Journal des débats 1983-déc-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Since the last sitting of this House, reports have appeared in the daily press attributing to me a comment made to the editorial board of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. Specifically, the reports implied that I described three of my esteemed colleagues, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), as scandalmongers in their vigilant research and vigorous pursuit of answers from the governing party.

I want the public record to show that I did not use those words in discussions with the editorial board, nor do I wish such an interpretation to be drawn from any comments I may have made to those journalists. My staff has consulted with a representative of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record who attended the meeting. After consultation with others in attendance, neither he nor the reporter who wrote the story nor the senior editor could recall that I had referred to my colleagues in that fashion.

I have the highest regard for my colleagues and for the exemplary way in which they are discharging their responsibilities as members of the official opposition in Ontario. I thank you for this opportunity to correct the public record.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, following up my friend's statement, I would like to ask whether he was also going to make a statement about our esteemed colleague the official opposition House leader, who I think was termed -- certainly his organization -- as having made some stupid decisions.

Mr. Speaker: I think you may ask that question at the appropriate time.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1984, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Signed by his own hand at Toronto on December 8, 1983.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ROYAL VISIT

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, a week ago I announced in this House that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh would be visiting Ontario as part of the provinces bicentennial celebrations. That visit is to take place in the latter part of July. The Prime Minister of Canada has since announced the appointment of Major General Roland A. Reid as Canadian secretary to the Queen and co-ordinator for the 1984 visit.

Today it gives me great pleasure to announce that the director general for the Ontario royal visit in 1984 will he Colonel Robert H. Hilborn. Colonel Hilborn will have overall responsibility for Ontario's involvement in the 1984 visit. In his capacity as director general, be will be chairman of the co-ordinating task force responsible for liaison with federal government officials, Buckingham Palace staff and local organizing committees.

Colonel Hilborn has served as Canadian equerry to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in 1965 and in 1974, and as her honorary Canadian equerry in 1979 and 1981.

Colonel Hilborn, who is senior vice-president and director, Johnson and Higgins Willis Faber Ltd., is also chairman of the Ontario Insurance Exchange Advisory Committee. He is a past president of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto and also past president of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award in Canada. Colonel Hilborn, who served overseas during the Second World War with the 10th Canadian Infantry Brigade, commanded the Toronto Scottish Regiment from 1960 to 1963 and was its honorary colonel from 1971 to 1977.

Next week General Reid and Colonel Hilborn will be meeting with the Premier (Mr. Davis) to discuss next summer's visit of Her Majesty. Following that meeting, the exact dates for the Ontario portion of the July visit will he announced. Assisting Colonel Hilborn as secretary for the province's co-ordinating task force and acting as provincial co-ordinator for the visit will be Walter Borosa, chief of protocol.

ARBOREAL EMBLEM LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce a bill to proclaim the white pine as the official tree for this province. I believe the white pine will make a significant, tangible --

Mr. Breaugh: What happened to the blue jay? Have you dumped the blue jay?

Mr. Martel: Oh, not a fish?

Mr. Rae: Is this the provincial fish?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Who is the provincial insect?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May we have some attention and then we will hear the minister's statement.

Mr. Martel: Nobody wants to hear it.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce a bill to proclaim the white pine as the official tree for this province.

Mr. Martel: That beats the provincial fish.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: You are going to have to find a white pine before you can proclaim it.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Its real name is the eastern white pine. The members can have their scandalmongers take that.

I believe the white pine will make a significant, tangible and lasting contribution to Ontario's bicentennial celebrations in 1984.

The white pine was the unanimous choice of the Ontario Tree Council, representing 30 tree and forestry organizations. In accepting their recommendation, Ontario becomes the first Canadian province to adopt an official tree. Let me emphasize here that the white pine will not replace the trillium as a means of identifying Ontario; rather, it will serve as a complementary symbol of great beauty and utility.

The species has played a role in our province's economic, social and cultural development, a role unequalled by any other native tree. It was treasured by our native people. Its wood was used in early shipbuilding and helped lay the cornerstone of development for Ontario. Settlers from France, Britain, the United States and other countries used white pine extensively for shelter, furniture, tools and even toys.

Something else that justifies the choice of the white pine as Ontario's official tree is its wide range. Most of us are familiar with its outstanding and characteristic beauty since it grows where most of Ontario's population lives.

I foresee the development of a significant cottage industry producing white pine carvings and mementoes. This will boost the tourism industry as well as provide meaningful employment for many throughout the province.

Therefore, I take pleasure in recommending that the white pine be proclaimed Ontario's official tree during our bicentennial celebrations in 1984.

Mr. Van Horne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister neglected to include in his comment the cost that was involved through the council or the special group that took three years to make this determination. I wonder if he could provide that information for us.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. The member may ask the question during the appropriate time.

Mr. Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister also neglected to tell us why we have a Scotch pine in the lobby of the Legislature instead of a white pine.

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

2:10 p.m.

RENOVATION CODE LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in June 1980 the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced that the government, in consultation with the public and private sectors, would develop residential renovation guidelines to extend the life of our residential resources, create rental accommodation and support the renovation industry.

The government, with the assistance of the building industry, municipal organizations, professional associations and research and standards agencies, developed a draft residential renovation code which provides a number of options by which renovation can be undertaken. In July 1982 the draft was released for public comment. The response was positive, with many comments and suggestions being incorporated into the revised final draft.

The Ontario Building Code at present regulates the construction of buildings in Ontario. The code, while oriented to new construction, also regulates renovation and conversion of existing buildings. When applied to older buildings. it was found that renovation or conversion could not always be economically accomplished.

I am pleased to introduce for first reading today a bill that will enable the government to pass regulations to adopt a renovation code as part XI of the Ontario Building Code. The purpose of this legislation is to facilitate the renovation of residential buildings and conversion of nonresidential buildings to residential use.

The renovation code will be limited to houses, boarding or lodging houses and apartment buildings that are five years old or more, and nonresidential buildings converted for residential use. The code will allow renovations to be undertaken under the existing building code to utilize compliance alternatives, or an applicant may suggest alternatives that do not deplete the existing life safety of the particular structure.

The renovation code will also permit municipal building officials to require upgrading of other parts of a building not specifically under renovation where the renovation affects the rest of the building and the performance level or level of life safety is diminished.

My ministry is currently holding seminars and workshops in municipalities across the province to acquaint municipal officials and the building industry with changes to the building code. In the new year we propose to include information relating to the new renovation code.

The renovation code will assist in more effective and economical renovations to extend the useful life of our existing residential resources, to offset the shortage of rental accommodation and to promote an active renovation industry. Many owners having buildings that would otherwise stand idle, be demolished or be renovated with great difficulty and cost, when made to comply with the stringent requirements of the present building code, may avail themselves of the flexibility afforded them by the renovation code.

Mr. Speaker: Before you proceed, may I please have the co-operation of all honourable members in limiting their private conversations, and would all members please resume their seats.

GRATTAN TOWNSHIP ELECTION

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I have found it necessary, by minister's order, to declare the seats of the members of the council of the township of Grattan in the county of Renfrew vacant, effective today, December 8, 1983.

This action is necessary because the council has been unable to hold a meeting since October 5, 1983, because of a failure to obtain a quorum. Under section 48 of the Municipal Act, I am calling a new election for February 6, 1984. A trustee has been appointed to fulfil the duties and obligations of the council until the new election is held and the members so elected have taken office.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am expecting the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). There has been a spate of regulatory failures in this province, and I will wait for him for one question.

NIAGARA GRAIN AND FEED BANKRUPTCY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will start on the same subject to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister is aware of what is happening now, presumably, even though he should have been ahead of time when the warning signals were coming out of Smithville concerning the Niagara Grain and Feed elevator company.

Why is it that his inspectors, hearing rumours prior to sending in receivers and having notice at least two weeks ahead of time, failed to move in and inspect? How could the minister allow this regulatory failure to go on in his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, with all due respect, is perpetrating rumours. I am told the first notice the chief inspector had of the company in question going into receivership was on the morning afterwards. He immediately moved to do an onsite inspection, seal the bins and seize the grain in storage. Since then the inspector has been working on a daily basis with the receiver in question, doing everything possible to verify the way-tickets that are listed and in the possession of the receiver, to be certain who had grain in storage and the quantities involved.

Mr. Peterson: It is our information there was at least two weeks' prior notice of this failure and a multiplicity of rumours before that time. I assume the minister will he launching an investigation of his own department to find out whether there was indeed, as is certainly suggested, another regulatory breakdown.

The question now is recovery by those farmers. The receiver told us yesterday that probably 30 to 35 per cent of the corn is missing. In the corn area alone, that could run to a $500,000 loss. Will the minister use his good offices to guarantee there will be no losses to any farmer as a result of this receivership?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I said at the outset in answering the first question, based on the information I have -- and I have had a number of discussions with the chief inspector and the people to whom he reports in the ministry -- the member's information is wrong. I will certainly put that question to him, though, since the member has made that very serious allegation.

In addition to the chief inspector, we have had a number of people involved in following up on this matter, including the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister, the head of farm products marketing, representatives of the legal branch and others in my ministry and within the government.

We are pursuing all the facts as we know them to date. Quite frankly, I do not think we have all the facts yet. That is why I mentioned that the chief inspector is working on verifying the list of people who are shown as having had grain in storage. We want to be sure there are no duplications, that there were not some people shown on that list as having grain in storage who had sold it, in which case they are not covered by the Grain Elevator Storage Act.

Pursuant to a number of concerns raised by individual producers as well as some members of the House, we also had a meeting at a very high level with the bank in question to try to ascertain some of the facts that would involve it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be aware that he got reports from the meeting the other evening that several farmers had checked with the bank to determine the viability of the Niagara Grain and Feed company and were told -- one of the farmers had it in writing and paid $4 for the information -- that the company was viable just three weeks before it collapsed. Does the minister not think, therefore, the Bank of Montreal has some moral obligation to those farmers, perhaps even a legal obligation?

The minister has never proclaimed the new elevator storage legislation. In his introduction of that bill, the minister said the bill "would further clarify the position of the producer in sales transactions by declaring that the owner retains title to the grain until he receives his money."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: Much of the grain that is missing, that had apparently been sold, was sold under agreement and therefore the elevator never owned it. What responsibility is the minister going to take for his negligence in not proclaiming this bill and assisting the farmers, many of whom are going to go bankrupt because of this failure?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the new legislation that would have afforded any more protection in those cases where --

Mr. Swart: I have a lawyer's opinion otherwise. The minister is covering up.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Swart: The minister is covering up.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: When the member withdraws that, then I will finish my answer.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary; the member for Kent-Elgin.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Rae: You are not the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Agriculture and Food on a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has made certain allegations, which I think he should withdraw. I ask you to so direct.

Mr. Breithaupt: What did he say?

Mr. Speaker: What did he say?

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member just resume his seat, please?

Mr. Swart: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just resume your seat for a minute, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: It was an interjection that I did not hear. It having been raised, I ask for somebody to identify what was said.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: All right, I am prepared to do that.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I said he was covering up, and to my understanding that is not unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker: I suppose that does impute motives, and you should withdraw that remark, even though it took the form of an interjection. Will you please do that?

Mr. Martel: What is unparliamentary about that, Mr. Speaker? I ask you.

Mr. Speaker: You are not the self-appointed protector of --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In order to maintain the dignity and decorum of this House, I ask the member for Welland-Thorold to please withdraw that remark.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am not admitting to an unparliamentary comment, but if the minister's feelings are hurt, I will withdraw the comment --

Mr. Speaker: That is all I asked you to do.

Mr. Swart: -- that I accused him of a cover-up of his negligence.

Mr. Speaker: Let us not make it any worse. Now a final supplementary; the member for Kent-Elgin.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, he said he was going to answer if it was withdrawn, and now he is not answering.

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker directs the affairs of this House, with all respect, not the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I have recognized the member for Kent-Elgin with a final supplementary.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I was present at the public meeting where a constituent of mine, Henry Van Roboys, in front of all the others at the meeting, gave the information that he had called the chief inspector before November 9, advising him of the rumours and the suspicions and asking him to look into the situation. Then later out in the hall, the chief inspector admitted to this in front of us. So I submit there were indications before November 23.

Is the minister aware that when farmers take their grain to a mill they are in the same position as a person taking his money to the bank and depositing it? They expect when they come back that they are going to be given the cash money or a cheque. This is very similar to the situation in trust companies

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, no.

Mr. McGuigan: It is exactly the same situation as in trust companies, where the regulatory function has failed.

Specifically, will the minister tell us about those producers who have grain in the grain bank? In case he is not familiar with that, some producers take their grain to the mill, store it and then draw it back during the winter to feed to their poultry or animals. According to our interpretation of the two acts, the first and the second, it would appear those people are not covered by the first act and in fact would have been covered by the second act had it been proclaimed.

Can the minister confirm that for us? Again, can he tell us that no one in the farming sector -- the people who took their money to the bank -- are going to go home empty-handed?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, in addition to the regulatory process, the person who takes his money to the bank has as additional security, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp., and in the event of a default of the bank in question or of any other participating financial institution, there is a fund on which to draw to certain maximum limits against those deposits. That gets to the crux of the issue now, as it was in the spring and as it has been for some time, which is the question of a financial protection fund for grain producers for which there has been no support to date.

I am surprised that, following the meeting on Tuesday and notwithstanding the offer made by my officials on my explicit instructions to meet the very next day, if necessary, to begin to put a financial protection plan in place, we have not been approached to do so, to the best of my knowledge. The member's analogy is really not complete; it would be complete if there were a financial protection plan in place. We stand ready to meet today, tomorrow or whenever to work with the producers to put such a plan in place.

REAL ESTATE OFFICE CIOP

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, that is an incredible statement. However, I will ask a question about another regulatory failure of the minister in charge of regulatory failures, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is becoming the subject of a spate of books these days.

I want to ask the minister about the Real Estate Office CIOP Ltd. in Ottawa. He will be aware that some two years ago, the Quebec Securities Commission gave the Ontario Securities Commission notice that it had issued a cease-and-desist order from trading in Quebec, but nevertheless, that company came to Ontario and started to do business here.

The minister also will be aware that the only reason the Ontario Securities Commission even got on to the question at all was that the Quebec Securities Commission recently found an advertisement in the Ontario papers advising that the company was doing business in Ontario and again got in touch with the Ontario Securities Commission.

Upon investigation, the company was closed, or at least a cease-to-trade order was issued on September 6, 1983. That being said, in the meantime, while the Ontario Securities Commission had notice, there were deposits taken by way of guaranteed investment certificates from a variety of investors in Ontario.

My question to the minister is, how much money are those people going to lose as a result of the failure of the Ontario Securities Commission to move earlier on this matter?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the other three scandalmongers in the party, I want to welcome a fourth. Is it true it is just the three or has he joined the group? Has he joined the group of scandalmongers he has assigned to that job or has he not?

As usual, the Leader of the Opposition likes to make the assumption that there has been a regulatory failure. My observations with respect to the Ontario Securities Commission over the years I have been in this Legislature are that it has the respect of this House for its activities and for the innovative way in which it approaches the problems it is facing. With respect to the specific issue asked, I must say I will have to take it as notice and report to the House.

Mr. Peterson: It is interesting the minister should launch this general defence in advance of knowing the facts in this matter. I would like the minister to investigate, and will he guarantee to this House he will investigate, why there was such slow reaction time and why they were allowed to continue to do business again in Ontario, taking deposits. Will he guarantee to this House that no one will lose money because of the regulatory failure in this new fiasco?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I cannot acknowledge any of those statements, nor has it been my experience there has been any slowness in the activities of the securities commission. I think the honourable member and his party generally support that. I will give an undertaking to report on this issue to the House.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be aware that there was an advertisement in the Ottawa Citizen concerning this company as early as October 1982 in which the president of this company, Mr. Roger Tellier, was advertising his wares.

