Journal des débats 1984-mai-25 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the members' gallery Mr. Gordon L. Simpson, MLA, member for Cooroora in the Queensland state parliament, Australia.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, are you sure he is up there?

Mr. Speaker: Those were my instructions.

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sure you are aware that a week from today the injured workers are having a demonstration in front of the Legislative Building. It is my understanding that you, sir, have denied them access to the washrooms and other facilities in the Legislative Building.

I wonder whether you really believe that is fair and whether you would reconsider your decision. Many of the injured workers are disabled and will need access, particularly to the washroom facilities that are accessible to the disabled at the north end of the building.

Would you reconsider and make a ruling at the beginning of next week, because the demonstration is a week from today, or would you refer the matter to the three House leaders so there can be a satisfactory resolution to this dilemma?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much for drawing this matter to my attention. It is hardly a point of privilege but it is an interesting point. I must confess I am not aware of it, but I will look into it.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) is not here, but I want to make it very clear to everybody that there will not be any denial of access to or egress from this building for anybody.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for clarifying that matter and making it possible for those injured workers to get in and out.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENERGY SUPPLY SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the opening of the House this year, I outlined for members Ontario Hydro's plans to repair reactor units I and 2 at Pickering. I wish now to update members on the results of recent work on pressure tubes in Pickering unit 3 and on other nuclear reactors.

Members will recall that in discussing pressure tube performance, a distinction has been maintained between tubes in Pickering units I and 2, made of Zircaloy-2, and tubes in other reactors, which are made from a different alloy, zirconium-niobium.

Work by Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. was initially concentrated on understanding the basic cause of the unit 2 pressure tube failure and determining the conditions of pressure tubes in reactors I and 2.

Ontario Hydro decided in March 1984 to remove all pressure tubes from these two reactors and to replace them with zirconium-niobium alloy tubes. This program is now under way, and Ontario Hydro informs me that excellent progress has been made on the initial tasks of removing fuel from the two reactor cores and reducing the radiation fields in working areas close to the reactor. On this latter point, the fields in both units have been reduced by as much as a factor of 10.

Ontario Hydro has also made significant progress in assessing the performance of zirconium-niobium pressure tubes. The most recent results released by Ontario Hydro on Tuesday confirm that the deuterium concentration in a pressure tube removed from unit 3 at Pickering in early May is very low. This result is consistent with earlier analyses from tubes removed from Bruce reactors in 1981 and 1982 and from a tube removed from the NPD reactor in April 1984 after more than 17 years of operation.

These results are very encouraging, but the assessment of pressure tube performance will be a continuing process. Tuesday's announced results will not affect Ontario Hydro's program to relocate garter spring spacers in reactors under construction or the decision to install garter springs in reactors that have yet to have pressure tubes installed.

Hydro will also proceed with a program, recently approved by its board of directors, to develop tools to locate and reposition garter springs in reactors that are now in operation, should this be determined to be necessary. The development work is being undertaken jointly with AECL, with a target completion date of 1986.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, can I reply briefly to the minister? His statement contrasts with the facts.

Mr. Speaker: No.

TELEVISION ADVERTISING AWARD

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in sharing with honourable members the splendid news just received from New York City that the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has been singled out for this year's top --

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We are waiting for a copy of the minister's statement.

Mr. Speaker: Apparently, copies of the statement have not been distributed.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Do you want me to start over? I will start over.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in sharing with honourable members the splendid news just received from New York City that the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has been singled out for this year's top international award for excellence in television advertising.

The Clio award, which members see here, is the most prestigious in the communications industry, and this year's competition attracted close to 18,000 entries from 44 countries around the world.

The winner out of the 170 finalists was none other than our own "Ontario -- yours to discover!" television commercial, produced for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, I am proud to say, by our outstanding agency, Camp Associates Advertising.

This award was the only Clio awarded to a Canadian advertising agency in the television category. In addition to winning the top place for editing, it was recognized in the travel category with a certificate of merit for advertising excellence worldwide.

Accepting the Clio at Radio City Music Hall in New York City on behalf of my ministry and the agency were Mrs. Dianne Axmith, a vice-president of Camp Associates, and our tourism account supervisor, who are in the members' gallery today.

10:10 a.m.

I am sure my colleagues and honourable members opposite will join me in extending warmest congratulations to Camp Associates Advertising for bringing this great artistic and marketing communications honour to Canada, to Ontario and to the advancement of our vital tourism industry.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, on a point of --

Mr. Speaker: A point of what?

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to join with the minister in expressing my pleasure at the recognition --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. As happy as you may be in joining in, there is no provision for that.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I have more outstanding and wonderful news --

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Prior to the second broadside, so to speak, I bring to your attention, sir, that on many occasions when news of this nature is presented to the House by a member of the government it is customary for someone in the opposition to express similar, or at least parallel, views. I cannot imagine why, on a Friday morning, you would be clamping down in this uncharacteristic way.

Mr. Speaker: Being Friday morning, I am indeed very patient and very tolerant, but look as I may in the standing orders, I just do not see any provision for everybody joining in and having a mutual love-in, so to speak.

Mr. Laughren: See if we ever praise you again.

Mr. Speaker: It, indeed, is Friday.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I might just remind you that on many occasions, when we are expressing condolences and so on, the Speaker recognizes all three parties in allowing us to express those condolences. I cannot understand why, on a happier note, you would not give us the same opportunity to express a little joy as opposed to so much sadness. I ask Mr. Speaker to reconsider his decision.

