large hikes that have accrued to some municipalities over the past while. The member is probably well aware of them because the municipalities make their objections well known to the government and to my ministry.

The other dimension to this amendment is to spread the administrative costs that impact on the Ministry of the Environment across all the users of that service. In effect, for everyone who is being provided an administrative service by the ministry, those costs are assessed across the board as opposed to a direct charge against the individual municipal user of that system.

In answer to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, this covers both water and sewage rates. They would be treated in quite the same way.

Mr. Nixon: You actually charge by volume?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: By volume, by gallonage. One pays on that basis. The difficulty of the gallonage basis is one gets these substantial variations that occur as a result of the gallonage going up or down. As an example, a municipality --

Mr. Conway: Don't get too vivid now.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I will try to be as unemotional as possible. A municipality could lose a major water user in industry that might go to another source of water if that was available to it, sometimes directly piping in water from a lake or river that might be available for its purposes. If the gallonage or the litreage of that municipality's water system went down substantially, the cost would be borne across all the users of the system. It could hike their fees by a considerable amount of money.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused by this. Perhaps if I state my confusion, the minister can straighten me out. He is saying that the additional charges will not necessarily be directly related to the costs of operation. Presumably, this means that the charges may, in fact, be higher than the actual costs of the operation. Is this correct?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: What I said was the costs -- the expenses, administration charges -- will be blended across the entire system so that some municipalities effectively could go up or some municipalities could go down. This is absolutely correct. However, there will not be a direct charge to that municipality, other than the total cost of operating the administrative expense for the ministry, because all the users of that service will be blended over all of the municipalities in question.

Mr. Charlton: The minister is saying then that there is going to be some variation. I am picking up two things and I am not sure which one is correct. The minister is saying that the municipality will not be charged any more than what the actual total costs of operation are, but that users may vary and costs go up, depending on the total number of users in the system and perhaps any shortfalls in use.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: There is the direct charge to the municipality for that particular service -- water or sewage. However, there is also an administration charge. In the past, the administration charge has simply been added to the volume number, whatever that was. This was by agreement between the ministry and the individual municipality.

We have the first charge, which is the actual cost of the system. Added to that is the administration charge. We take the second part of that, which is the administration charge, which is being blended across the provincial systems for administration purposes only in order to avoid a number of things that have happened and that we anticipate will happen in the future.

One of those things, as an example, has a very substantial direct impact on a given municipality -- and it could be a small municipality -- for something that is totally beyond its control. It could be the cost of a particular employee on a workmen's compensation case. What would happen in a situation like this is that the cost would be blended in such a way that the entire system would absorb the impact of this kind of a cost.

Therefore, there are two elements to it.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister just clarify one thing? Does he anticipate that this new change in regard to administrative costs across the system will mean that the administrative charges to small municipalities will most likely go down? Is this right or wrong?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It would be difficult for me to give the member that determination now. It is not the intent of the ministry to use this as a mechanism to extract more dollars from the municipalities. What it is intended to do is to develop a fair and equitable system across the board and, particularly, to protect the small municipalities from the large, sudden, unexpected kind of increase that has happened in the past because of situations beyond their control. This is one way of protecting against that.

Let me just add a caveat, and we will get into that part in just a moment. There is a very substantive appeal procedure which we have put in place to guard against the kind of problem I think the member is anticipating. It is where, for some reason which cannot be foreseen at the moment, a municipality finds itself in a situation where a combination of its rate and the administrative application causes a substantial rate increase. I have to take some personal credit for introducing the appeal procedure as, being the minister and a former municipal mayor, I introduced this particular amendment because I wanted to have a fair, equitable and balanced approach to the municipalities, giving them the opportunity to respond to a situation they deem to be unfair or inequitable for whatever the reasons might be.

Mr. McGuigan: From the understanding I have, the water commission is wholesaling water to the municipalities. In the past, at the end of the year the ministry has taken the overhead costs and added that on to the bill the municipality receives. The ministry is now going to forecast what those costs might be and take the risk of falling short, plus or minus, so the municipality knows at the beginning of the year what those overhead costs are going to be. Is that what we are talking about?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Yes, we are.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Treleaven): Before the minister is tempted to answer, the clock has been pointed out to me.

Are you ready for the question on that or are there other questions?

Shall Mr. Brandt's amendment to subsection 2(1) of the bill carry?

Motion agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Eaton, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

1 novembre 1983