A constituent of mine, Mrs. Harriet Wickens, who invested $5,000 in that company only found out through the newspapers that her money had been taken over by the Ontario Securities Commission. In the minister's opinion, is it normal that she would not have been written to by the OSC to inform her that her investment had been taken over, in view of the fact that this was a form of investment certificate? Surely she deserved to know from the government and the agency for which he is responsible what happened to her investment.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speake, I can only reiterate, I will gather the information together and report to the House.

WOMEN'S PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Deputy Premier and the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. It concerns the continued plight of hundreds of thousands of older women in Ontario and the inadequacy of their pensions.

I know the minister will be aware of the report issued yesterday by the Ontario Economic Council, which singled out the problem of older single women as a very special one. The council said the problem can only be dealt with by an increase in either the guaranteed income supplement or the guaranteed annual income system benefits. The report specifically stated that there was room at the provincial level for real improvement of the Gains program with respect to single elderly people, particularly women.

More than a year ago, when we had a series of questions in this House, the member for Scarborough West (Mrs. Birch), the then Provincial Secretary for Social Development and now the parliamentary assistant to the Premier (Mr. Davis), indicated she was in favour of changes that at the very least would mean single people would receive 60 per cent of what a married couple would get.

The consensus has emerged time and time again that something has to he done directly by the provincial government for these people. I would like to ask the minister, given his responsibility for the position of women in our society, whether he is prepared now to move to provide the assistance that older single women so very much need in our province. Will he do it now and not wait for some long-stated view in the future, for what he would no doubt call "staged progress"?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the short answer is that I share the concern to which the honourable member has made reference and I would indicate that matter is currently under very active review. As far as I am concerned with my current responsibility, it is a matter very high on my list of priorities.

The member knows the whole question of pensions has been under review in this country for some time, and the federal parliamentary committee is expected to report before too long. It seems to me there were some references to this subject in the speech from the throne in our national capital yesterday. In summary, this matter is under very active review.

Mr. McClellan: It is buried in reviews and studies. That is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There have been a great number of studies.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjection.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is a very important matter, and it is very high on my list of priorities as I meet the responsibilities that are mine. That is where it stands at the moment. I am hoping we can be more specific with respect to action in this matter after the current review has been completed.

Mr. Rae: This is an unbelievable response from the minister. He knows this matter has been studied by a government advisory committee and, after the government advisory committee, by social planning councils across Ontario and by the select committee on pensions. He knows a consensus has emerged very clearly that the Gains has to be changed and enriched and that there has to be real and visible assistance now, in particular for all the single women who have really been consigned to poverty by this government: the government that claims to be their friend.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I simply want to point out to the minister and ask him to comment on the fact that while the Liberal Party in Ottawa has made proposals with respect to GIS, the fact is that the old age security last year went up by $10, the GIS last year went up by $8 -- I am speaking in respect of singles -- and the guaranteed annual income system for the aged has remained the same at $48.88.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: When is the minister finally going to come to grips with the fact that he has been standing still while senior citizens have been falling further and further into poverty, thanks to his inactivity?

Hon. Mr. Welch: This government does not take a back seat to any administration anywhere in this country with respect to its concern for the welfare and the wellbeing of its elderly citizens. Indeed, we will be meeting those responsibilities.

When this question was raised, my colleague the former Provincial Secretary for Social Development enumerated the large number of programs this government has instituted for the benefit and the welfare of those people. We do not have to he lectured by the member with respect to our responsibilities.

Those people have made a tremendous contribution to the welfare and the growth of this province and they will not he neglected by any government headed by the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis). The member can rest assured of that.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister. He is not in the back seat: he is riding in the trunk on this whole issue. Let me tell him that. He will be aware of the recommendations of the Haley commission of this province and of the select committee of this province, all of which dealt with this issue some time ago. This is not a new issue today. Why do they always take so long to do anything?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this matter will be addressed in a manner of fairness and justice to the people involved. I am quite satisfied of that.

Mr. Rae: That is exactly the same answer we had one year ago. The minister should look back at Hansard and see the kind of answers we got. It was exactly the same treatment: another year of delay. There has been no action with respect to Gains. When is he going to start to do something for those people who have been ignored by his government?

He should not talk about all the things he is going to promise to do. When is he actually going to do something with respect to people who even the Ontario Economic Council has finally recognized need to be given some very special assistance? When is he going to do it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Simply increasing the volume of the question by way of supplementary does not take away from the very basic approach this government will meet. This matter is current in its review and will be addressed in due course.

NURSING HOME CARE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Health. I know the minister will have received a letter from the international vice-president of the Service Employees International Union. Iit contains the contract that was signed with Medox, which is the agency supplying workers to the Ballycliffe Lodge Nursing Home in Ajax.

The minister will be aware that this is one of the nursing homes which has fired its workers who are under a collective agreement. They have been replaced by Medox. The minister will also be aware that there is a clause in the contract which states clearly that it is understood the control and direction of all health care aides and nurses aides in the employ of Medox shall at all times be the responsibility of Medox.

The minister might also be aware that this clause in the contract is in direct contradiction to the Nursing Homes Act regulations, which provide as follows: "Every nursing home shall have a registered nurse who is designated as the director of nurses and who is responsible for, among other things" -- and I am quoting from the regulations -- "directing the work of the nursing staff in the nursing home."

Ballycliffe cannot have the best of both worlds, and neither can Medox. The Minister of Health has a responsibility to ensure that the act and regulations are maintained and enforced. I ask the minister what he intends to do about the clear contradiction between the contract that was signed between Ballycliffe and the contracting-out agency, and the Nursing Homes Act.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the copy of the letter the leader of the third party received included a copy of the contract, then he is one up on me. Although there was reference in the letter to the inclusion of a copy of the contract, I presume by way of error there was no such inclusion.

Late yesterday, when the letter arrived at my office, my staff immediately contacted Mr. Roscoe's office and requested that a copy of the contract be forwarded. I believe further contact was made this morning, and some time just prior to lunch a copy of the contract arrived at my office. It is now being reviewed by our legal staff. I do not have an opinion from them, nor have I yet had an opportunity myself even to see the contract.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I will be glad to send over the copy I have. I am sure the minister has one in the office now.

I would like to ask the minister whether Medox is responsible for the control and direction of all health care aides and nurses' aides, and if. in the words of the contract, these people shall at all times be the responsibility of Medox, does that not mean Medox is in a sense operating the nursing home? If it is operating the nursing home, should not Medox, or indeed any other subcontractor who is operating as a genuine subcontractor, be licensed as a nursing home? If they are not licensed, is the minister going to stop them from operating?

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is a rather convoluted question. I think I can give a very simple answer. You might not believe that, Mr. Speaker, but I will try.

I do not deal in hypothetical questions. Until such time as I have had an opportunity to read the contract and review the legislation, I do not intend to respond to the specifics of this issue, except to say that if there is any impropriety or if any nursing home is operating outside the provisions of the Nursing Homes Act, of course I will act and I will act very promptly.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister might care to comment on the specifics of a case I raised with him in estimates yesterday. It is specifically another contracting-out case where a hospital in southwestern Ontario fired a nurse for incompetence, and the nurse was subsequently rehired by the hospital through Comcare and is back working at the hospital under a contracting-out provision within that very hospital.

Obviously this kind of situation is going to be occurring more and more as we see both nursing homes and hospitals moving to contracting-out provisions. What kind of provisions is the minister making to ensure we do not have a nurse fired from a hospital for incompetence and rehired through a contracting agency to work back at the same hospital?

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, that was hardly supplementary to the same question.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, it deals with the issue of contracting out, and in specific terms it deals with contracting out within health institutions where you have the same people coming back under different auspices, as we have seen in the Medox case.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I am well aware of the connection. If the minister wishes to respond, he may.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will only say, Mr. Speaker, that the member has asked me to respond to the specifics. One thing she has neglected to do is to give me the specifics. I was going to ask her further at the earliest opportunity during the course of the estimates for the specifics -- namely the hospital; I do not need the name of the nurse -- so that I can examine the matter more fully and respond to it.

Mr. Rae: In the minister's absence during the month that this epidemic of contracting out was taking place, we raised a number of instances where it has happened. First of all, will the minister examine every single contract between the nursing home and the subcontractor to see whether or not there is a conflict with the Nursing Homes Act and with his obligations under the Nursing Homes Act?

Second, will the minister update and upgrade his monitoring of the quality of care that is being provided in institutions where contracting out has taken place?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I assume the member is referring to a specific area of contracting out, that being for staffing purposes or nursing staff purposes, because I am sure he would recognize that in many institutional settings there has been contracting out for specific services for many years -- for example, laundry services and that type of thing.

I do not intend to review every individual laundry contract, but if he is referring to whether or not I will be assuring that the nursing homes are operating within the provisions of the Nursing Homes Act, of course I will be doing that through my staff.

By the way, if the member wants to raise the questions that were raised during my absence, I want to assure him that I have the answers. All he has to do is give me the green light and I will start. There are two books of answers that I --

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the honourable member really asked that question.

Mr. Norton: I have been dying for the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: I'll bet you have.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the Ontario home renewal program. Last fall the government strangled its program to help low-income people rehabilitate their homes, a program that had been in effect for over eight years. According to 1981 census data, close to 170,000 Ontario homes are in need of major repairs. In response to our inquiry, close to 200 of 710 participating municipalities have indicated there is a continuing need for new OHRP money. On reflection, would the minister not agree that this program should be continued?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is intriguing indeed, because that very same question was asked in my estimates just Wednesday morning. I answered in a very positive way and I am sure if the members wish to avail themselves of Hansard, my answer has not changed.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, let us see what sort of cynical little game the minister is playing now. Just this week the minister's colleague the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) tried to make a gift to the people of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry of $800,000. Has the minister admitted to the people of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry that only 64 per cent of the approved amount has been forwarded by his ministry? That is $1.76 million short of the money necessary to bring these homes up to proper standards. What kind of cynical little game is the minister playing? He plays Scrooge in the fall and Uncle Reuben comes along trying to play Santa Claus in December? Is that the game he is playing now?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is very intriguing, because months ago we clearly indicated to this House, to the people of this province, that we had been in the Ontario home renewal program for a period of about eight years. The people of this province covered 100 per cent of the cost. It was not shared by municipal governments; it was not shared by the federal government. The $160 million came from the Treasury of Ontario, the pockets of the taxpayers of this province, to try to advance the opportunity of improving the quality of some of the units of living in this province.

I clearly indicated that we were in a restraint period and we were looking at opportunities of other programs. I said that in my estimates the other night; I am not humbled by saying it again here this afternoon. If the member recalls, the municipalities administered it. We gave them the money and they assigned it to the individuals of their community who they believed required it.

The speed at which money was allocated into the community was at the discretion of the municipality through the building inspectors of that municipality, who reported back to its council as to those who qualified. Every municipality that asked for funding was granted a portion of the maximum sum we could give.

If one looks at the situation in this province today --

Mr. Roy: You cut them off.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just a minute. The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is not here very often. He should listen the odd time when he is here.

Mr. Foulds: Scandalmonger.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, that was an unfair comment. It smacks of scandalmongering.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would only say that if the member for Ottawa East wanted to take a little bit of time in checking a few of the records, he would find there is a fair number of municipalities of this province that still have within their treasury moneys that can be put out for the home renewal program in their communities.

An accumulation of about $26 million currently remains with the municipalities of this province. That fund is also, if the member will recall, a circulating fund. The money was prepaid to the municipality, none of it to be returned to the province. It is entirely at the municipality level for reassignment to new needy cases in the community.

2:50 p.m.

ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, for the last five minutes there have been 30 to 40 Liberals locked in an elevator between floors.

[Applause]

Mr. Sargent: It is funny but it could be dangerous.

[Later]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could give us an update on what has happened to those Liberals who have been stuck in the elevator between floors for the last 30 to 40 years.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Huron-Bruce has the answer apparently.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I realize the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) may not have meant to make light of it, but a group of people from my riding were trapped in that elevator for some 20 minutes. It was a very serious situation.

I was going to rise on a point of privilege in any event to express my thanks to the staff here in the Legislative Building for getting them out of there. It was much more serious than some members obviously think it was. There is some difficulty with some people who do not like to ride in elevators at the very least. I do want to express my sincere thanks for the prompt attention the staff here provided in getting the people out of that very difficult situation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I just want to make it clear I was not at all sure the first announcement that was made was not a joke. I want to apologize for making light of a serious situation.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

INJURY TO HOSPITAL PATIENT

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I believe the minister is aware of an incident that occurred at the Metropolitan General Hospital a week ago in Windsor whereby an individual in an active treatment bed, who was restrained I believe without doctor's orders, got over in a wheelchair to a dresser and set himself on fire. He is now listed in critical condition in hospital.

Is the minister aware of this incident and is the ministry conducting an investigation? My information from the hospital is that the ministry was advised but is not conducting an investigation.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first of all, yes, I am aware of the incident to which the honourable member refers. There is not at the moment any investigation being conducted by the ministry but there is an investigation under way. I expect to receive the report next week. I think the date on which it is to be submitted is December 13. I would reserve any decision as to whether there is any justification for further examination by the ministry until such time as I have received that report.

Mr. Cooke: Will the minister make sure that in that investigation or report, two matters are addressed? One is whether or not the restraint that was put on this patient was in fact used with doctor's orders. Second, could the minister also report as to whether one of the reasons restraints were being used in this specific case was because of the lack of funding of hospitals and the lack of staff, and therefore restraints are more commonly used in hospitals now and this case is one of the examples?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can deal with the latter part of that question right now. As to the staffing levels, I would assure the member that in this instance the patient was in a 36-person unit in the hospital with a full staff complement of a head nurse, four registered nurses, three registered nursing assistants and a ward clerk.

Further, my understanding is that the incident did occur during a lunch period. However, during that time, while I presume normal services would not be being provided, there were still five staff on duty in the unit including the head nurse. I do not think one could suggest that short staffing or underfunding were in any way a factor in the occurrence of this incident.

With respect to the other matter, I will respond fully later.

TRUCK LEASING

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. It relates to his statement last Friday and the introduction of legislation regarding the rewriting of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act in Ontario.

There are currently two kinds of for-hire trucking being carried out in Ontario. One is the operator conducting a trucking business under a PCV licence issued by the ministry and the other is the operator who conducts his trucking business by way of leasing equipment to a shipper for the purpose of moving the goods.

Also, there are two kinds of leasing operations being conducted. One is the operator who quite legitimately will lease a truck or trucks to a shipper exclusively for the purpose of moving that particular shipper's goods. The other is the operator carrying on a regular highway carrier business by having one company set up to lease trucks to a shipper and a second company set up under a different name to operate a driver pool, leasing equipment at random to various shippers solely for the purpose of circumventing the PCV Act and in direct competition with the properly licensed carrier.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Barlow: Will the minister, through this rewrite period, instruct his enforcement branch to clamp down and enforce both the letter and the spirit of the PCV Act as it relates to leasing?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker. One of the recommendations of the PCV review committee and the implementation committee that are working on the drawing of the blueprint for the new PCV Act is that the ministry will continue, to the best of its ability and within its means, to enforce the present act fully until the new act is ready to he implemented.

Mr. Barlow: During this period, can the minister assure me that when these illegal lease operators apply for a proper licence before, during or after the rewrite period, that any conviction, as well as past operating practices, will be taken into consideration and it will not be used as a forum for legalizing what these people have been doing in the past?

Hon. Mr. Snow: When an application comes before the board, I believe normally the previous operating record of the operator is quite often brought to the attention of the board members. Under the new act, the intention is that anyone who operates illegal or unsafe vehicles will be dealt with very harshly.