Mr. Speaker: We have in the past allowed individual members to stand up and express condolences to various people, and I do not have any objection. If we are going to have a very agreeable morning and the members are in agreement, if I do not hear anybody opposed, I will recognize the member for Victoria-Haliburton, I might say, in a very positive way.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to join with the minister in expressing my pleasure with the recognition that has been accorded the "Ontario -- yours to discover!" advertisement.

For quite some time, we have known that we had an aggressive but friendly competitor to the south of our border, with an equally persuasive and catchy message. It is encouraging that this advertisement, promoting Ontario tourism, has been given this high recognition. Tourism is a leading and important industry in Ontario and each of us has a very responsible part to play in its promotion.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, having made your point, does anybody else wish to join in?

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will speak for the NDP. Since they are all coming over to our side anyway, I would be happy to speak for them.

I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, why is it that the only award this government has ever won in its life is for advertising?

HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I have another announcement to make here. I am sure that once again the spirit of harmony and unity will prevail and that we can all share together in extending congratulations. I have the honour of presenting some very special guests of the Legislature this morning.

The Memorial Cup tournament, the ultimate achievement of junior hockey in Canada, was held recently in Kitchener. Kamloops, British Columbia, winner of the Western Hockey League; Laval, winner of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League; Kitchener Rangers, as regular season champions of the Ontario Hockey League, and the Ottawa 67s, as playoff winners of the Ontario Hockey League, all competed in the Memorial Cup tournament. Playing against the Kitchener Rangers in the final game before almost 8,000 people at the Kitchener Auditorium, the 67s went on to win the Memorial Cup.

In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are six representatives of the champion Ottawa 67s who are able to join us today. I take great pleasure in introducing to you and members of this House the coach, Brian Kilrea; the assistant coach, Gord Hamilton; the captain and league all-star defenceman, Brad Shaw; goaltenders Darren Pang and Greg Coram, who share the all-star goaltender award; league all-star right winger Don McLaren, and left winger Mike James.

This is the first time the Ottawa 67s have won the Memorial Cup. I know all honourable members join with me in offering congratulations to the entire team and to its most able opponents, the Kitchener Rangers, who won the Memorial Cup two years ago.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, as you have said, we are allowed on occasion to stand not only to offer congratulations but also to offer condolences. I am very pleased as the member for Kitchener to congratulate the team that has been successful in winning the Memorial Cup. I suppose slight condolences at least can go to our own home-town team in Kitchener which was close, but not quite close enough, to winning the Memorial Cup once again.

We are pleased to welcome in the gallery and honour these young men who have shown by their sportsmanship and their activity in their chosen game of hockey just how well they can play and what pleasure and pride they have brought to all of us in Ontario.

On behalf of my people in Kitchener, among the 8,000 of whom there would have been some who would have preferred the results to be different, I wish them well. I congratulate them.

I just say to the minister: Wait until next year.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker --

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Tell us about hockey violence.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: I was advised that the reason Kitchener lost and Ottawa won was that Ottawa played a disciplined type of hockey and stayed out of the penalty box.

Mr. Peterson: If you listened to Elie, you guys would be playing canasta.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: That is my understanding from the people who attended the game. I offer my condolences to my friend the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), but they have not yet invented a hockey stick long enough to allow one to score from the penalty box. I would suggest that if Kitchener had stuck to the type of discipline the team from Ottawa displayed, Kitchener might have won.

I commend Ottawa for the type of hockey and the coaching it received, where it could play the game based on skill and come out on top without having to resort to some of the other hooliganism we see occasionally.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think it would be incumbent upon you to reveal to these young athletes, particularly from the chosen field of hockey, that in their days of retirement there is hope for yet another job.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

Mr. Peterson: Do not ruin the tone here, Frank. Do not say something serious.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I always improve the tone, but the elbows and the sticks will move a little bit better than they usually do.

10:20 a.m.

SOCIAL FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and to further my statement earlier this week on employment opportunities for sole-support parents, I would like to outline certain initiatives my ministry will take to help unemployed youth in Ontario who are receiving social assistance or other ministry-funded services.

Honourable members will recall that in the speech from the throne this government made a commitment "to improve access for young people and women to the benefits of economic growth and challenging work." As part of that commitment, my ministry will be spending about $120 million over the next three years to improve employment opportunities for disadvantaged youth and single parents.

Of course, we will not be doing this alone. Within the next several weeks, my ministry staff will be involved in consultation with representatives from the municipalities, the Ontario youth secretariat, the youth employment counselling centres, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and other community service agencies.

Early next month I will be speaking to the key individuals who are responsible for implementing social services in the community, the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association, at their annual meeting in Sarnia. At that time, we will be discussing in detail our co-operative efforts.

Today, I would like to provide honourable members with some of the aspects and programs that will be introduced over the coming months. These programs are designed exclusively for youth who receive social assistance or other services under the auspices of my ministry. New programs include youth employment preparation, summer and part-time employment experience for students, preparation for independence and community youth support projects. I will deal with each briefly.

The youth employment preparation program will be targeted towards a clientele of disadvantaged youth on social assistance; for example, school dropouts, those with no work experience and those on welfare for an extended period of time. We are going to establish a number of projects with the partners I mentioned earlier in order to provide individual employment preparation and support services for these people. Let me emphasize that this program is intended to assist participants in achieving economic independence.