HIGHWAY SIGNAGE

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications with regard to highway signs. With the construction of many highway bypasses over the past number of years, and the problem motorists sometimes have in locating small towns and villages due to very small finger signs, does the minister have any plans to update the criteria for designating such areas with signs that would be large enough to read while driving at 80 kilometres an hour?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I thought we had discussed and answered that question during my estimates. However, if we did not do that fully, I would have to say to the member I understand the problem that is created sometimes where there are bypasses of communities. They are signed at present, but I understand the concern as to the size of the signs. I have instructed my staff to review this matter and bring it forward in one of our ministry policy meetings, which may be done as early as next Monday, although I am not sure of that.

RADIATION STANDARDS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Could the minister explain why his ministry is accepting changes in the radiation exposure regulations proposed by the Atomic Energy Control Board which will mean increases in exposure limits for individual internal organs? These proposals have not been accepted by any other regulatory agency anywhere in the world. Does the minister agree this will mean that the overall external whole body radiation exposure limit will be increased?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is not my understanding that we have accepted anything at all. It is my understanding that our radiation services branch is looking at these proposals that have been brought forward by the federal authorities.

Mr. Wildman: If that is the case, can the minister assure us that instead of going towards increasing whole-body exposure, his ministry will be moving in the opposite direction, that is lowering the whole-body exposure limit from five rems a year to one or perhaps 1.5 rems per year, since this can be reached?

The average exposures in the nuclear industry in this province are less than 1.5 rems per year and in the United Kingdom, by collective agreement in the nuclear industry, the standard that has been achieved is one rem per year. Why can our workers in Ontario not have the same protection as workers in the nuclear industry in the UK?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It would be premature for me to make any assurances at this time until I have heard the recommendations of our radiation experts who are reviewing the matter at this very moment.

3 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned by the minister's answer. I believe we should be assured by the Minister of Labour that we will be moving in a progressive direction to protect workers' health and safety. We should not have an answer that says he may consider making this very sensitive area and very sensitive issue one that could put workers in more jeopardy and more danger than they are in at present. I think the minister should explain to the House that he will not accept recommendations which will put workers in more jeopardy and more danger.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could ask him that question.

Mr. Mancini: Will he not?

Mr. Speaker: He will, indeed.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that question does not have to be asked. I am not going to put the workers of this province in any danger whatsoever; I can assure the member of that. But I just do not want to make any premature statements in this House before I have all the scientific facts at my disposal, and I simply do not have them at this time.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. We had an opportunity to discuss this somewhat yesterday and I would like to continue it today.

The minister is aware of the 1982-83 annual report of the women crown employees office, and he will be aware that while it is true that in the last year the wage gap in the public service narrowed, 71 per cent of the women in the public service of Ontario remain below $21,000 and 75 per cent of the males are over $21.000.

He will further be aware that a large reason for these wide disparities is that the female job ghetto still exists and really very little progress is being made. The number of women in traditional jobs such as institutional care services, clerical services and office services has remained high and is not moving -- in fact, in a couple of cases it actually went up -- and at the bottom end of the scale the number of women in nontraditional jobs in maintenance services, law enforcement services, correctional services and technical services remains low and is not moving up.

Given those very disappointing statistics in the various modules that are outlined in the report, what is the minister doing to review the affirmative action program and to make sure we do make some progress to end the job ghettos in this province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I suppose in taking a report and reading it one can be somewhat selective in the facts and figures that one would concentrate on, I think when one takes a look at that report, it is very positive. In comparison with the private sector. I think the member opposite and I as members of this Legislature should he pleased with the progress that has been made. We should not be satisfied, because there is still more work to be done, but we have taken significant steps in closing the wage gap in that year alone in that report.

I think affirmative action has proven itself. We can give a lot of credit to the work that has been done in all the ministries by reason of affirmative action, and to those who have taken advantage of the affirmative action incentive fund and the training programs that are under way. What is reflected in that report is reflected in the community generally, namely, the need to encourage the movement of women into nontraditional jobs and their preparation for these other jobs with higher compensation.

I would say, in summary, that this report, which was tabled the day before yesterday, shows some significant progress. I pay tribute to the affirmative action managers, the deputy ministers and all who have provided leadership in all the ministries of government for that. I do not doubt, and I am not hiding the fact, that there is more to be done, but I feel quite confident we will make even further progress.

Mr. Wrye: While I would agree with the minister that some minor numerical progress has been made, I might note that the wage gap remains pretty wide in the minister's old portfolio in the Ministry of Energy. I hope his successor will do a little better than he did.

During the estimates of the ministry yesterday the minister indicated in an answer to a question I asked that he, and, I believe, the Minister of Labour, are taking a look at the prospect of having a pilot project in full equal pay for work of equal value here in the public service because of the fact that those job ghetto problems do not appear to he breaking down. As I said yesterday, I am prepared to take from this government any small piece --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: -- if we can get off dead centre on equal value legislation. I want to ask the minister more specifically at what stage is the review of the situation. When can we expect some positive results and a pilot project right here at Queen's Park?

Hon. Mr. Welch: They are at a preliminary stage at the moment. The legislation my colleague introduced on Monday is some development with respect to the whole area of equal pay. The honourable member will know that he and his colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), who proposed the resolution, and others, have been honest and fair to point out that is not the only way we are going to address this question of the wage gap. It is an important way. The occupational desegregation emphasis is essential and will bring significant results.

The member made reference at some length to my former ministry, the Ministry of Energy. He does not point out to the members of this House that for the last four years there has been a decrease in the wage gap in that ministry of 13 per cent. The members of this House would want this information. They would want to commend the former Minister of Energy. That is significant. He should show me another ministry that has that type of record. In the Ministry of Energy, the average --

Ms. Copps: You have the widest way to go.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is all right. The honourable member, in her eminent fairness. knows that ministry is made up of a lot of technical people with respect to engineering background. There have not been that many women who have sought their career opportunities there. Therefore, there are some restrictions as to the availability of that human resource. Nevertheless, the average wage paid to women in that ministry is nearly $1,500 more than the average across the government. The improvement in reducing the gap is 13 per cent. I think it is time we revive that old song, Accentuate the Positive, and think positively on behalf of the women of this province.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the 1982-83 report from the women crown employees office still lists a great many ministries where women are underrepresented in regard to the number of positions in the ministry. There are also many occupations in which there are no women, such as veterinary surgeons. Women are badly represented in legal services.

Yet the government's affirmative action target is only 30 per cent representation of women by the year 2000, 17 years hence. Will the minister tell us whether he is following the proposals of the public accounts committee that he reduce that target even further or abandon it, or will he consider raising it so the target is representation equivalent to approximately 50 per cent of women in the total public service?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am not contemplating any reduction of these various targets. The honourable member will realize from consideration of the estimates yesterday that in some of the modules we have already reached the target and are exceeding it. There is no question -- let there be no mistake about it -- but that there is a lot of work to be done in some of the other areas.

I invite my honourable friend or any member of this House to find any government in this half of North America that can equal the record of the government in this province in the whole area of affirmative action. It is a record we should be proud of and work to improve on.

WORKERS' SHIFT SCHEDULE

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour arising from his statement earlier this week. Let me quote a portion of it: "When the employment standards regulation for domestics was introduced in 1981, one of the provisions applying to live-in workers was a duty-free period of 36 consecutive hours each week. This standard was in keeping with the prevailing practice ... However, it now appears more common to allow two days' free time per week."

3:10 p.m.

Will the minister now move against the seven- shift schedule for workers in other fields where workers can work for 10 consecutive days without a day off? Will he introduce legislation in this session to eliminate that practice?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, since the minister's own studies indicate shift workers suffer longer, more debilitating illnesses than those on regular shifts and since the schedules as they now exist are in reverse, as they should not be, can the minister indicate why he, as minister responsible for the health of workers in Ontario, is not prepared to eliminate those things, from whose result his own studies indicate workers suffer?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member asked me if I was going to introduce legislation this session and I said no. As I told him when he brought this matter up in the Legislature a week ago, we are taking a close look at and making a study of the matter. I cannot, in all honesty, tell him what way we will turn or what direction we will take, but the matter is under very active review. Nothing has changed since the question was asked a week ago.

QUEBEC LANGUAGE LEGISLATION

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). I do not know if he is behind the dais. If he is not in. I am going to ask the question of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

Mr. Sweeney: Here he comes.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed with your question, please.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is aware that the government of Quebec is at present in the process of amending Bill 101. In fact, certain of the minister's comments about the possible amendments have been quoted in the press. Would the minister advise us what representation he has made to the minister and to the government of Quebec about allowing parents of children who are transferred from Ontario to Quebec to send their children to English-language schools? Probably the largest number of anglophones being transferred are coming from Ontario.

What representation has the minister made on behalf of those parents to allow their children to attend English-language schools? This would require some amendment to Bill 101, an amendment which the minister seems reluctant to make at the present time vis-à-vis Ontario. Could the minister advise us of the steps he is going to take to make representation on behalf of the people of Ontario concerning those amendments to Bill 101?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think my friend is a little confused about this. The Quebec government has proposed amendments to Bill 101 to allow children of anglophones living in Ontario to go to English-language schools in Quebec if they move there, something which they cannot now do on an unhindered basis. The Quebec government has said it will do that in its bill if it is satisfied that, in its view, the system of education for francophones coming from Quebec to Ontario is equivalent to what anglophones in Quebec receive.

The representations I have made are that we do have a system that is equal in Ontario. We have a system that is equal and, therefore, if Quebec will pass its bill, which it has not done now, it should immediately declare that arrangement. I do not personally think it is the kind of thing that should be decided unilaterally by provinces through bills and arrangements and so forth.

It was for that very reason we would not sign a bilateral agreement with the province of Quebec; rather, we worked for an amendment to the Constitution of Canada that would guarantee anglophone students could go to the English schools in Quebec. As my friend knows, a court case is at present before the Supreme Court of Canada. It may find the government of Quebec does not, under the Constitution, have the right to keep children from Ontario who are anglophones from going to the English-language schools.

I believe the children of people from this province who are anglophones should be able to go to those schools. We provide an equal system in Ontario for francophones from Quebec to get an education in the French language in this province.

DAY CARE CENTRE AT QUEEN'S PARK

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Perhaps it missed the Speaker's attention in the discussion, but as we were discussing the issue of equal pay and affirmative action, I interjected to the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch), asking him when we would he getting a day care centre at Queen's Park. One of the members on the government side of the House responded in an interjection that they would do so when I got pregnant. The minister might not have heard that, but I wonder if he would clarify that the policy of the government on day care is not related to the fertility of any of the members on any side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, let the record he very clear that I did not make any such comments.

Ms. Copps: I did not say that. I said one of the other members on the government side of the House did.

[Later]

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the honourable member in his discussion of the matter, but if he would allow me the floor on a point of privilege, it concerns an exchange this afternoon between myself and my good friend the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) at the end of question period. I understand the member misunderstood my comments, for which I apologize. I take this opportunity to withdraw those comments.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Further to that point, I hope the 30 or so seconds taken off the honourable member's time will be added, with your consideration.

The Acting Speaker: We will do our best.

PETITIONS

COMMERCIAL FISHING

Mr. Haggerty: 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 petitioners, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That more selective control methods of commercial fishing must be put into use so that the fish population can regenerate and eventually produce quality recreational fishing in Lake Erie."

The petition, conducted by the Port Colborne and District Conservation Authority, has 1,240 signatures.

LENGTH OF SENTENCE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition further to the one I introduced last week in the Legislature addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly. This petition is protesting the two-year sentence given to Jean Dionne, who will most likely be paroled and be back on the street in eight months.

"We, the undersigned. feel that the sentence given was much too lenient considering the circumstances surrounding the drowning death of two-year-old Jason Verdon. There are laws to protect children but no justice. Now the law protects Dionne."

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McLean from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

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

Ministry administration program, $12,546,500; industrial relations program, $5,570,000; women's program, $1,351,000; occupational health and safety program, $33,661,500; employment standards program, $5,971,000; manpower commission program, $1,887,000; human rights commission program, $4,783,000; labour relations board program, $4,225.00.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULAT1ONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Kerr from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr13, An Act to incorporate Heritage Windsor.

Bill Pr 43, An Act respecting Ottawa Civic Hospital.

Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the Town of Harrow;

Bill Pr54, An Act respecting the Hungarian Canadian Cultural Centre (Hungarian House);

Bill Pr56, An Act respecting the Alex Manoogian Cultural Centre.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, with a certain amendment:

Bill Pr48, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Pr13, An Act to incorporate Heritage Windsor; Bill Pr54. An Act respecting the Hungarian Canadian Cultural Centre (Hungarian House); and Bill Pr56, An Act respecting the Alex Manoogian Cultural Centre.

Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding any previous order of the House, the House will sit in the chamber on Wednesday, December 14, at 10 a.m., rise for the luncheon interval at I p.m., resume at 2 p.m. and sit until 6 p.m., routine proceedings to be held at 2 p.m. On Thursday, December 15, the House will again sit at 10 a.m., with the luncheon interval from 2 p.m. to 2 p.m.; with the usual dinner interval from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., and the usual adjournment at 10:30 p.m., routine proceedings to be at 2 p.m.

Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, what this means is that for next week, we will be sitting Monday afternoon and Monday evening, Tuesday afternoon and Tuesday evening, Wednesday morning and Wednesday afternoon, Thursday morning, Thursday afternoon and Thursday evening, and Friday until business is concluded.

I might also add that the motion standing on the order paper in the name of Mr. Rae, a want of confidence motion, will be considered on Wednesday afternoon, with the vote to occur just before six o'clock on Wednesday.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding standing order 64, private members' public business will not be taken up next Thursday, December 15, and that the 30-minute limitation imposed on ministerial statements by standing order 64(k) be suspended.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ARBOREAL EMBLEM ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bennett, first reading of Bill 143, the Arboreal Emblem Act.

Motion agreed to.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bennett, first reading of Bill 144, An act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 1983, my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) advised the House that in order to realize the full success of the recent temporary sales tax holiday for furniture and appliances, he was extending the existing delivery deadline to December 31, 1983. This bill fulfils that commitment.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 145, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, first reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act.

Motion agreed to.

BUILDING CODE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 147, An Act to amend the Building Code Act.

Motion agreed to.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bernier, first reading of Bill 148, An Act to revise the Teachers' Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the major changes to the act have come about as a result of the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Teacher Superannuation, which was established by the Premier (Mr. Davis) in 1980. That committee was composed of government representatives and representatives of the teachers' federations of Ontario.

The committee held 23 formal meetings and numerous informal meetings over an 18-month period. More than 80 individual issues were identified and discussed, and the final report indicated agreement on 29 major amendments together with a number of minor amendments. All the changes are consistent with the government's thrust on pension reform.

The proposals are many and varied and of great importance to the teaching profession of this province. In my opinion, they should go a very long way to offsetting many problems, including the impact of declining enrolment, and offer boards and teachers more flexibility in their decision-making. At the same time, the changes provide for a sounder financial basis for the plan, will assist in making the processes more efficient and effective and will eliminate a number of small inequities that have crept into the procedures.

3:30 p.m.

It is proposed that the bill will become effective on September 1, 1984. However, in fairness to those teachers who have retired on the understanding that changes would be enacted, it is proposed that eligibility for a number of the benefit changes be extended to those teachers who retired subsequent to May 31, 1982. Allowances in respect of this eligibility will be adjusted on September 1, 1984, and no retroactive payments will be made.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Peterson and Mr. Rae, that an humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in Council: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Daniel Grafton Hill as Ombudsman for the province of Ontario, as provided in section 3 of the Ombudsman Act, RSO 1980, chapter 325, to hold office under the terms and conditions of the said act,"

And that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TILE DRAINAGE

Mr. Ruston moved, seconded by Mr. Mancini, resolution 29:

That in the opinion of this House, the government through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food should immediately allocate sufficient resources to meet all the needs of Ontario farmers for tile drainage loans and that the maximum loan assistance be increased to cover 75 per cent of the cost of the drainage work as provided for by the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Before you proceed, I would like to remind you that you have up to 20 minutes for your presentation. You may reserve any portion of that time you see fit for your windup.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I intend to leave six or eight minutes at the end, if I can guide myself that way.

The resolution today is similar to one we had in this Legislature only two and a half years ago. It was put forward by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson). It was dated May 28, 1981. However, mine is a little different.

Tile drainage throughout Ontario is one of the most important parts of good farming. The principle of the Tile Drainage Act, as it is now operated by the province, in my opinion is one of the better parts of farm assistance. However, the government has not really committed itself completely to it, and that is why we are debating this subject today.

The previous resolution from the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel really left out the part with regard to the 60 per cent. The government lowered it to 60 per cent a few years ago. I am requesting that we put it back to 75 per cent.

In the remarks I made that day during the debate, I spoke a little about the history of how farmers started trying to tile their farms before there was much modern machinery. I do not intend to repeat those items, although I think they are important to any young farmer or anyone such as that. They can be found in Hansard, May 28, 1981, on page 1065.

Coming from a flat county such as Essex county, one realizes the necessity of good drainage for our land. I am interested in the subject, having been raised on a farm. I can recall when I was a young lad, about 10 years old, seeing the tile machines going up and down the fields, putting in the tile, and a person walking along behind doing it by hand using a handle with metal at the bottom to put the tile in place. As the machine went along, you walked behind it and put the tile in place. In 1929 and 1930 there was not even an automatic way to put the dirt back in the ground and you had to use horses and tractors and fill it in. It was very hard work at that time.

With modern machinery, it is done very easily. I can recall on our own farm, when we had 100 acres tiled, it took two weeks with two machines. Now that would be done in a matter of days with one machine. In most places, they now use plastic tile drainage that comes in rolls. It is very light and easy to handle.

In that 1981 debate on the resolution of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel -- I was looking it over a few days ago -- a former member for whom I had a great respect, Mr. Villeneuve, spoke on the matter. His speech appears on page 1064 of Hansard for May 28, 1981. Mr. Villeneuve was here when I came here in 1967. I had breakfast with him many times and many visits, and we discussed some of the same problems we both had. Part of his country was quite flat and poorly drained. Another time we had a lot of problems with the milk quotas and so on. At times in committees back in the late 1960s we assisted one another with some of our problems.

I would like to quote some of Mr. Villeneuve's remarks when he spoke on the resolution.

"First of all, the farmers in my constituency alone have invested over $20 million in open ditch drainage, but those who have tiled showed beyond any doubt, even in those wet years, that if they had a crop they could harvest, whereas the others were an absolute failure.

"I have to agree with my colleagues on the other side that there is not sufficient money being placed in tile drainage. This is not a handout, it is an accommodation that will help people help themselves." This money is only lent to the farmers; it is not given to them. It is not an outright grant such as we have in many other cases.

True, the interest rates are subsidized. The interest rate now is eight per cent, so, although it is subsidized, the subsidy is not that great. The money is flowing back in. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) will get up when the budget comes down and say $25 million or $30 million is allocated to tile drainage, but really it is more like $7 million or $8 million at the most, because that money is coming back in and the subsidy on the interest is the only part the government is actually paying out.

There was another point the late Mr. Villeneuve mentioned. I quote:

"Twenty years ago we had problems growing anything in eastern Ontario except forage corn for silage, but a new species came out which took a shorter period of time to mature, and the result today is we have many grain-growing producers. Of recent years there has been a new species of soybean that takes a shorter period of time to mature."

I read an article this week from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's office which said they have now found a new soybean, through tests and so forth, that will grow in areas with heat units from 2,600 to 2,800. The member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) is well aware that the heat units in Essex and Kent counties run up to 3,100. The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) probably has the highest heat units of any place in Ontario. Of course, we can grow a longer-growing soybean seed. The interesting part of the new one that has just come out is that it is called the bicentennial soybean seed and it will be used in some areas.

3:40 p.m.

I want to quote a little farther down with regard to the problems, not in Essex county -- I will come to them in a minute -- but in eastern Ontario, about which the late Mr. Villeneuve said "there are almost $700,000 in applications" from people who required tile drainage in eastern Ontario. That was two and a half years ago, so you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is a real problem.

In Essex county some of the smaller municipalities are not faring too badly this year because they received allotments from other places that were not using them. But large townships, such as the township of Mersea which is the largest township in Essex county, are having a real problem. That point was raised not too long ago by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) because he had been at a meeting down in that area.

I have discussed this matter with the member for Essex South. Another problem the township of Mersea has is that the government allocates this money on a yearly basis. In the previous year, if there was a lot of rainfall and the farmers could not get their tile in, then they did not use the money. The government should go on the basis of the previous three years. I know it cannot do that in a municipality that has not been involved in tile drainage very much, but in an area like Essex county, with the average it has had over the past three years, I think there would be a lot fewer problems and the farmers would be able to go ahead and get their tile in.

The township of Maidstone, another large township of which I had the honour of being reeve for six years, is the second largest township in the county of Essex. It is having a very difficult time because it is being compared with the smaller townships. Tilbury West township, the smallest township in Essex county, has its allocation for this year. It seems the government is not giving enough leeway to the larger townships so that they can handle and plan their work.

Another thing I noticed this year is that some farmers who do have the capital to go ahead and put in their tile drainage go to the township and are told it does not have enough money this year and they will have to wait until next year, so they go ahead and put the tile drainage in themselves. I know of one farmer across the road from me who was able to finance the tile drainage himself. Now farmers like him are receiving word from the township that it has the money and they can have it right away. If those farmers could not have financed themselves, they would not have got the tile drainage and would have had to wait until next year.

There needs to be a real commitment from the minister, in my opinion, to set this money up so that he catches up on the back applications. The government always seems to run short when there is a necessity. We have had a lot of rain in Essex county this year so the farmers want to put in more tile drainage, but with so much rain it is sometimes difficult to get it in.

When I went home on Friday last week I noticed that from Monday to Friday about 50 acres had been tiled on a certain part of land that apparently was not too wet. That is quite late to be tiling though. I heard a comment that the money would be available for January and February. I do not think anybody will be tiling in Essex or Kent counties, or in any part of Ontario, in January or February if we get the same kind of weather we have had in other years.

I would like to quote what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture representatives said when they went before cabinet.

"We are on record as being concerned with the level of provincial support for the vital agricultural development program. Once again, provincial funding for tile drainage loans is being limited to 60 per cent of the cost of installation. It must be recognized that the money the farmer must raise is generally at a much higher interest rate than that payable on a government loan.

"We strongly urge that your government take action to ensure the viability of the provincial tile drainage program. Specifically, the government should ensure that the tile drainage program is funded at a level that will cover 75 per cent of the cost of the tile installation as provided for by the legislation."

Mr. Speaker, I think I will reserve the rest of my time for later. There may be some questions I can answer from some of the members who will speak in the meantime.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and say immediately I support the resolution unequivocally and I suspect all members of this caucus will do the same thing. It is simple, straightforward, meets a need and, unlike the announcement made in the House a week and a half ago by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I do not think this is purely partisan.

The statement made by the minister was very unusual. It was unusual that he announced only $77,000 for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry county. He must think he can buy it cheap. Second, he never makes those kinds of statements when changes are made in other years in other municipalities. It is strange that just this year a statement would be made on this when the amount was increased slightly for eastern Ontario.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food is treating tile drainage as he is treating all other farm problems: great on rhetoric, short on substance. The situation is the same as in the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program or in the preservation of prime food lands. He says one thing and does another. More and more farmers are saying to me as I go around this province that the minister's actions speak so loudly they cannot hear what he says any more.

I am not sure a Liberal government in power in Ontario would fully implement this resolution. The example of the Liberals in Ottawa is not very reassuring. The amount of money the government has given to the Farm Credit Corp. in Ottawa is not enough to meet farm needs. It has been two, three or four years that Eugene Whelan has taken even to get around to any kind of a red meat program. This does not create a great deal of confidence among the farmers of Ontario that a Liberal government would do any better. However, the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) is totally sincere in the introduction of this resolution.

Let me demonstrate how insincere the minister is in this matter. First, he is not even here today to hear the debate. It would seem that on an important issue such as this, one which he has said is so important, he would have been here. In his estimates last June he said one of the single most important programs of his ministry is the tile drainage program, which is responsible both for improving the productiveness of farm land and putting more land into agricultural production.

Let us take a look and see how he has carried that out. He has gone further than that on other occasions in lauding the use of tile drainage in his government's program. He says it increases productivity substantially and that from the additional production, the return on investment is seven to eight times the investment in tile drainage.

The New Democratic Party agricultural task force was in Timiskaming about a month ago. We talked to a farmer there who said his crops in one flat field increased in volume by three times after he had installed the tile drainage. We agree with the minister that it is a great thing. Everywhere our task force went we heard of the need for and value of tile drainage to the farmers.

Instead of promoting and encouraging more construction, the minister has taken steps which are reducing the amount of installation of tile drainage. First, it has been reduced because the municipal loans were cut a year and a half ago from 75 per cent to 60 per cent. Instead of having to find only 25 per cent of the necessary financing on his own, the farmer now has to find 40 per cent on his own. He had to go out and borrow this money when many of the farmers in Ontario had their credit extended to the limit.

Mr. Wildman: And interest rates were sky- high.

Mr. Swart: And interest rates were sky-high. When they needed it, he took it away from them. That is what the minister did.

3:50 p.m.

As the member for Essex North has stated, far from increasing the net amount being put into tile drainage, the government of the province has been reducing it. I have the budget figures for tile drainage. It was $26 million in 1980-81, $25 million in 1981-82, $30 million in 1982-83 and $30 million in 1983-84. But the actual amount of debt expenditure was $26.2 million in 1981, $28.5 million in 1981-82 and $29.2 million in 1982-83. In 1983-84 it is going to drop down to $26 million, according to the government's own figures in its financial statements.

That is only part of the picture. The repayments on these debts have increased substantially each year. In 1980-81 it was $12 million, in 1981-82 it was $13 million, in 1982-83 $15 million came back into the Treasury, and in 1983-84 they estimate $17 million will come back into the Treasury.

If we deduct that, the net amount going into tile drainage in 1980-81 was $14 million, in 1981-82 it was $15.3 million, in 1982-83 it dropped back down to $14.2 million, and this year the net amount of money being put into tile drainage will be down to $11 million. That is the lowest amount of money in about eight years. When farmers are in one of the worst situations they have ever been in, only 60 per cent capital funding from municipal debentures at a lower rate is allowed.

I did a survey of three municipalities in each district we attended across this province. In Huron, there was one municipality, Howick, that was short of funds. In Kent county, two of the three we checked were short of funds, Harwich and Chatham. Those were the only shortages we found in that checking.

So the simple facts are, because of the inadequacy of the bookkeeping and the contact with the municipalities, some municipalities are not getting the amount they would like to have this year and even with $30 million there is going to be money left over that will not be used. Obviously, that must be what the minister wants.

The government is deterring this at a time when it is most needed. There are other reasons as well, it has been documented, as I have already stated, over and over again that tile drainage dramatically increases the crop yield. In an era when energy and fertilizer costs are high, that is when the government should be promoting tile drainage. Yet here we have the Minister of Agriculture and Food cutting back on the net amount of money going into tile drainage.

Although he is not here, I want to tell the minister there is anger out there. We found this on our task force tour. The farmers are mad at the red meat situation. They are mad at the financial situation. Nowhere is this anger greater than in northern Ontario, because northern Ontario rural development agreement funds that were supposed to last for five years have been cut off at the end of two and they do not have that extra money for tile drainage. They were cut off in Timiskaming and Rainy River. There is no money from NORDA any more for tile drainage and they are angry.

On May 5, the New Democratic Party put out a comprehensive employment document entitled Ontario Can Work. It proposed measures that would provide short-term and long-term employment of 350,000 jobs. There is also a section on drainage. We propose there should have been another $25 million put into drainage this year and next so the farmers would have the advantage of a better crop. That is the kind of program that is needed.

In view of the fact that drainage is an investment and it is really a loan, in view of its tremendous benefits and in view of the desperate efforts on the other side of the House to hold the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, will government members not only vote in favour of this resolution, as I am sure they are, but also encourage the minister to put it into action?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member for Welland-Thorold is yes. I thank him.

I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution of the member for Essex North for two reasons. The first and by far the most important is that it is a good resolution: it addresses a very urgent need in the farming community. As a rural representative who has 13 townships that would benefit from additional tile drainage funding. I am very supportive of this type of resolution coming before this House, whether it is presented by an opposition member or by a government member.

The second reason I have no hesitation in supporting the resolution is that it is very similar in intent to my resolution on tile drainage, which we debated in this House on May 28, 1981, as the member for Essex North mentioned. This, of course, was seconded by our former colleague Osie Villeneuve.

I want to thank the member for his very complimentary remarks about our former colleague. I do not think there was any member of this H louse who was more supportive of tile drainage than Mr. Villeneuve. He certainly expressed the views of eastern Ontario quite well in that debate.

Mr. Wildman: Would that the minister had listened to him.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel has the floor.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to read my resolution into the record for the benefit of refreshing the memories of my colleagues and then to highlight some of the comments made by some of the members during that debate. My resolution was as follows.

"That this House urge the Ontario government through the Minister of Agriculture and Food to allocate sufficient resources to permit the reasonable financing of tile drainage loans to more readily meet the needs of Ontario farmers, and to advance the provincial program for completion of province-wide tile drainage installation on agricultural land which is inadequately drained, resulting in a reduction in productivity."

That resolution received the unanimous support of this House, and I hope this resolution will also receive that same unanimous support.

I might also mention that I endorse the member's thought of increasing the program from a figure of 60 per cent to 75 per cent. It is my personal feeling that many of the farmers who really do not have the equity to take advantage of the program are some of the ones most in need of assistance. If we cannot address it through this resolution, if for some reason they cannot raise it to 75 per cent, then I think it is incumbent upon the minister to find some other method of helping these people who cannot take advantage of a mechanism that has been proved to be extremely successful and beneficial to the farming community.

I might mention the support I received from all members of the House in that resolution. The member who introduced this resolution was one who supported me. I think the best support came from the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) when he said he wanted to support the resolution and "to defend the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel against the slurs placed against him by certain members." I think he referred to a few members who are not here today. That was very kind of the member. I never had the chance to express my gratitude publicly.

In our caucus it is surprising the number of members from urban parts of the province who are very supportive of tile drainage. I think most members today are knowledgeable enough to appreciate the benefits, and that is why we should not really have as much problem in getting some extra dollars into this program.

4 p.m.

I do have one concern I would like to express, not so much on this resolution as on a basic philosophical problem we have with private members' resolutions and bills. We have been told on occasion that we do not have to consider this resolution as political, that it can be construed as being a nonpolitical resolution. I think the events of a couple of weeks ago highlight the concerns I have.

It was a resolution pertaining to the antinuclear thrust. The members opposite pleaded with all members to support it, and said there was no political motivation involved in that resolution.

Yesterday I received a letter that made me reconsider that thought. It is an open letter to Jack Johnson, MPP, Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, from the New Democrats from Wellington- Dufferin-Peel.

It states: "We are sending this open letter to express to you our dismay at the defeat of resolution 1. We were quite honestly appalled that such a serious question could be dismissed by you and your colleagues in so cavalier a manner."

It goes on to say: "We have learned that fewer than 15 Conservative members of the Legislature were even present for the debate. The picture of you and your colleagues trooping into the House simply to vote against resolution I is so crass and cynical that it beggars the imagination."

If that is not political, it certainly sounds it to me. I just bring the point out that it is hard to support resolutions of any nature, when regardless of what one says here it turns out to be used for political reasons.