We expect about 5,000 young people will be served by this program during each of the three years, but implementation will take effect as soon as municipal proposals are approved in the fall.

The next program is called summer employment and part-time experience for students and is for teenage dependants of social assistance recipients. Some of these young people are finding it difficult to remain in school or realistically plan for work in the absence of part-time jobs and pre-employment supports. It is important to remind members that part-time earnings of dependent children are permitted without affecting the family benefits entitlement. This program will help these teenagers prepare for work and gain necessary job experience while they are attending school.

By the end of this fiscal year, having worked closely with the Ontario youth secretariat and other agencies we support, we expect this program will be in full implementation. Approximately 1,000 young people will be provided with counselling, summer or part-time employment before the end of this fiscal year. In the next two years we hope to triple that number.

We call a third program "preparation for independence." We are referring in this program to adolescents who are in the care of children's aid societies, children's institutions and other Community and Social Services-funded facilities and agencies. Here we will provide assistance in order to prepare these youngsters for independent living and self-support.

We know about half of the children in the care of children's aid societies are adolescents. We know many of these children terminate wardship with children's aid societies at age 16. We also know young people usually lack the support of a family during their transition from a dependent child to an independent adult. We anticipate inviting project proposals for elements such as life skills training, vocational assessment and pre-employment counselling. Up to 1,500 young people in care will be served annually.

The next component of this package is for youth living on their own. I am talking about street kids, native young people, inner-city youth and teen-aged single mothers, as examples. Once again working in partnership with the municipalities and youth-serving agencies, we are going to develop community youth support projects. The projects will assist these people living on their own to stabilize their living environment and to prepare for employment opportunities. Careful planning, the availability of community resources and close working relationships are important if all of this is to be a success.

I am also pleased to inform members that in co-operation with the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission we will be placing up to 9,000 job-ready young Ontario recipients in subsidized employment. These job-ready people currently receive social assistance, and this employment process will be done through the CEIC's career access program. This new initiative provides employment opportunities by placing young people in full-time employment for a period of up to 52 weeks.

We are also encouraging individuals receiving social assistance to consider seriously educational alternatives. Under the current general welfare assistance program, a number of recipients were prevented from considering educational upgrading or completing their high school education. The regulation is being amended and, where necessary, existing policies are being clarified to permit this to occur.

Finally, in the area of work opportunities, we are going to provide a time-limited employment experience in a social service agency for up to 2,000 people before the end of March 1985. We expect to see the initial placements later this summer. We will invite agencies and organizations to hire social assistance recipients for a six-month period with provision for another six-month period under certain conditions.

My staff is currently finalizing guidelines for each of these programs. When they are complete, we will be discussing the details with our partners. In addition, negotiations are being finalized with the federal government for cost-sharing under the Canada assistance plan.

I know the members of the Legislature agree with me that youth, single parents and other long-term social assistance recipients will benefit greatly from this range of programs.

In closing, my ministry, the municipalities, social agencies and the CEIC will work to achieve our common goal by providing opportunities for our youth to move into the mainstream of Canadian life.

RESPONSES TO ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On April 29, 1983, I raised a question in the House with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) regarding the contracting out of workers at Thompson House in the city of North York and the whole process of contracting out and the need for protection. The minister said at that point he would not make any changes in the legislation but would wait for the arbitration board ruling.

As of yesterday, the arbitration board has ruled that the contracting out was improper. I would have hoped the minister would have risen in his place today to make a statement to bring in legislation affirming the decision of that arbitration board.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of order, but I assume the minister has taken note of your comment and will respond.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In a similar vein, the Minister of Labour indicated yesterday that he would be responding to the press reports and questions regarding lead levels at Mack Canada in Oakville. I was expecting a statement today, but it appears we are not going to get one.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister will respond at the appropriate time.

An hon. member: Do it now, rather than during question period.

Mr. Nixon: Let us have it now.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have agreement to let the minister make his reply as a statement?

Agreed. We will revert to statements.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I was simply trying to observe the rules of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Apparently we have leeway on Fridays.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have also tried to keep it relatively short.

Questions were raised in the House yesterday concerning a newspaper article dealing with spray-painting operations at Mack Canada in Oakville, in which the implication was that ambient air concentrations of lead were injurious to the health of the workers involved.

In undertaking to pursue the matter further, I indicated some concern with the implications contained in the news report. I would like to elaborate on those concerns.

First, even the most casual reader of the report, those reading the prominent headline, "Toxic Lead Levels Seven Times the Legal Limit in Oakville Plant," would naturally conclude that the workers' health had been injuriously affected.

On this most critical point, the facts are that since 1981 all the workers potentially affected have had their blood lead levels monitored pursuant to a medical surveillance procedure established under the provisions of our laws and have had annual medical examinations. All worker blood tests have been below the action level in the regulation.

10:30 a.m.

Consequently, there is no evidence to suggest that the health of the workers has been adversely affected by exposure to lead. I think this is a fact the public and the workers in similar operations in other work places in the province are entitled to know, yet it was not a fact reported in an otherwise very detailed press story.

The second point of concern relates to the impression created by both the headline and the text of the story that any excursion over the exposure limits set out in the regulation, no matter what the circumstances, amounts to a contravention of the law, and further that the only permissible way to control exposure is by engineering controls.