Mr. Wildman: You are a politician.

Mr. Philip: That is what politics are all about.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I had no trouble voting against the resolution because in my opinion it was anti-American and pro-Soviet.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, come on.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is completely out of order and uncalled for to suggest that the members of this Legislature who supported the resolution introduced by my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) were somehow pro-Soviet.

The Deputy Speaker: The point of order is out of order. For that matter, the last few comments have not had much to do with the resolution being debated. Perhaps the member could return to that.

Mr. J M. Johnson: Certainly, I would be very pleased to do that. It was a personal opinion.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel will continue, please.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I just threw that point out so that, if at times we appear not to be supportive of some of the resolutions, he will understand the reason.

I am going to try to ask for the support of the House on this motion in favour of the member for Essex North. I would like to suggest that private members could collectively say to the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and the cabinet that we strongly support the concept of this resolution, and that tile drainage is one of the most important long-range solutions to making our entire agricultural base more financially secure and viable.

While we accept the need to exercise restraint in most areas, we unanimously agree that the dollars invested in this program are quickly returned to the economy and therefore should he considered as an investment and not an expenditure. Therefore, this program should be given the highest priority. If we can be positive and not negative in this resolution, I hope we can achieve something that will be beneficial to all of us and our constituents.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the debate on the resolution introduced by my colleague the member for Essex North.

This resolution is especially important at this time because of the critical shortages we have in tile drainage in eastern Ontario. As we all know and as you know I am sure, Mr. Speaker, from having personally travelled in eastern Ontario, the province is seriously lagging behind, and have done so for many years, under the regime of this government.

I would like to go back to some of the history of the tile drainage program in eastern Ontario. The program has been in existence for a number of years. When the program started, farmers from across the province would install the tiles for tile drainage that we had at that time. A number of years ago we were using clay tiles, which I understand work relatively well in southwestern Ontario and other parts, but did not work in eastern Ontario because of the heavy clay we have there.

So what happens? We have an evolution of the program which went on throughout the province. At one point, somewhere in the mid-1970s -- around 1975 or 1976 -- the government decided it was going to have a quota system for the allocation of tile drainage money, a quota system established on the fact that the amount of money a particular township had received over, I guess, a period of the last three years, was average. From that figure, we had the quota which municipalities would use beyond that point.

Remembering what I said a minute ago, that eastern Ontario was not able to participate in the original program because the original clay tiles did not suit our particular soil, eastern Ontario had done very little in the way of tile drainage up until some time in the early 1970s. By the time we got started into our program, we were clamped into these quotas which were initiated.

Let us look at some of the effects of these quotas. What it means is that a municipality that had previously received a lot of money would continue to receive a lot, based on the fact it had used a lot in the previous year. A municipality which had used nothing, got nothing. I must say the logic of that really escapes me. By the implementation of that quota system, the people of eastern Ontario were severely shortchanged.

Now let us look back on another aspect of this program. As we know, in the mid-1970s the tile drainage program had a four per cent interest rate to it. When I was elected to municipal council in 1976, it had just changed at that time to six per cent. This means the people elsewhere in the province had the benefit of tile draining their lands, in many places, at four per cent or six per cent interest.

Now it is time for us to tile drain, we in eastern Ontario are tile draining at eight per cent interest. This is hardly fair, considering the treatment others got.

Mr. Speaker, maybe you would say interest rates were lower in those days. Not so. The interest rates in 1973-74 were practically the same as they are today. Yet, at that time we would get tile drainage money for four per cent and six per cent interest. The people of eastern Ontario are actually paying twice as much in interest as others in the rest of the province paid when they started to tile drain their land. Hardly fair.

Again looking back at the people who were able to tile drain previously, because the technology was such that the tile drains were adaptable to their land, they got 75 per cent loans on the total of their projects. What do we get in eastern Ontario, now it is our turn to tile drain? We get 60 per cent loans. This is hardly fair.

This is not the way the rest of the province was treated. If it is not good for the rest of the province, why is it good enough for eastern Ontario? It is not good enough for the people of eastern Ontario, I tell the House. It is totally unreasonable to expect that what others have received in the past is not made available to our people in our part of the province.

A moment ago I was explaining that in southwestern Ontario they had received a lot in the past. Their allocations continue to be distributed on the basis that they received a lot in the past.

Let us look at some of the effects of that. Does everyone know that the five counties of eastern Ontario -- Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry -- remember those names -- Prescott and Russell -- combined, receive less in tile drainage than the county of Lambton. I wonder why. Why is that good enough for eastern Ontario when it is not good enough anywhere else? Why should we be satisfied with being one fifth as good as Lambton?

Do the members think the people of Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry want to be treated as one fifth of Lambton? It is hardly reasonable for the people of eastern Ontario to be satisfied with that.

4:10 p.m.

Let us look at the effects upon eastern Ontario which all of these policies have had. Let me tell the House just how important it is for us to get that tile drainage money. In 1981, there were 12,900 farms in eastern Ontario. This was a decrease of 16 per cent from 1971. If we look at the whole province, they lost only 12 per cent of their farmers, we lost 16.

Some members may say that is not that serious, because maybe it is just a consolidation of farms. That is not so. Mr. Speaker. We lost 13.3 per cent of our acreage in eastern Ontario while the province only lost six per cent of its acreage as a whole. Eastern Ontario has been receiving less and less from this government in the way of improvements to tile drainage. That is why we are losing our tile drainage and that is why our farmers in eastern Ontario are lagging so far behind the farmers of the rest of the province.

Let us look at a few more statistics from eastern Ontario. In 1971, farm investment in eastern Ontario was $725 million. That is an average of $47,000 per farm -- hardly prosperous farms. considering the provincial average is $72,800. Why do we not deserve any better in eastern Ontario? Why can we not get our fair share out of the government?

The Treasurer was lately in this Legislature telling us about all the goodies he was giving to eastern Ontario. I am not convinced we have had our fair share of so-called goodies. This is the repentance of the government, in the middle of a provincial by-election in eastern Ontario, trying to save a seat. They are not having a terribly large amount of success. Every day we see a different cabinet minister coming there with a new bag of goodies, surely an indication they are not pleased at how well they are doing in the area, trying to buy out more votes.

In the process of doing that, the government announced a $209,500 increase in tile drainage allocation, but there is not one cent of increase in that allocation. There are redistributions from counties that did not use all their allocations, which are being shifted to other counties. There is not a cent of increase in that. As a matter of fact, from the $30 million in the budget they have revised their estimate downwards to $26 million, because the program is so unattractive at the present 60 per cent total that can be put on the tile drainage debenture that many farmers are not even using it in eastern Ontario.

Coming back to this press release talking about the $209,500 increase, as I understand it, the funds were reallocated throughout the whole province from counties that have not used all their allocations and they were redistributed to other counties that needed it. Why was a press release issued only in eastern Ontario? It is a mere coincidence, I am sure, that we are having a provincial by-election.

The government needs to address the tile drainage issue. The only way it can do that is by increasing the allocatable amount to 75 per cent of capital cost and reducing the interest rate to match what the people elsewhere in Ontario got. That is the only way the people of eastern Ontario will get their fair share. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has not seen fit to do that yet. To repeat the words of some farmers in eastern Ontario, "The Honourable Dennis Timbrell is the eunuch of agriculture."

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution introduced by my colleague the member for Essex North. I rise as a representative of a rural riding in northern Ontario; also, in passing, as a member who supported the resolution of my colleague the member for Scarborough West. It is interesting that the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) when he was speaking earlier in this debate raised the question -- how irrelevantly I do not know -- of pro-Soviet approaches.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is absolutely right: it is not relevant.

Mr. Wildman: I know. Why did you not cut him off? I would like to know why we in northern Ontario are treated as if we were from Siberia.

We have lots of statements in this House from members of the government about northern Ontario and what they are doing for northern Ontario and the future they see for northern Ontario. One government member who makes these statements continually is the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I would like to quote from a statement made on Wednesday. June 1, during the discussion of the estimates of that ministry by the honourable minister in which he said, "We have a vision of agriculture in northern Ontario growing and prospering far beyond the dreams of people a mere decade ago."

That sounds really great, but then we have to realize that although we have great potential and we have some of the most fertile areas of the province in northern Ontario -- look at the clay belt, for instance -- we also do not have the heat units there are in other parts of the province. So if the ministry really believes there is a future for the expansion of agriculture in the north, we have to do all we can to improve the productivity of the land and to enable farmers to increase the amount of acreage in production. We have to balance out the differences, the disadvantages, that our climate gives us in northern Ontario if agriculture is to prosper in northern Ontario.

So really it becomes a question of the substance of the commitment of the Minister of Agriculture and Food to agriculture in northern Ontario, and one just has to look at a couple of things. My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold mentioned the northern Ontario rural development agreement program. He indicated that $1.2 million of this program was allocated for tile drainage during the years 1980-1985. Since last summer all those funds have been used up. There certainly is a need for tile drainage in northern Ontario and that indicates it; but the funds have been used up. The program was to run until 1985, and there is no new funding. So much for commitment to the expansion of agriculture in northern Ontario.

My colleague from eastern Ontario mentioned the differences between eastern Ontario and southwestern Ontario. We have the same situation with regard to the north. Historically there has not been as much drainage done in northern Ontario as has been done in southwestern Ontario. Northern farmers have not been able to take advantage of the program in the past.

Just when the government started to encourage, through all of its rhetoric, the expansion of agriculture in northern Ontario, then it changed the program to make it less attractive to farmers and to make it more difficult for them to participate. The cut to 60 per cent about two years ago from the 75 per cent that was the way the program operated in the past has made it very unattractive to many farmers who would like to tile drain their property, simply because they cannot afford it; they cannot arrange the funding for the other 40 per cent.

The clerk of the township of Dymond in the district of Timiskaming informed us recently that in that particular township they have $23,000 left over that should have been allocated for tile drainage. The reason, according to the clerk of the township, is that a lot of the farmers have backed off because of the fact that the policy has changed to cover only 60 per cent. At a time when we in northern Ontario, as in other parts of the province, are experiencing real, serious difficulty in agriculture, largely related to the crisis in the red meat industry with the low beef prices, how can farmers finance drainage at a disadvantage to their neighbours in southwestern Ontario, who have done it on the basis of 75 per cent in the past?

The other matter that was raised by my colleague from eastern Ontario also applies to the north. The administration of this program by the government, which is based on averaging the allocation for tile drainage by municipalities over the last three years to determine what the allocation will be for the next year, hurts northern Ontario municipalities and the farmers in those municipalities.

It basically means that those municipalities where farmers have taken advantage of this program historically, largely in other parts of the province like southwestern Ontario, get the largest allocation. So even though the government says it is interested in seeing agriculture expand in northern Ontario, it bases the allocation on a system that means that if you have not done this very much in the past, you are not going to get as much in the future. Those who have, continue to get; and those who have not, find it very difficult to get.

4:20 p.m.

Again, in northern Ontario we are now faced with a situation where the government is saying: "We want you to expand your production. We are prepared to give you tile drainage loans, but we are going to give you these loans at a subsidized rate of eight per cent" -- paying twice as much as farmers in southwestern Ontario did years ago; that is, interest rates of four per cent and later six per cent. As a matter of fact, just recently it was 10 per cent. Although it has gone down to eight per cent, which is a little better, with the current crisis in farm incomes it is very difficult for farmers to finance even at eight per cent.

I think the time is long past when we, as members of this Legislature who represent northern Ontario, can sit and take the kinds of comments made by members of the cabinet and other members of the governing party. They tell us all the wonderful plans they have for the future of northern Ontario and then do not back them up with the finances necessary to bring about that future.

As my friend from Welland-Thorold pointed out, in terms of net outlay in 1983-84, there is going to be only $11 million allocated for tile drainage across the province, and this is down from the $14 million net that was allocated in 1980-81. If the government is really committed to tile drainage and the expansion of productivity in agriculture, I fail to see how it can justify lowering the net amount of dollars allocated for tile drainage.

In our view, the government should be going in the opposite direction. It should be expanding its allocation of funds for tile drainage. It should be making it easier for municipalities that have not been able to take advantage of this program adequately in the past by expanding the allocation those municipalities are able to make for tile drainage.

There are 2.9 million acres in Ontario that could benefit from tile drainage, and that is outside of areas that have not been farmed in northern Ontario in the past. Over a period of time, these acres could be drained and could greatly expand the productive acreage in Ontario.

In this party we believe the government should be allocating something in the neighbourhood of $25 million for tile drainage over a period of time to ensure we can assist farmers to expand their productive acreage.

As was said in this debate earlier, this is not a grant program; we are talking about a loan program. The costs to the taxpayers as opposed to benefits to the residents of Ontario are very small, because we are talking about a write-down of interest.

The time is long past for rhetoric in this House, whether it be from members of the cabinet who are talking about the future of agriculture in the north or whether it be unanimous votes in favour of resolutions about tile drainage; it is time we had some money put into it. It is time we put money where the government's mouth is and had a real expansion of tile drainage, not only in northern Ontario but also across the rest of province.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this resolution regarding tile drainage.

As does the member for Essex North, I come from the county of Kent, which is one of the main beneficiaries of tile drainage. I think my constituents very much appreciate the benefits of tile drainage, and I think a lot of that has been said. The history of tile drainage has been referred to here today. Although it has been mentioned, I would like to review a little bit of where we have come from in tile drainage in Ontario.

It was back in 1878 that the government passed An Act respecting the Investment in Tile Drainage Debentures. In the debate on that bill, many concerns were raised. There was concern over whether the government should be involved as a lending institution or whether it would be better for farmers to seek their own financing.

As the government was in the enviable position of having a surplus at that time, a few of the members felt that such a program was an extravagance and that anything that would increase the borrowing facilities of farmers would be a definite step in the wrong direction.

Some members at that time felt the program would give rise to unforeseen complications, that farmers would be encouraged to proceed with drainage projects at too fast a rate and that the subsequent cost would become prohibitive. Still others believed the proposed funding allocation of $200,000 would be a drop in the bucket and would not enable enough land to be drained to be of any benefit. I wonder what those members would say if they were here with us today when we are debating the very same program with a budget allocation of $28.1 million.

Three years after the original bill was passed, the benefits of tile drainage were recognized by a report of the Ontario Agricultural Commission. It stated: "At this time of day no argument is required to convince the farmers of Ontario that if they wish to be able to sow early and reap early, if they wish to improve the yield and quality of their grain and lessen the chance of injury by spring frosts and rain -- if, in short, they wish to place the results of their labours as far as possible beyond the weather and ensure a good crop, as far as such things can be assured -- they must make the drainage of their farms an object of first importance."

However, it was some time before the farmers of this province began to make full use of the assistance offered by the government. It was mainly through advertising campaigns run by the Ontario Agricultural College between 1907 and 1909 that farmers became aware of the benefits of tiling and the broad range of assistance that was available.

Many changes and additions to the original legislation have been made since 1878, mostly affecting the interest rates and the municipal borrowing limits. Between 1878 and 1960, loans to farmers totalled slightly more than $11 million. During the 1960s the number of requests for assistance grew rapidly, and the introduction in 1968 of plastic tubing and drainage ploughs enabled the rapid expansion of the industry. The value of loans doubled in 1969 from $2.6 million to $4.3 million.

At that time, further expansion was limited by the capacity of manufacturers and contractors. As a result of oil prices in 1973, the cost of plastic tubing skyrocketed and subsequent loan applications fell. The following year the industry had stabilized and loans began increasing again. By 1976 the amount of money lent under the program exceeded $16 million.

It had become obvious that the demands for drainage loans and the costs of installation were beginning to surpass even the most liberal estimates. It was out of necessity that the budget for tile drainage debentures was limited to the appropriation in the budget as approved by the Legislature.

Indeed, after a century of encouragement, the farmers of Ontario have finally taken to heart the immortal words of the naturalist and tilemaker, Jack Miner, who comes from just south of where the honourable member proposing this lives. I would like to quote from him. He said:

"If your land is too wet, and you are burdened with debt,

"And encumbrance begins to accrue,

"Obey nature's laws by removing the cause,

"Drain your farm or it will drain you.

"Most farmers lament the money they've spent,

"For things only made to beguile.

"But never as yet did a farmer regret the money expended for tile."

The progress that has been made in the installation methods of tiling has been phenomenal. When the drainage program began, as was mentioned earlier, the tile was put in by hand, and the average labourer could put in about three rods a day. One hundred years later the wheel machine could install 3,000 feet of tile a day. Now, with the aid of lasers and a good field to work in, it is possible to lay 30,000 feet of tile a day. Undoubtedly, the vast improvements we have seen in the installation techniques have further encouraged the farmers of Ontario to undertake drainage projects.

4:30 p.m.

There can be no argument made against the benefits or importance of tile drainage. It has been demonstrated many times, over many years, that properly installed tiles can help to significantly improve productivity and enable otherwise poor lands to be cultivated. To date, approximately 3.2 million acres of land in Ontario have been tiled, and the rate of installation is running at about 200,000 acres per year. Since 1976, more than 300,000 acres of new land has been brought into production, mostly as a result of improved tile drainage.

The benefits of tiling are not the issue. The issue is one of money. This resolution put forth by the member for Essex North calls for the immediate allocation of sufficient resources to meet all the needs of Ontario's farmers for tile drainage loans. Approximately 2.8 million acres of land in Ontario has yet to be drained, and every acre will be in need of a tile drainage loan. If we were to adopt this resolution literally and endeavour to meet all the needs for drainage loans, it would incur an immediate expenditure of about $1.05 billion.

I realize this is not the intent of the member who introduced it. What he is looking at is the current demand for tile drainage, up to 75 per cent of the cost. If that is the case, my calculation is that it would require about an additional $18.8 million to a budget of about $46.9 million.

The question we have to ask on this side is, where does the money come from? Should we cancel some of our social or health programs? Should we allow some of our environmental programs to suffer? I realize that is not the problem of the member who has raised this issue, and I certainly would hope we could find some additional moneys for this program.

In the 1982-83 fiscal year, the province established the policy whereby 60 per cent of the total cost was the maximum amount that any township could lend to a farmer. This policy was instituted for two basic reasons. First, townships had not been following the previous standard of 75 per cent, and there was a wide variety of percentages being offered to farmers, ranging from as low as 30 per cent to a maximum of 75 per cent. This was unfair and caused a lot of problems between farmers and townships.

Second, the average loan being issued by the townships had consistently been in the 60 per cent range. Since the institution of this policy, the actual average amount being lent by townships per project has changed very little. By changing the policy, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has been able to meet the provincial demand for loan assistance and over the past two years has been able to increase the number of people supported by 33.5 per cent.

In addition, the program now allows for more uniform support across the province. I agree with the principle of this resolution, that we should endeavour to meet the needs of our farmers for tile drainage loans. I continue to believe it is some of the best money this government or any government can spend. I would like to associate myself with remarks made earlier that it is a good investment for any farmer who needs tile drainage.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, is the time I see on the clock the total time left?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Yes, it is.

Mr. Ruston: I want to thank all the members for their support: the member for Welland-Thorold, the member for Algoma, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) and my seatmate the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).

I want to deal first with the remarks of the member for Chatham-Kent. I realize now what he said about the gross amount of money in total, and naturally he did qualify that by saying one is only going to get so much in each year. That is understandable. If I remember correctly, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in one of its presentations said it figured about $50 million gross would be needed to get the thing going more or less for a couple of years and probably to get caught up to some extent.

We are not talking about a great deal more money in gross terms to make the situation current. It would probably be a gross amount of about $50 million, which would be a net cost to the province of about $15 million. I see the member for Chatham-Kent is nodding that this was the intent.

Mr. Watson: Just to point out that it was current, not all.

Mr. Ruston: Yes. Well, he would know.

In looking back over the cost of installing tile, one of the things that made some people want to get it in under any circumstances this year, if they could, was that during the early summer there was quite a sale price on plastic tile. It was being sold for 16 cents a foot. Right now, I understand it costs 22 cents; that was the last price I heard from people who had it installed.

There are different bases for calculating how close one puts it in. If I understand correctly, less than half of the 200,000 acres a year that are tile drained is new land; the remainder is for maintaining or upgrading the existing tiled land. As many people are aware, when we first started tiling, it was probably installed about four rods apart in some clay soils. Then a few years later, many farmers tiled it in between and made it about two rods; under the old, nonmetric system, that would be about 32 feet. It is interesting that for tomato land, and we are trying to encourage more tomatoes to be grown in southwestern Ontario, some farmers are tiling as close as a rod apart, or about 16 feet.

A neighbour of mine had his soil tested to see what would be the most efficient way of tiling it. Some people were doing it two rods apart and some were doing it three rods apart. As a result of his testing and after running it through the computer, it was found in that type of soil, which is a kind of Brookston clay, about 38 feet was the ideal in terms of the cost of putting it in and its efficiency in relation to the crop.

Of course, you can overtile. It is like putting fertilizer on land or corn or whatever -- the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) is listening very intently, which he does quite often here -- you can overkill with too much fertilizer. You can find that out by putting it on your lawn. Because you put on so many hundred pounds does not necessarily mean you will get results from the crop. You can put on too much. It is the same with overtiling. However, for the particular type of land my neighbour was telling me about, it was found that 38 feet was the most cost-efficient spacing for the results.

I was reading a history book on Kent county. I am sure the member for Chatham-Kent has read it. I see the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) is here; he is very well versed in history and probably will be aware of this. I read a story that goes back many years, when there was some pretty wet land in low parts of Kent county. Now we have dikes there, of course.

A fellow who had 100 acres was getting very discouraged because there was always two or three feet of water on his land. One day someone came along with a 45-gallon barrel of the demon rum. The fellow was so disgusted that he traded the 100 acres for the 45-gallon barrel of the demon rum, put it on his wagon and left that part of the country. He said he could not stay there any longer because of the wet conditions.

Today, that land is probably one of the choicest pieces in Kent county and probably produces some of the biggest crops. So one should never give up on what one is trying to do.

I thought that was rather an oddity. I am not sure whether it is the complete truth, but it was in a book as having happened.

4:40 p.m.

I can understand the argument of the member for Algoma. In northern Ontario, as well as in eastern Ontario, there are vast areas of land that have great potential for producing foodstuffs. They do not have the heat units that we have in southern Ontario, but with the new methods of producing seeds that do not require as many heat units, there is great potential to increase agricultural production in many parts of Ontario if the land is properly drained and then, in turn, to avoid imports and increase our exports of many of the things we should be growing.

I am looking forward to the vote. I am hoping all members will see fit to support the resolution. Somebody says we are not supposed to get political in here and after all this is a political place, but I think on something like this, agriculture being so important to the economy of the province, we should really all get together. I recall reading in the debate that went on a year ago, one of the members from the government side said, "Even if it means supplementary estimates, bring them into the Legislature and let us vote on it." I am sure if there was a vote taken they would be approved. I think this is very important and I hope everyone will support it.

PUBLIC ADVOCATE ACT

Mr. Swart moved second reading of Bill 125, An Act to provide for a Public Advocate in Ontario.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, certainly there is no question that the Tory government of this province has been preoccupied during the last 15 months, at least in its rhetoric, with restraining inflation. In pursuit of this restraint, it has broken binding contracts, limited wages of public servants and destroyed collective bargaining in a heavy-handed manner, yet it has done absolutely nothing about controlling prices.

Bill 179 was, and Bill 111 is, unfair and ineffective policy. It also is really a strange approach, by the government, especially when Jack Biddell, who is now the czar of the wage restraint program, has written an article in which he had condemned the former federal Anti-Inflation Board wage restraint program and said any new policy should be directed towards controlling prices rather than towards controlling wages.

My bill is a partial step to fill the total vacuum on price restraint that now exists in this province. I want to say that there is a real vacuum. There are really only two ways of assuring fair and reasonable prices to consumers: one is by free and full competition and the second is by government intervention where that kind of competition does not exist. There is no other way. Simply put, Ontario has not moved for protection by either method.

Assurance of adequate competition is primarily a federal responsibility, but it has not been done there. A couple of years ago André Ouellet tried to bring in a new competition bill and expressed the need in these words, and I quote from him, June 15, 1981: "Canada has the highest concentration of corporate power of any of the western democracies but the weakest anti-combine legislation."

Then when he spoke to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce in March of that same year he said: "Time is short, since we are currently witnessing a new outbreak in the area of mergers and acquisitions in the country. If this phenomenon should continue for another three or four years at the same pace, the control of the entire Canadian economy could literally be in the hands of six or seven people."

That was a senior member of the federal government who felt we needed stronger competition legislation. Do members know who took the initiative to shoot that down? The Tory government, the Conservative government of this province. That fall there was a conference in Quebec of all consumer and commercial relations ministers. The then minister of this government -- the member for London South (Mr Walker) at that time, if I remember correctly -- went there and presented a 15-page report in which he stated that the Conservative government was totally opposed to the introduction of the kind of legislation which was being proposed to give stronger competition laws.

In the area of monopolies and semi-monopolies -- Bell Canada and natural gas, hydro and insurance -- not only has he refrained from controlling prices directly but he has consistently refused even to ensure that the consumers' side is put at the hearings. This Conservative government's negligence in protecting consumers against unwarranted price increases is deplorable, even if it was not in a time of restraint. He would like us to believe that is the watchword of his government.

Let me give some examples. I have here the annual report of Bell Canada. In no way have Bell's customers been given a fair deal. Rates have continued to rise unnecessarily over the last two or three years. In its annual report, it is pointed out that the total operating revenues -- and this is just from its telephones, not from its other enterprises -- amounted last year to $4,570,000,000. Half of that comes from Ontario. Its operating expenses amounted to $3,388,000,000.

This means they have net revenues, or profits before taxes, of $1,181,000,000. Although a substantial proportion of that is taken up in taxes, their net income during these last two years when the minister has been talking about and fighting for restraint has been: in 1980, $235 million, in 1981, $524 million and in 1982, $569 million.

It should also be pointed out that they paid substantial taxes -- I am sure the people on the other side like to point that out -- but what this means is that people in Ontario for their telephone rates paid about $250 million to the federal government that people in other provinces such as Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba did not pay because the telephones there are publicly owned. Incidentally, the rates are about 25 per cent lower than they are in this province and in Quebec where Bell operates the telephones.

There is obviously no competition there and very little control on the prices. The inadequacy of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is obvious, just from these profit figures if from nothing else. This government, if it intervenes at all, intervenes only in a half-hearted way on behalf of the consumers of this province. I suggest that the consumers in this province paid about $200 million too much in their telephone rates last year and this year.

That shows up in other ways in Bell's situation too. I have here, November 30, just eight days ago, a quote from the Globe and Mail:

"BCE Rings Up 75-cent Gain. Posts Strong 16-month Rise.

"With a final spurt to $33.37 yesterday, shares of Bell Canada Enterprises Inc. of Montreal have doubled in only 16 months, the strongest price rise for Canada's most widely held issue in at least 20 years.

"Some analysts believe BCE stands to profit handsomely from the AT and T breakup, while BCE's operating companies in Canada remain sheltered from the competition facing former Bell System companies in the United States."

It is because they were forced to break up there and to accept competition, which has not been the case here to date.

We see in this morning's business section of the Globe and Mail where Bell Canada is now trying to take over TransCanada PipeLines Ltd.

I guess they know that if they really want to make money they should get into the noncompetitive field and into monopolies because there is not a government in this province or a government at Ottawa that is going to interfere to protect the consumers and see that their income is kept to a reasonable level.

4:50 p.m.

Why does it happen? It happens primarily because there is a terrible imbalance at the hearings. Bell Canada admits that it spent about $2 million in 1982 at the hearing to promote the increase it had at that time, They got most of it. They got something like $440 million out of the $550 million they asked for. They spent their $2 million and had all the experts there, Who was on the other side to put the case of the consumers? All the consumers' associations of Canada were there. They spent about $125,000.

I would suggest they did a good job with the resources they had. However, how is any judge and jury going to sit there and make a fair decision when on the one side are all the experts promoting the increase and nobody on the other side defending the consumers adequately?

The same thing is true of natural gas. A decision was made recently -- in fact, just the first of last month -- that this year there is going to be no increase in the rates of Consumers' Gas Co. They quoted me extensively because nobody else was there, except the Consumers Fight Back group from Port Colborne. We went there in opposition to it. I drafted a brief and presented it there. In its 125-page decision, the Ontario Energy Board quotes extensively from me for the reasons Consumers' Gas should get no increase this year.

I suppose I should feel happy about that. However, I want to tell the House I do not, because they got their cheques up front just before the Inflation Restraint Act came in. Yes, they got their $77-million increase in 1981 and another $28 million in 1982. Therefore, they did not need anything this year; their profits are going to be far more than ample.

In fact, I am unhappy with the decision. There should have been a reduction in rates this year. Does the House know that this report points out that the rates were set last year to give them a 16 25 per cent return on equity? That is fully adequate, it would seem to me.

This year, the existing rates are enough to give them -- guess how much? -- 15.3 per cent return on equity. When many industries and many investors today are lucky to be getting five per cent, 10 per cent or 12 per cent return on equity, the Ontario Energy Board makes a decision to give Consumers' Gas 15.3 per cent return on equity. Not bad, is it? Pretty good at these times. Not a fair decision at all, as far as consumers are concerned.

Once again, this unfair decision was made because there was not adequate representation there for the consumers of this province. Let me point out that in this document here it says, "There were 19 lawyers and witnesses for the company, all high-powered, many of them there during the whole hearing."

On the other side, opposing this, were the industrial gas users, who had a lawyer there for two days; Cyanimid Canada Inc., who wanted special consideration; the apartment owners, Consumers Fight Back and the New Democratic Party of Ontario. This is all there was on the other side. A horrible imbalance, and the people of this province are paying a substantial price for it in their gas rates because they were not adequately represented at those hearings.

This coming year, hydro is going up by 7.8 per cent. Last year it went up by 8.4 per cent. Even though the Ontario Energy Board recommended it should be less, it still went up by that amount.

This year again our insurance rates -- it does not matter whether it is automobile insurance or insurance on our homes -- have had substantial increases. There is a new gimmick. The insurance companies now want to insure our homes for 125 per cent of replacement value. Therefore, they have to get certain scrips made the same way they were made 50 years ago. They can do it. They want to insure houses for 125 per cent of value, and those rates have gone up.

We do not even have an insurance rating board in this province. Do members know what the profits of the insurance companies are? In 1980 the profits of the insurance companies in Canada were $210 million. They dropped in 1981 to $160 million, and went hack up in 1982 to $450 million.

Does the minister know what they are in the first two months of this year? They are more than they were in the total year last year. The profits of the insurance companies are $490 million in the first two months. The are going to have the highest profits this year that they have had in their history. Yet we do not have a government that will intervene in any way to set a rating board in an ad hoc manner to protect the consumer against those rates. We do not even have any unions.

In Conservative Alberta they do have a board; they have to prove rates. They have three people on their board. The director out there told me they have saved something like $100 million for the people of Alberta since they set up that board.

The minister's inadequacies are pitiful, even if it were not in a time of restraint. My bill is one step in correcting this situation. It would establish in essence a consumer ombudsman to represent the public interest in the setting of rates. Also, he would be involved in environmental matters which have a broad general interest. He would be appointed like the Ombudsman we have now and would be accountable to the Legislature, not the government, so that he is independent.