That is simply not the case. The regulation does set maximum exposure levels, but also makes it clear that if the levels cannot be achieved -- due to the nature of the operation, the length of time, the frequency of exposure or the impracticability of providing engineering or other controls -- respirators must be used.

In this case, ministry inspectors reached the conclusion that respirators were an appropriate control mechanism in addition to the engineering controls already in place. I am advised there is no argument that respirators were being worn, so the suggestion that workers were exposed to seven times the permissible exposure limits is simply inaccurate.

The question that is not yet fully resolved relates to the adequacy of the respirators. The company's initial position. based on a consultant's analysis and report, is that existing cartridge respirators were adequate. This was challenged by the union. The ministry investigated, agreed with the union's contention and directed that airstream respirators, providing superior protection, be provided. The company has obtained these respirators.

However, it is legitimate to ask how promptly the company complied with the ministry's orders and whether the respirators are now fully in use. These matters are under investigation and if there was any unjustifiable delay in compliance, appropriate action will be taken.

One last point: In our designated substance program in Ontario we have one of the most sophisticated and stringent sets of toxic substance regulations of any industrial jurisdiction. We also have an extremely able and dedicated cadre of inspectors and health support professionals who enforce these regulations.

There is never 100 per cent compliance in the best of systems. There will always be situations, because of the detailed nature of the regulatory scheme, not to mention the complexity and sheer size of the province's industrial structure, where something less than 100 per cent compliance will be achieved at all times and in all places.

That fact must be obvious to even the most partisan observer. Yet there appears to be a continuing effort on the part of some to present a distorted picture of our current regulatory regime and its enforcement and to suggest that indifference, incompetence or worse is rife. I reject that categorically, both as a general proposition and particularly in relation to this matter.

The ministry will continue its vigilant enforcement of the laws. Without suggesting infallibility on the part of my officials, I will continue to defend them in this House against unwarranted allegations. If we are to continue to attract and retain men and women of quality to the public service, we must guard against public servant bashing and that I intend to do.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I would like to advise all honourable members that any departures from normal procedure this morning should not be taken as precedent.

Mr. Breithaupt: Which ones, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: You name it.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery the President of the region of Calabria, Italy, together with a delegation of officials from his government and members of the Italian community in Toronto. They arrived yesterday and will be staying until Tuesday, May 29.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour arising from his statement just a moment or so ago. I was disturbed by the last general defence he tried to launch, because it clearly gave the impression that he is trying to defend his ministry when in fact the regulations were violated. He chose to launch a general defence of his ministry as opposed to addressing the specific problem that was raised in the article in the Toronto Star.

The minister still has not addressed the question of the lead levels, particularly in the paint room. Were those inspected, or were they inspected only in January of this year under pressure from members of the union? Were they major violations? Why was this not caught before?

That is his responsibility. It is not his responsibility to make these pious speeches about how good his ministry is, how good his inspectors are or how we are engaging in public servant bashing; that is just nonsense. His responsibility is to enforce the rules. Were they enforced or were they not?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

Mr. Peterson: Why was it only in January of this year that there was any indication the lead levels in the paint room were above the maximum allowable levels? Why was it that the first time it came to the minister's attention was only under union pressure? Why did it happen? Why was he so late? This has been going on for a long time. The question the minister has to ask his ministry officials is why he did not know.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is not correct. The respirators were always being used in the paint room, and that is part of the regulation

Mr. Wildman: Inadequate.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The union said they were inadequate.

Mr. Wildman: So did the minister.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, am I going to be allowed to answer or not?

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Mr. Martel: Do not listen to the interjections; just keep going.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Under the regulation, respirators were to be used in the paint room. Respirators were being used. The company had a private consultant come in to advise it on whether or not these respirators were adequate. The union maintained the respirators were not adequate. Our officials went in, agreed with the union and issued an order to the company to provide what we considered to be a superior type of respirator.

These respirators were ordered; but we are not absolutely sure when they introduced the use of these improved respirators, and I said yesterday I did not want to make any statements unless I was absolutely sure of the facts. That fact is being checked out this very morning.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, is it not also the case that the levels are not only seven times the short-term exposure limits but about 21 times the normal exposure limits?

The minister says the respirators were ordered and were considered adequate in addition to engineering controls. Can he tell us what the engineering controls are? Is it not a fact that this company has never carried out an analysis of engineering controls? Is or is not the position of his ministry that, 'the best methods of controlling exposure to toxic substances are engineering controls incorporated in the design of the plant, equipment and processes"?

If the minister was willing to order engineering controls rather than just respirators at Westinghouse, why is he not prepared to take the same action and follow his own lead regulation and enforcement of the lead regulation that he took at Westinghouse?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that an engineering study was done and engineering controls such as ventilation and air supply in the paint room were introduced.

I also want to make it clear there are different lead levels with different types of paint. A yellow paint apparently has a higher lead level than the red paint that was being used. At the time this particular study showed levels seven times the legal maximum, they were using a particular type of paint, yellow in nature, that had a higher lead level than the red paint that is normally used. There was also a rather extended period of time when the company was shut down -- I cannot find it quickly in my notes here -- during which time no painting was being done at all. That period exceeded six or seven months.

Let me get back to the point. My officials are meeting with the company and worker representatives this morning to verify the types of paint being used and the nature and extent of the exposure to each type of paint.