My bill is not radical or even innovative, but it would be an effective one. Twenty-eight states in the United States have some form of public advocate, a government agency to represent consumers in utility rate hearings, and in most, resources are provided equal to the resources of the applicants who are seeking the increase.

New Jersey's was the first and most comprehensive of the public advocates and it still is the best. It is sort of a public ombudsman for all purposes: discrimination; mental health; class action; advocacy for inmates of all institutions, including jails; and a public defender in a multitude of ways. Some of these public advocates even act against overbuilding of hydro and construction of nuclear plants, and they are composed in a very fair way.

Let me quote from a report. "Ohio's consumer council was created by the Senate in 1976. The nine-member consumers' council governing board includes representatives of labour, residential consumers, family farmers. It is also stipulated that no more than five members belong to the same political party in that 13-member board." It cannot be dominated by one political party.

Connecticut's consumer council has also been involved in the area of nuclear power. According to a 1977 annual report, the postponement of two nuclear construction projects, Montague I and 2, was due in part to the consumer council intervention. That is what we talked about, giving consumers some very real protection; that is central. Central to all of these public advocates is their representation at all rate hearings, including insurance rates, on behalf of the consumer.

New Jersey's public advocate and public defender legislation should really be compulsory reading for every member of government and so should its annual report. I have one here, the latest, for 1982. Just let me read a little bit from it, Mr. Speaker.

"The division which represents the interests of New Jersey citizens in utility and insurance matters during 1982 focused on efforts aimed at preventing regulated industries from getting more from the consumers than they could fully justify. Cumulative consumer savings from division involvements in utility and insurance cases surpassed $1.25 billion, Aggregate savings to New Jersey ratepayers resulting from more than eight years of operation now exceed $4 billion.

"New Jersey's gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, solid waste, bus and cable television utilities during 1982 sought a record $1.4 billion in rate increases. Due at least in part to vigorous division efforts, they received awards totalling only 47 per cent of the requested increases."

5 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, do not let anybody on that side try to tell me they asked for a lot and that is why they got only 47 per cent, because it is all documented in here and that was not the case.

This is done at no cost to the taxpayer because any applicant for an increase in rates must pay in to the public advocacy agency sufficient funds so it can fight the ease adequately on equal terms against the applicant.

Some people say: "That will drive the price up. That has to be added to the gas rates or the telephone rates." True, but the public in this province now pays the $2 million that Bell Canada used to promote its increases. Darcy McKeough said it was $1 million, or whatever it was, for Union Gas Limited; Consumers' Gas System must have been more. They paid those. Why should the public not have the right to have the same kind of money available to defend the consumers at the rate hearings?

Tory members will rise and say, "We have had someone at the Bell Canada hearings, and the Ontario Energy Board has to assure that natural gas rates are reasonable, et cetera, so we do not need this public advocate." I say to the members, anybody who looks at the documentation knows there is no organized fight put up against these increases in rates. Because we have nothing comparable here to the public advocates in the United States., Ontario residents have paid and are paying hundreds of millions of dollars too much in their gas, telephone, hydro and insurance rates.

It is time this province took the very minimal step I recommend in this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Durham East.

[Applause]

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, might I say -- a little applause too; I am waiting for the gallery applause to take effect; it is coming. Listen to the honourable member who is acting as Topol. Who was the famous guy in Fiddler on the Roof? The member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) is back. Is that all over now? The member forgot to take off the beard.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Tevye.

Mr. Cureatz: Tevye. I thank the Minister of Energy. I could waste all my time with interjections and not get to the bill.

I do want to say to the present acting Speaker, and I did not have the opportunity the last time around, that in my past reincarnation as Deputy Speaker, although the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe) did not always agree with me, might I say he always agreed with you, and you and I always agreed with each other. It was always a pleasure and a privilege to work along with you. I do wish you the best in the future in holding the position as Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member.

Mr. Cureatz: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak during private members' hour. Last week, as we all recall, we were sidetracked with an emergency debate and it was well warranted. On the other hand, it has often been said by many members that it is discouraging when, from time to time, the few moments that we do have in these chambers are taken away from us, because it inevitably means those members who are on the list will be bumped off and not have the opportunity. I feel a little discouraged sometimes. I put my name on the list again. I do not know what the lottery will bring out. If I am 112 --

Mr. Swart: Number one for me.

Mr. Cureatz: One for you. That is fantastic. I do not know where I am yet. I will find out. That is what the people in my riding often say, they do not know where I am, However, they will know where I am tomorrow morning when I am in front of the General Motors gates handing out matches. However. that is another point.

I want to congratulate the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) on this proposal. I want to tell him, on a personal basis, that I have always found his ideas innovative and interesting. I can think --

Mr. Mancini: Don't get carried away, Sam.

Mr. Cureatz: It is true. To the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) I can think of past reincarnations of toilet paper into the House, then cereal boxes, and then -- who remembers the famous chicken? Does anyone remember the chicken? That was a great one when he brought in the chicken which he had bought in Buffalo. I was listening with great interest; and when I saw Bill 125, I was thinking in terms of what took place in the last private members' hour.

If the members recall, we had the discussion on making Ontario a nuclear-free zone. Shortly after, we had the discussion on whether the blue jay should be Ontario's official bird. I was wondering if the member would take up something of the same nature perhaps, thinking in terms of an official fish. I heard the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) is already talking about an official fish. He is going to make it the pickerel or something.

I was talking to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) and I said to him, "I was thinking of the tadpole as the official fish." But he said; "No, tadpoles do not count. They are not a fish." Then he said to me, "If I was a guy, I would pick the sperm whale." I had to point out to him the sperm whale is not a fish either, so the jury is still out on what the fish is going to be.

I am going to beat everyone to the punch. One of my private member's thoughts is to select a crawly thing. I thought that would be sort of good. What that will be, I have not quite determined. It might be the earth worm. It might be the flea. I am going to work on that and I guess I have until 1984, the infamous year, to determine what the crawly thing is going to be.

What about determining Bill 125? I listened with great interest and for a moment I was wondering if the proposer of the bill was actually going to speak to it because I looked at the explanatory note and it says, "to represent the public interest in Ontario at rate hearings before tribunals and commissions." The second point is, "to intervene in hearings at which environmental matters are considered where, in the opinion of the public advocate, a broad general interest may be affected."

I noted with great interest that for almost the first 10 minutes the honourable member concentrated solely on the corporations, be it Bell or the gas institutions, and the large increases they got. I thought he would eventually get to the point of why we need the advocate.

I want to tell him that as I indicated earlier, in my former incarnation I listened with great interest all the time. He and I always got along when I was in the chair. He was always most polite and I am going to be most polite to him. I like his idea. I do not like the way he wants to propose it in terms of a so-called advocate, an Ombudsman who is floating around the community.

I think there is an alternative way of doing it and one way would be some kind of funding for groups. I remember being chairman of the general government committee. We were doing the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and he was in there complaining about what was happening to the Niagara Escarpment, with zoning problems and people opposed to the zoning problems. At that time he got my thought process going on the possibility of making some funds available to those groups that are opposed to that zoning of the Niagara Escarpment.

It came to my attention on a personal basis that I was running across similar problems in the environmental area. In my constituency, in the town of Newcastle, there is a landfill site with which we are having two problems. The first is there is a great debate about whether it should be closed and whether it is filled to capacity. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) has gone to court. The judge has ruled the site is not yet filled to capacity. That decision is going to be appealed. The other problem is the possible extension of that dump site.

We have some concerned people in that locale of the landfill site and they have called themselves --

[Failure of sound system]

Mr. Swart: You never did that while you were in the chair.

Mr. Cureatz: But the clock is still running. That is what worries me. I have a great story to tell.

Mr. Elston: They are still after you. They will not let you speak.

Mr. Cureatz: No. The Clarke constituents approached me and we have a big job on our hands. Of course, like all interest groups, they think right away the member of parliament -- as I know all my colleagues have found out from time to time -- waves a magic wand and solves all these problems, but as we all know, one does not solve all these problems.

What has to be done? It is an educational process and we have to inform the Clarke constituents of the manner in which the various problems have to be approached and what problems have to be approached such as going to the local council on the possible rezoning of the landfill site, going to the regional council, coming to me, going to court, and going to the Environmental Assessment Board hearing on the possible expansion of the landfill site. They do not have the expertise nor do they have the funds for it.

In their own little way they have been trying to raise some money at bake sales, dances and other small things, but as we all know, the kind of money needed to take on that kind of job is astronomical. It seems to me we should be thinking in terms of having some funds available for groups so they can promote their own problems in their own direction.

I do not like the advocate situation because it seems to me he is in control of the direction of the situation at hand. I think if the funds are given to a particular group, that group is in control. The small executive that is selected by the membership determines crucial issues, such as whether the lawyer should continue on a case, and whether he should put more pressure on the provincial member, more pressure on the Environmental Assessment Board and more pressure on the ministry.

5:10 p.m.

I do have a fear that a floating public advocate. and I have some familiarity with the courts -- I know the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) will support me on this; goodness knows they are bogged down enough -- I have a fear that a public advocate who is merely a civil servant with a regular income can do all that is necessary to block any kind of reasonable compromise solely on the basis of delay. I do not think any of us want to see any kind of delay in society. It is bad enough to grope through the various hoops of regulations, laws and criteria to get anything done without a public advocate dragging his feet.

Mr. Haggerty: Like the Ombudsman.

Mr. Cureatz: No comment there. That has already been looked after earlier this week.

I still think the problem of how we determine the amount of money a group gets, or for that matter what group gets the money, will have to be worked out yet. I do not know whether we should select a particular board, whether it is a nonpartisan board or a board made up of members of the Legislative Assembly, or a particular ministry, such as the Ministry of the Environment.

Notwithstanding that problem -- I look at that as a detail -- I think the overall issue is that we should be looking at some kind of funding. I think the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) actually met some of my Clarke constituents almost a year ago today. As he indicated, it is a learning experience. I think he was able to get some funding for the people in the Niagara River area in terms of the court case and the Hooker dump problem. I do not see why that kind of an approach cannot be extended into the aspects Bill 125 has addressed.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I have found this very important issue needs a lot of discussion. There have been some very thoughtful remarks to this point. I want to associate myself particularly with some of the concerns the member who has just spoken raised with respect to the funding issue. That ties in very nicely with the whole question of whether we will have a public advocate, and exactly what that means for the citizens' groups who have become involved in local issues or in appearing in front of some of the boards that may be convened to deal with issues that affect any one of our constituent groups with respect to large undertakings by individuals in the province.

The question of funding has been addressed a couple of times. In my short stay here, one of those times was when we were dealing with the Consolidated Hearings Act, that new piece of legislation which was first used in the great city of Stratford. The member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) will remember the hearings that were held on the hydro corridor. One of the very difficult questions that had to be dealt with was exactly how much funding was available for the people who did appear and talk to the board about the efficacy of having that hydro corridor come down the southern route towards London, Ontario, or having it go in some other direction, as was ultimately decided.

What happened was several groups of people appeared, but not all of them were funded in their efforts, because a determination was made that some groups might not add as much to the proceedings as some other groups. We had argued earlier that all the groups who come in front of the board to present a case on behalf of the public really ought to be able to apply and know they are going to have funding so that they can amass the type of information required to appear in front of one of these very specialized boards.

So the funding question, I think, is one we really do have to address again. I was very pleased to hear the statements made by the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz). I think it is something we should decide we will look into in a very thorough way some months hence. I look forward to having the assistance of the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), who was present in the select committee on the administration of justice as chairman when we were discussing the issue of funding for those public groups.

In terms of public advocacy, the question is not so much that of trying to find someone to speak out on behalf of the public interest, because the public is generally, and particularly these days, finding ways of doing that. It is how we allow those people to speak out with any sort of authority when they are not able to get hold of the information that is really needed for them to make an effective presentation. In that regard, there have to be some steps taken immediately to dig up the freedom of information legislation which has been buried in a number of studies. Every time it starts to rise, it is pushed to the bottom of the pile again.

The key in all these deliberations is information. Who has the timely disclosure? Who is able to get at the very base of the arguments and the programs? If we have the proper legislation, there will not be too much of a problem.

One of our biggest difficulties in public advocacy is getting access to information. I still believe that is the major problem. In that sense, even if we have the public advocate, we still have to find a way of getting him that very timely disclosure of information. The means of getting at that is still in the hands of those fine ministers who have been in charge of that piece of legislation for some time.

I want to bring up a couple of other points that need to be looked at. I do not think we as a province can afford to continue in areas where the government has failed to take the initiative to provide the means whereby the modern society can defend itself against incursions into its pocketbooks or other places. We cannot afford to set another bureaucracy in motion and continue to pay for that.

On top of everything else, we have a number of bureaucracies which to this point have not functioned in the manner in which we thought they could. For instance, the initial proceedings before the hearing panel under the Consolidated Hearings Act have not turned out at all in the manner in which a number of us who were present during discussion of the bill felt they would. We thought the panel would he more efficient, give better notice. We thought it was going to be able to fund a number of those public groups which came in front of it to put the public case.

From the first hearing which was held in Stratford, the same problems existed. The public felt it was not heard. People did not think they had the notice, and all those old difficulties came back to haunt us, including the funding, as I mentioned earlier.

We have another example in the question of whether or not the Ombudsman's office has been effective. We could go into some long debate over the measures which might be used to fix up those deficiencies or alleged deficiencies. It is hoped the proposed appointment of the new Ombudsman will provide some renewal for that bureaucracy.

5:20 p.m.

We have a number of bodies which we have established but which have not been able to carry out the mandate we have given them. We are going ahead to try to set up a new one. We are going to try to set up a public advocate. I am not sure, in the cases we have before us, that the advocacy part of it is the difficulty. I can suggest to the members that the Canadian Environmental Law Association, for instance, provides some very good assistance in that area. The key is funding, raising the money. I agree with that. In that sense, I have to agree with the member for Durham East and his material.

I can think as well of a couple of other places where we have to do a lot of work before we get into employing a new, almost-government employee. Although he is being funded, I understand he is supposed to keep his distance, but it is going to he very difficult in determining then whether he --

Mr. Swart: He has the same independence as Ontario's Ombudsman.

Mr. Elston: There will be eventually, one way or another, through orders and for costs or whatever. He will end up getting public money in one way or another; I am almost certain of it. But I will not debate that part of it.

The problem is, how many people are we going to have? How many advocates will be required? Is he going to be available to every person who wants to initiate a hearing about his local landfill site?

Mr. Swart: If you read the bill, it is not empowered there.

Mr. Elston: I understand that. But there is not the definition that is required to allow us to understand where they are heading with this. If the point is being made that none of the people appearing before the public hearings that are already being held is doing a sufficient job, then I think we had better allege that.

Mr. Swart: He cannot hire experts. Bell Canada has experts from all over the world.

Mr. Elston: The member for Welland-Thorold is talking to a couple of points that he probably did not think of earlier, one being how we get the expert assistance. The member for Durham East and I have talked about that in respect of the funding, because that is the critical issue in addition to getting timely information from the various government bodies.

Those are my concerns about this bill. I do not think we have learned yet how to handle the bureaucracies we have in place at this point. I still think the question of advocacy is not going to be aided by appointing some person to become a public advocate to defend the public interest. I think that will cause some public bodies, perhaps, to be excluded when it comes time to award costs under the Consolidated Hearings Act, for instance. In some ways it may deter the local people from having any enthusiasm or taking any initiative when dealing with these sorts of issues, because they will feel the public advocate will be working on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your allowing me to go on for a few seconds. I thank you for your indulgence.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, in rising in support of Bill 125, I would like to start my remarks by addressing myself to the comments made by the previous speaker. If we can sort out some of the questions he has raised, perhaps we can get back to dealing effectively with the important questions that were raised by the member for Durham East.