Mr. Peterson: Is it not true that the impact of these contaminants in lead in the body is cumulative over a long period of time and accumulates at different rates in different parts of the body? That is why there are maximum allowable levels. Is it not impossible to make a clear determination at this point of whether there has been a health threat, and is that not why we have rules, regulations and inspections?

The minister should draw little solace from the fact that at this point, according to him, there is no noticeable health hazard. That could change in a month, two months, three months or a year. Would he now undertake to ask his ministry officials why proper inspections were not made at the time and why this information was not available earlier, and would he tighten up his regulatory net to make sure it does not happen again?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: We are missing a point here, with great respect to the Leader of the Opposition. The regulations are such that if an exposure level is to be exceeded, respirators are to be worn. That is what happened. We do not have to tighten up the regulations. The regulations have been observed. That is a very important point which I do not think the member understands.

ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Treasurer about flat-lining. The Treasurer announced his new policy of flat-lining in his budget when he said: "I have decided to hold our direct operating expenditures for most activities to last year's level, rather than permit them to rise with inflation."

Is the minister aware that, of the 23 ministries with reported expenditures in the category called "ministry administration," for overall ministry functions as distinct from program provision, average administrative expenditures are up this year by 7.2 per cent, well above inflation and well above last year's expenditures?

Is the same minister who is lecturing the municipalities about holding the line on their administration prepared to admit that the facts are in that it is his administration that is bloated, it is his public service that is leading the way to more and more inflation and that he is not showing the example he is lecturing other people about?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not. The Leader of the Opposition has not done his homework in analysing the composition of those ministries. If he analyses carefully where those increases occurred, he will notice they occurred in some places where he would be the last to suggest there should be a total overall direct operating expense hold.

For example, there are areas in some of our important institutions that we have traditionally exempted when we have gone for direct operating expense freezes. Those exemptions may occur, for example, in the Ministry of Health in the psychiatric hospitals, or some exceptions are being made for the Ontario Provincial Police. Across the board, the overall average may not be zero and will not be zero because of certain --

Mr. Peterson: The overall average is 7.2 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, unless we are going to have some with net reductions, which we have chosen not to do, and if we are going to hold many at zero, we are going to get an overall figure that is somewhat in excess of zero, because there are some exceptions I know the member would be the first to advocate should occur. That is exactly what happened.

Mr. Peterson: The minister has not done his homework. He does not know what is going on. That is the most feeble defence I have ever heard in my life.

Let me point out the facts to the minister. He can challenge them if he will. In the Ministry of Revenue, total expenditures, minus administration, are going up by 0.4 per cent, but ministry administration is going up by 23.7 per cent. In the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, ministry administration is up by 10.7 per cent, although total expenses are going up only by two per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: For the Ministry of the Solicitor General, administration is up by 17.5 per cent, although program expenditures are going up only by 3.9 per cent. Does the Treasurer want more?

Mr. Speaker: No. Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Does the Treasurer want more of my homework? Why is that occurring? In the Ministry of the Environment, when total expenditures, minus administration, are going down by 0.8 per cent, why is administration going up by 3.7 per cent? In the Ministry of Energy, when total expenditures are going down by 16.6 per cent, why is administration going up by 12.4 per cent? In the Ministry of Industry and Trade, when expenditures are going down by 1.5 per cent, why is administration going up by 13.2 per cent? In the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, expenditures are going down by 0.3 per cent and administration is going up by 34.2 per cent when the ministry does not have enough money to build roads.

Let me ask the Treasurer why this hypocrisy is occurring right under his administration, right in his budget?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I had occasion to observe the Leader of the Opposition in his earlier years here when he attended estimates sessions although, admittedly, on very rare occasions. If he wants once again to visit some estimates this coming year, he will find out that there was a lot he learned about the definitions he is playing with and a lot he should have learned that he still has not yet learned.

In any case, if he is otherwise occupied, if he wants to invite his critics to attend the estimates sessions this year of the various ministries, and if they want to choose to discuss those very items -- and in most cases in my experience, it would be highly unusual for them actually to discuss those expenditure items -- then he will find there are perfectly logical and clear explanations for every one of those.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer should tell us. He is the budget chief.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I invite the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues to attend those estimates and, for once, to ask questions that relate to the matters he is asking about; for once to seek explanations, so he will understand what is included in ministry administration matters. He will find that the end result of that process will be that the statement we made in the budget is totally accurate. We are holding the line on direct operating expenses. However he may want to twist his failure to understand the way the accounts work, the reality is just as we have stated.

Mr. Peterson: I am inviting the Treasurer to launch a defence of this dismal performance. That is the weakest performance I have seen in a long time.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Let him defend it. The Treasurer is the one who is setting the way. It is endemic in the administration over there. All the way through the place we are seeing a bloated civil service, bloated administration, bloated information expenses with cutbacks in programs.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: How can he explain this? In the Ministry of Correctional Services, program expenditures went up by four per cent, yet the information services budget is up by 28.1 per cent.

In the Ministry of Revenue, program-related expenses are up by 0.4 per cent, but communications expenses are up by 42.3 per cent. In the Ministry of Northern Affairs, information services are up by 11.2 per cent. This is the Treasurer's budget, not mine. I would be embarrassed to present this as mine.

In the Ministry of the Solicitor General, program-related expenditures are up by 3.9 per cent, while information services are up by 41.1 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. With respect, I think you have cited enough examples. Now place your question, please.

Mr. Peterson: How can the Treasurer justify that, particularly when he has the temerity to go and lecture the municipalities and even threaten to go in and control their mill rates. How can he run around doing two different things at the same time? How can he justify these massive increases in expenditures on administration and information services when programs are going down? What kind of example is that for the Treasurer to set?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let us get the record straight. I want to know what the Leader of the Opposition is advocating. If he is advocating, as he was last Friday morning, that ministries are not being given enough money, then why does he not say that? This morning he is complaining --

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Bradley: The Treasurer is not answering the questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- that they are getting too much money. Last Friday morning the one thing he was consistent about was that we must give more money away to the municipalities --

Mr. Bradley: Why the increase in PR programs?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- so that the municipalities would be spending more. While the honourable member preaches about not increasing the deficit, at the same time he says, inconsistently, that we are not spending enough money, that we ought to be giving more to municipalities. This morning he is complaining that we on this side of the House are saying that municipalities should not spend more than they need and indeed --

Mr. Elston: You are not delivering the services to the people.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member should tell the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. I was there chatting with them about him yesterday and they think as highly of him as his leader does, which I would advise him not to brag about to his constituents.

In any case, the Leader of the Opposition has to decide which side of this coin he is going to come down on. Is it in favour of restraint and lower deficits or is it in favour of municipalities and the provincial government spending more money? He really cannot have both of those things. Fortunately for the province, he will not have the opportunity to have to deal with the realities of managing that.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He will be able to make the fine speeches. He should drop into estimates; he might learn something.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order. New question, please.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of secrecy and the Premier (Mr. Davis), I have a question of the Deputy Premier concerning the new so-called freedom of information act. Section 211 of that act enshrines the secrecy provisions in all other provincial acts. Can the minister inform the House exactly how many acts have secrecy provisions and which acts are covered under section 211 of this secrecy act?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary for Justice is at present chairing the concluding session of a conference of ministers charged with this responsibility, which explains his absence from the House today. There will be ample opportunity to discuss this bill on second reading and, no doubt, to direct specific questions to him on his return.

There were a number of questions directed to the provincial secretary yesterday. I do not know whether this was one, but he will be in his seat next week and those details are available. Also, the honourable member should not forget we will have the debate on second reading in which these points can be made.

Mr. Philip: Perhaps the Deputy Premier can at least explain how he can possibly introduce an act which perpetuates secrecy provisions in all other acts without providing the details of these. The federal freedom of information act clearly does this. Does the public not have a right to know exactly what information is not going to be released? How can the minister call it a freedom of information act when it actually enshrines the secrecy provisions in all other present provincial acts?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Perhaps I might first correct something. The member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) is the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, not the Provincial Secretary for Justice. I did not want to mislead the House by saying the latter is chairing the conference.

The member will understand that the legislation which has been introduced talks about freedom of information and is directed to the concept of privacy as well. They are both concepts that have been very much part of the study of the commission that preceded the government's considerations, which ultimately were put into the legislation. These points can all be made during debate on second reading of this very important legislation.

Mr. R.F. Johnston: Are they keeping this from you?

Mr. Wrye: It is a secret.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: The absence is also noted in the privacy section. However, this act has dropped an iron curtain on the secrecy of all skeletons in the government's closet before 1984. Anything in every other act that is secret is also to be secret; anything that may affect the management of the economy -- whatever that is -- is to be secret.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Philip: Anything the cabinet wants or labels to be secret is secret, anything the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) labels as secret is to be secret. What is the minister actually going to reveal to the public with this act?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Perhaps I might just whisper my answer over to the other side.

This second supplementary is really an abuse of the question period. We provide an opportunity for the sharing of some opinions to which the member is entitled. No doubt we will have an opportunity to debate this point of view without in any way agreeing with the statements that have been made. The principle of the bill was quite clearly outlined yesterday when the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development introduced that bill. With respect to the sincerity that this government has in moving forward in this very important area, we will leave that for the debate and the judgement of the people of Ontario.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), I will put my question to the Minister of Energy.

The Minister of Energy will know that capital expenditure for the production of high-octane, unleaded gasoline occurred in the late 1960s and 1970s. Is he aware that the difference in price between unleaded gasoline and leaded gasoline was 4.9 cents a gallon in 1976, 5.1 cents in 1977 and 4.9 cents in 1978? When the conversion from gallons to litres occurred in 1979, the difference increased to seven cents a gallon. In 1983, the price difference was 11 cents a gallon.

Can the minister explain where the increased costs occurred in those intervening years from 1979, when the conversion took place, to 1983, since the equipment actually was installed and paid for prior to that? Why is there an 11-cent-a-gallon spread today between leaded and unleaded gasoline? Is it not a bit of a ripoff?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to receive that question from the honourable member. I do not know the details of the answer; so I cannot provide him with the details of the answer. However, I will be glad to refer the question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and to offer him the expertise of the Ministry of Energy to do that kind of analysis so that we can provide the member with an answer.

Mr. Martel: Since there was an increase of six cents a gallon from the time of conversion to the present -- six cents more than previously -- and since an additional 911 million gallons of unleaded gasoline were sold last year, does the minister realize that little six-cent-a-gallon increase since conversion amounts to an increased profit last year of $55 million worth of ripoffs to the consumers of this province? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I am not sure it is fair to describe the increasing costs as a ripoff. I am sure there is some justification for the price differential in terms of the cost of production of the products being sold.