The member for Huron-Bruce raised a number of legitimate questions, although I have to say the critical issue does not become a philosophical discussion of whether we should be getting into more bureaucracy at this time. The critical issue is the reality of experience.

Mr. Elston: Cutting through the bureaucracy that is there.

Mr. Charlton: Exactly. If members have listened to the comments of my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold, they will know we have 28 examples of a public advocate's office at the state level in the United States, and in every case it is a successful operation, although there is certainly a variation from the worst to the best.

I will use some examples from specific operations of a public advocate's office, but there is no case that one can point to where the operation of a public advocate's office has cost anybody more than that office has saved for the taxpayers of the state; there is no case one can point to where that reality is true. In fact, the opposite is true. In every case the cost of operating the office and the bureaucracy, so to speak, has been far less than the money that has been saved through that office by the public advocate for the taxpayers in the particular jurisdiction.

In terms of questions that have been raised here about public advocacy, both from a consumer perspective and from other perspectives, the most heralded consumer advocate on this continent, Ralph Nader, is one powerful supporter of exactly the piece of legislation which my colleague has brought forth here this afternoon.

I want to deal quickly with a number of the issues that have been raised. The member for Huron-Bruce mentioned the need to get on with the job of freedom of information. I want to suggest that in the case of New Jersey, the public advocate's office there took on the issue of the worker and community-right-to-know act in that state and fought that issue far more effectively than any politician had been able to do. because the public advocate's office had the time and the staff to sit down and document the need for the legislation.

Mr. Elston: Which proponent funded that intervention? That is not an intervention in front of a board,

Mr. Charlton: The proponents were the workers in the communities who were interested in it. They have trade unions in the United States the same as we have here.

Mr. Elston: So the public advocate would become a de facto member of this Legislative Assembly as well?

Mr. Charlton: No. The public advocate was an advocate on behalf of the unions who were interested in this legislation.

Mr. Elston: He became a lobbyist.

Mr. Charlton: No. He became an advocate for a piece of right-to-know legislation.

Mr. Elston: That is a lobbyist, effectively, because he has to be on the floor of the Legislature.

Mr. Charlton: An advocate is a lobbyist for a position in any event -- in every event. That is true of every advocate I have ever seen, heard or listened to. That is no different from a lawyer being an advocate on behalf of a client, is it? My friend is a lawyer and he should know that.

The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the chat between the members is --

Mr. Charlton: Let us not get into arguing side issues here.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please address the chair.

Mr. Charlton: What I am trying to point is that the public advocate accomplished something for the people of New Jersey which we have been talking about here for 20 years with no results. That is the reality, and that is the point that has to be understood.

We have also been talking about resource recovery in this province for some 20 years. The public advocate, again in the state of New Jersey, took on the question of resource recovery as it related to waste management and disposal and made more progress in one set of hearings than we have made in this province in 20 years of trying to govern. That is a reality we have to look at in terms of what we want.

We have been up in this House discussing the question of Ontario Hydro in terms of its overcapacity and its overspending as a result of that overcapacity. Again in the state of New Jersey, the public advocate took on the utilities, in terms of both the nuclear programs and their overbuilding, questioned the need publicly and forced the electric utilities in the state to do what we have not been able to accomplish here, which was to stop the stupid overspending.

The member for Durham East raised the question of whether we needed a public advocate for local dump issues. Of course we do not. That is very clearly not what the bill says. The bill talks about the public advocate taking on tasks of provincial importance that will affect the whole province.

Again in New Jersey, as part of its role in terms of waste disposal, the public advocate's office used funds provided by waste disposers to prepare a manual for use by local community groups so they could fight their little local battles around the expansion of dump sites. That is exactly the way the process is intended to work.

5:30 p.m.

If we are having hearings in this province before a consolidated hearings board on what kind of guidelines we will use for future dump sites across the province, then the public advocate should take on that hearing. However, if the residents in Durham East are concerned about the expansion of the local dump site, then the local group is the group of interest and of record and it should be the one at that hearing. In the case of New Jersey, the public advocate played a very important role for local groups in terms of developing their abilities to attend and contribute usefully to those hearings.

The question of funding is an important one for the local group; there is no question about that. We are not suggesting in this bill that we should forget the arguments that have been made about funding for interveners in these local hearings. That issue still has to be dealt with. There is no question that it is a very important issue. I think we have to come to terms with that. This bill is not intended to replace that in any way, shape or form. This bill is intended to provide a role at the provincial level which is not now being provided.

As my colleague suggested, we have seen the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Pollution Probe and any number of other groups taking on individual case sites. CELA has been involved in both the Stouffville site and the Pauzé site, while Pollution Probe has been largely involved in the process around the Niagara River. There has also been the Pollution Probe case across the border where some government funding was involved.

When it came to some of the province-wide hearings which were more global in nature, there was no interested local party to take on one of those organizations as a representative. There was no representation from a public interest group such as those at the Consumers Gas hearings, the Union Gas hearings, the Ontario Hydro hearings and the Bell hearings. The reason for that was that those groups (a) were not interested, (b) did not have the expertise and (c) had nobody to fund them. That comes back to the funding question and the case of an Ontario-wide hearing. In that instance at least, the public advocate's office can solve that funding question.

Mr. Elston: Who takes priority when the public advocate and a minister of the crown appear at a hearing? The public interest represented by the advocate or the public interest represented by the minister?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton Mountain has the floor.

Mr. Charlton: Obviously the public interest is being served by the person or agency that is consulting the public. If the minister of the crown has neglected to consult the public then he certainly cannot be representing the public interest, as he well knows. That is what I think the reference to the public interest is. It is the group that is prepared to take on and represent the public interest after having consulted to find out what that public interest is.

I urge all members to think carefully and to support this bill this afternoon.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to have an opportunity to enter this debate. It is one that has an interesting proposal. As my friend the member for Durham East said, they are often advanced by the member for Welland-Thorold. I am modestly disappointed that he did not have something to pull out from his under his desk on this occasion. I know from his flair for making his point that such an opportunity will be afforded to us once again.

At the outset, I want to say to the honourable member that while I was certainly impressed by the comments he was making about the advocacy role in Ontario, I had hoped he would have expanded a little bit more on some of the points that are actually contained in the Bill 125 and about which I have some measure of concern.

It is my view that the regulatory system of this province does generally operate in the public interest. I think in its operation it does have regard, which is at most times adequate, for the consideration of the public in the various aspects and infrastructure of the regulatory system.

I am also concerned about exactly what the public interest is. What constitutes the public interest? It is my assertion that in terms of this House,we are at this time discharging, deciding, describing and defining exactly what the public interest is. It is one thing to delegate authority perhaps to the bureaucracy to have them give substance or form or simply to deliver what this House decides is the public interest. It is another matter altogether to delegate that power to a non-elected and non-appointed, on-line official, to leave it to one individual to determine exactly what constitutes the public interest.

Beyond these considerations, I do have a number of specific concerns about Bill 125. The first relates to the definition of the mandate of the public advocate in the bill. I say to my friend the member for Essex South that subsection 9(1) empowers the public advocate -- and I want to get this correct -- "to represent the public interest in hearings before and appeals from any tribunal or commission empowered to set or review a rate, toll, fare or charge for a product or service provided to the public."

I submit that this is a very wide range of powers. It is essentially left to the discretion of the public advocate to determine where he will intervene. It is a very ultimate discretion, all in all, not only for him to know what the public interest is --

Mr. Swart: Which section are you talking about?

Mr. Robinson: Subsection 9(1). Where there may be two or more interests appearing before one hearing, it then becomes his very difficult task to try to determine in terms of the public interest which one of those specific interests he will represent and to which he will dedicate the resources of his office.

Mr. Swart: You are not reading subsection 9(1) in Bill 125.

Mr. Robinson: I will check it in a minute.

In making these decisions, however, he will be guided by his assessment of the importance or the extent of the public interest involved and by his assessment of whether that interest would be adequately represented without his intervention.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker. on a point of order: Subsection 9(1) of my bill reads: "The function of the public advocate is to represent the public interest in hearings before and appeals from any tribunal or commission empowered to set or review a rate, toll, fare or charge for a product or service provided to the public." That was not --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Thank you. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that is exactly what I read.

Mr. Swart: Obviously.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take the limited time available to me to read through it again. However, I am certain that is exactly the section I read and that was the point I was making.

Back to the matter of public interest: I am trying to determine where public interest lies and who can make those judgements. I was making the point that, whatever the good judgement and whatever the integrity of any one individual, it would place a particularly onerous stress on that position to place the public trust upon a non-elected official, to have him make those judgements one way or the other and to abrogate our responsibility as a Legislature, and probably more specifically as a government, to make decisions for which we are ultimately and electorally accountable to the public.

One also has to wonder what sort of incentive or disincentive having a public advocate in place would be. For instance, a group might choose to mobilize itself, raise resources, establish a position and arrive at a hearing to find the public advocate was opposed to it. Would that be a fair use and a fair representation of a public advocate? Conversely, if a group was aware that the public advocate was on its side, would it have less incentive? Would its members be less induced to motivate themselves, believing they had this extra measure of quasi-public support to help them with their case? I do not think either of these situations encourages participation in the democratic and open process as we know it.

It also requires the public advocate to make decisions between conflicting interests in a case. It is quite possible those decisions could be the cause of great controversy that no doubt would take up considerable time back here in this House as we attempted to debate the wisdom of the advocate's choices and tried to establish which one of them might have been correct.

The member for Welland-Thorold was discussing the state of New Jersey and its advocacy legislation, with which I am not familiar. I am sorry he does not have time available to respond, but I wondered specifically, first of all, how the public utilities in the state of New Jersey were owned. I also wondered specifically how they were regulated, so I would have some basis of comparison between Ontario and New Jersey.

More specifically than either of those points, I wondered, even though they have a public advocacy program, whether they have an Ombudsman. I do not know. I think it would be helpful in making the argument for advocacy if we could have had the benefit of those facts.

5:40 p.m.

The way this section is set out -- and I am not going to get back into that conflict with the honourable member over what section it may or may not be --

Mr. Mancini: You were right, Alan, you were right.

Mr. Robinson: I am most prepared to accept the judgement from my friends across the way. It seems there is an opportunity here for the public advocate to involve himself not only in those very worthwhile procedures outlined by the member for Welland-Thorold but also to involve himself in such things as rent review hearings before the Residential Tenancy Commission or to make representations to any of the 42 marketing boards in Ontario.

Perhaps he has the power to intervene in such things as zoning bylaw hearings and official plan hearings at the Ontario Municipal Board, hearings of necessity under the Expropriations Act or aspects of the assessment hearings, as my friend from the Bruce Peninsula mentioned.

When it comes down to the matter of where the greater expense is in all of these things and who is to hear it, one has to take into account that we do not necessarily want to build in another layer of bureaucracy. That extra layer of bureaucracy or advocacy or whatever might unnecessarily continue to slow down a process which the parties opposite, as are we on the government side, are most anxious to continue to streamline and to make more expedient as time goes by.

I must also question the other provisions of the bill dealing with the assessment against corporations. My friend made the point and we would make the point over here, and I think rightly so, that the assessment in a corporate way would also ultimately be charged against the taxpayers and against the users of the particular service or utility. That is something to which he might want to give further consideration.

If one can make the argument that the public advocate is in fact a civil servant or a public servant, then is not his advocacy truly on behalf of the public as a whole? And will not the public as a whole benefit from his intervention, whatever side of the issue he happens to take?

With that in mind, I would have thought perhaps the whole cost of the operation should have been charged against the public purse. We should not try to isolate specific examples and particular cases, to hold them out and to charge one party or one side of the argument if the advocate chooses in a very subjective and onerous process to involve himself in particular cases or hearings.

The bill does not address the setting up of an administrative structure through which either the public advocate would secure funding or estimates or a budget or through which he might disperse those funds. If he collects a certain percentage from corporate people, from corporate entities dealing in hearings, would all that money then be lumped somewhere? If it were sent, for instance, to the consolidated revenue fund there is no ability and no process in place to dispense it.

As I say, I would have been happy if the member for Welland-Thorold, who advances an interesting idea, had taken a few moments to expand on some of those seemingly more vague aspects of the bill.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate concerning the private member's bill introduced by the member for Welland-Thorold. I had grave reservations about this bill before the debate started. Now, unfortunately, I am at a point where I cannot support the bill.

I went through the bill very carefully and there were a lot of areas which were either unclear or in my view unmanageable. They certainly would not work out in the public's interest. I would like to take a couple of moments to point out those specific areas to the members of the House, particularly section 7 of the bill where a blank cheque would be given to the public advocate.

Section 7 says we are going to give a blank cheque to the public advocate so that he may employ such officers and other employees as he considers necessary. With the wide description that has been given to us by the members of the New Democratic Party as to how this office would work, the public advocate would have to hire hundreds and hundreds of officers. I guess they would be running around the province trying to find make-work projects for themselves. This, in my view, would be a civil servant's dream and a people's nightmare.

I would also like to point out to the members of the House subsection 9(1). There has been some discrepancy in how subsection 9(1) should read but it certainly reads that the public advocate is to represent "the public interest in hearings before and appeals from any tribunal or commission." I am told we have several hundred commissions, agencies and hoards in Ontario.

Mr. Swart: Read the rest of the sentence, dummy.

Mr. Mancini: Excuse me?

Mr. Swart: Read the rest of the sentence.

Mr. Mancini: " ... empowered to set or review a rate, toll, fare or charge for a product or service provided to the public." As I said earlier, I am informed there are several hundred agencies, boards and commissions in Ontario. There are several hundred of these boards.

Mr. Swart: Not to set rates.

Mr. Mancini: I realize that. It would be a job in itself for the public advocate to decide which agencies, boards and commissions actually do set these rates. Other considerations would have to be reviewed by the public advocate before he put himself in a position of intervention.

What role is this intervention going to take? Is it going to take the role of a group of ratepayers against a municipal council or regional council, or a group of ratepayers against the provincial government? We are not sure about that, are we, I ask the member for Welland-Thorold?

In subsection 9(4), it states, "If the public advocate determines that there are inconsistent public interests involved in a particular matter, the public advocate may choose to represent one such interest based on the foregoing considerations." That was outlined in the bill. We may have a public advocate who would not necessarily in all cases be representing a group of beleaguered ratepayers who wished to press a matter before their municipal, federal or provincial governments.

That in itself makes the bill so unclear as not to deserve the support of the members of the assembly. As my colleagues have already pointed out, we have to beef up the system of how we finance self-interest groups at the present time, for example, Pollution Probe, Energy Probe and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. It is groups like these that are working on behalf of local groups who can best serve the public interest.

I wonder why we do not use our energies and what funds we can use to help beef up those groups. I can see it now. I can see the public advocate now as he moves into his new headquarters on Bay Street, somewhere on the seventh floor of a plush apartment complex or office building. One has to get through three secretaries and six executive assistants to see the public advocate. He was just chauffeured out to lunch to meet a very important person and, when he and his chauffeur return, they will be able to meet the Portuguese washerwomen who want him to intervene on some unfortunate situation that has taken place.

The last thing we need is another huge bureaucracy that pretends to be functioning for the individual groups in our community that are unable to obtain resources to make their point sufficiently heard in front of municipal and provincial governments. The last thing we need is another huge bureaucratic complex.

5:50 p.m.

Just as my time is running out here, I want to take a moment to wish the new Ombudsman well, because he has a tremendous job ahead of him. He has a really big job. I am not exactly sure if he knows just how big it is, because the huge bureaucratic complex that has been built up around his office certainly could use some work.

TILE DRAINAGE

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Ruston has moved resolution 29.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC ADVOCATE ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 125:

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bernier, Cureatz, Dean, Eaton, Eves, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kerr, Lane, McLean, Piché, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Yakabuski -- 35.

The House recessed at 5:53 p.m.

8 décembre 1983