I also suggest to the member that as the increase in volume of unleaded gasoline has taken place with offsetting sales of leaded gasoline, perhaps we have a market situation in which a surplus of leaded gasoline exists and therefore some initiatives have been taken by retailers to offer consumers an opportunity to take advantage of that situation.

Mr. Martel: Since Environment Canada says the cost of production of a gallon of unleaded gasoline is two cents, and the spread is now nine cents over and above the cost of production, is the minister aware that -- again using last year's figure of 911 million gallons -- the new ripoff to the consumers in Ontario is really about $80 million? What is this government going to do to protect the consumers against that type of gouging?

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: We have come back to the original question. Again, if it is a question of protecting consumers, we in Ontario do not regulate the price of gasoline. The price of gasoline at the pump is a matter of free market principles, and although that might offend the philosophy of the member, that is the situation.

MINAKI LODGE

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) asked a question about hiring practices at Minaki Lodge. The compiling of that information has now been completed. I would like to share it briefly with the honourable member and the other members of this House.

As of this time, 146 people are employed at Minaki Lodge; that includes permanent and seasonal staff. Of this number, 108, or 74 per cent, are Ontario residents and 21 come from Minaki itself. Twelve of the 146 staff members are year-round employees and are in sales, maintenance, accounting, security and the office of the general manager.

The members might be interested to know that when hiring, the personnel director recruited from five community colleges offering courses related to the hospitality industry as follows: from Canadore College, North Bay, 17 students; from Fanshawe College, London, 12; from Georgian College, Barrie, five; from Confederation College, Thunder Bay, five, and from George Brown College, Toronto, two. That is a total of 41.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, has the minister indicated how many out-of-province students have been hired at Minaki? Are they all from Ontario? How many are there from other jurisdictions such as Manitoba?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I indicated, 74 per cent of the current employees are from Ontario. The rest come mainly from Manitoba, and as I indicated several weeks ago, there is a very good reason for that: Manitoba is a large supporter of the lodge.

I can cite one example of the support that Manitoba is providing. The Manitoba Bar Association, which held its annual meeting at Minaki Lodge in 1983, liked the place so much that it has signed up for three more annual meetings at Minaki. A lot of people from Manitoba are supporting Minaki, which is understandable as it is nearby.

TENDERING PRACTICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board with respect to the tendering practices of his government and the various ministries. It concerns a payment by the Ministry of Health, listed in the 1982-83 public accounts. He will note that this question is important because the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), the one who sets the example for government spending, was then the Minister of Health.

There was a payment of $84,441 to a firm called Thacker and Associates. It was divided up into seven separate projects to make it under the tendering lines. Even though it is difficult to get any information from anyone over there, we have established that at least some of those contracts were related and it was clearly in violation of the tendering guidelines of the Ontario Manual of Administration.

I am sure the minister is aware of this now. What disciplinary action has he taken against the then minister or the current minister, and what has he told them to make sure this systematic violation of the Manual of Administration, the rules he is here to enforce, does not continue on and on?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of what was in the Provincial Auditor's report. I have told the members opposite many times that we at Management Board do not take disciplinary action. Those things are pointed out by the auditor. We operate with a system of accountability. Perhaps the minister can tell the Leader of the Opposition why in this case they did not follow the rules, but I am not disciplining the former, the present or the future minister.

Mr. Peterson: He referred the question. I would be delighted to hear the answer.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear a referral.

Mr. Nixon: He said maybe the minister could tell us.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member could ask a question and then we may have a referral.

Mr. Peterson: The manual clearly states that a systems development contract such as this should have been referred to Management Board because it is over $10,000, as the minister knows, but that was not done. He talked about the system of accountability. No one can understand what that system of accountability is. Is the minister accountable? Is the present minister accountable?

How do we in the opposition and the taxpayers in Ontario know the government is getting full value for its money? How do we know there is not something untoward going on under the nose of the government when no one is accountable? Who is accountable to make sure the minister's rules are enforced?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The deputy minister and the minister are responsible.

MILK PRICES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, in view of the disappearing Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) and Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), I will put my question to the Deputy Premier.

He will recognize this litre container of milk. I wonder whether he would explain to this House and to the people of Ontario why this litre of milk sells at a normal average price of $1.06 in the four main supermarkets in Toronto and in southern Ontario generally, while the same quantity sells for a maximum of 81 cents in Montreal and southern Quebec.

Similarly, would he explain why this two-litre container of milk sells for $2.06 here and a maximum of $1.61 in Quebec and why this four-litre container sells for $3.49 here and a maximum $3.08 in Quebec?

Recognizing that homogenized and other types of milk have the same kind of differential, and recognizing that the farmer in Quebec only gets one cent per litre less for his milk than the farmer here, how can the Deputy Premier explain a markup more than 30 per cent greater in Ontario than in Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Send it over. We have to look at it first. We have to see the evidence.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food has been called out to attend to some very important matter and would want me to draw his attention to the question that has just been directed by our colleague the member for Welland-Thorold.

We are reminded of the very high quality and the excellence of the products that are processed. Ontario dairy farmers should be very proud of the record they have accomplished and no doubt will appreciate very much the promotional activities the member for Welland-Thorold is engaging in today.

I can only say that other dairies would be entitled to equal time with respect to this type of presentation. No doubt that will happen soon.

Mr. Swart: The Deputy Premier can make light of it, but I want to say to him that the dairy farmers in Ontario would like to have those lower prices in the supermarkets so they could sell a lot more milk in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

11:10 a.m.

Mr. Swart: Does the Deputy Premier not know the reason the prices of milk are so low in Quebec is that the government there has set maximum and minimum prices to be charged in the stores? In fact, milk is being sold in southern Quebec at lower than the maximum prices. Does he not think that is the reason the prices there are so much lower than here? Does he not think the people of Ontario ought to have the same right?

Will he discuss in cabinet whether such legislation should not be introduced here to give some meaning to restraint where it counts the most, in consumer prices?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear, certainly to the Agriculture and Food critic of the New Democratic Party, that procedures and structures are currently in place here for those types of negotiations to go on between the producer and the processer.

As I have already mentioned, we do not have to be reminded of the very high quality of the product. This government has always stood for policies that will ensure agricultural producers a fair return for their activities and for their investment of labour and other finances -- policies that are consistent with the responsible land use policies of the province.

In the same way that the member opposite would want to support a fair economic return to the grape growers of the area he and I share and would want to support the land use policies, we do the same thing with respect to this very important product; and we are seen to be promoting the further consumption of milk because of its obvious health advantages.

I will draw the member's concerns to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, when the Deputy Premier draws that to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, will he look at a report that was put out by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1982? This report said:

"Technological advances have improved farm productivity in the past 10 years, but a study shows that little progress has been made to improve the efficiency of food storage, assembly, processing, packaging, warehousing, transportation and distribution. Increases in post-harvest technology and marketing costs have contributed significantly to the US inflationary spiral since 1972."

What they are saying is that farmers have contributed to the fight against inflation by holding production costs down, but the distribution system has not. The government could have done something about this in 1980 when we had the inquiry into food distribution costs.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question, please.

Mr. McGuigan: Will the minister take this message to the Minister of Agriculture and Food when he is looking at this whole problem?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is yes, I will be glad to. I would be surprised if the minister had not seen that material. If we are talking about storage in the wider context and not simply in relation to milk, the honourable member will know that the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program places some emphasis on the matter of storage and other factors that will assist the agricultural producer.

We should not lose sight of the fact, which I am sure the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) was anxious not to point out, that although the milk prices in Ontario may be marginally above those of some of the other provinces to which he has made reference, they are below those in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Manitoba. I think that is of some interest, and no doubt to give a complete and factual picture, he would want to point it out.

I will be glad to see that the minister has this information available to him.

FRENCH EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to anyone who wants to answer about broken promises. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would be a good one on this topic.

Yesterday the minister chose to announce to the media and not to this House that the French education bill will now be placed on hold indefinitely or until the courts rule on certain parts of the bill. This is a direct change of heart by his government, which said only some weeks ago that there was no problem in proceeding with the former Bill 157 and its amendments.

Given that this government ordered a report in 1982 called the report of the Joint Committee on the Governance of French-Language Elementary and Secondary Schools, given that the minister responded to this in March 1983 and given that somebody has responded to the response in 1984, when are we going to hear something about the governance of French-language schools from this government, notwithstanding that part of it which is before the courts?

We have a situation in Iroquois Falls where the people are waiting on aspects of this bill that have nothing to do with the governance issue but deal with the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario. As far as the issue of abolishing the "where numbers warrant" clause is concerned, the minister did not have to wait for the courts for that either. Why is he not proceeding with those parts of the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very appropriate to review the background for my friend. This case is in court because the Franco-Ontarians decided they wanted to apply to the courts to challenge some of our legislation vis-à-vis the Charter of Rights.

I recall we had discussions at the time on the point that putting this into courts could hold up legislation. We did not want it to hold up legislation, but we pointed out to them, and I am sure my friend also pointed it out to them, that going the legal route and getting into courts, which could entail appeals, could mean the legislation would be held up. I hope he accepts that fact.

To expedite the matter and rather than have it tied up in appeal from one court to another, working with the groups that wanted to have this reference made to the courts, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) arranged for four questions to be put to the courts. The first question was, "Are sections 258 and 261 of the Education Act inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if so, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?'

The amendments my colleague the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) introduced on the last day of the session in December 1983 altered sections 258 and 261 of the Education Act. We felt at the time it would not be inconsistent or in any way discourteous to the court to bring that legislation in.

In the interval, however, legal opinion has been given to us that it would not be in good taste to alter legislation that this government has asked the courts to rule upon. This is no sudden revelation that has come to us. We have known this for the last six weeks. No one has asked us about it. The honourable member could have asked us a question about it any time.

We are sitting here waiting for the courts to bring in a decision. We do not know when they will bring in that decision. The case was heard in January, and we had hoped the decision would be made a month ago. It has not been rendered yet. When it is rendered, the legislation will be considered in the light of that decision and brought in.

I want to underline again that there has been no change in our determination to bring forward the changes that were in the legislation introduced in December.

Mr. Boudria: I have some difficulty with the minister's answer. He said he changed his mind a few weeks ago as to whether it was proper to proceed with the bill. Why did he not make an announcement to this Legislature so all francophones in this province would know he was unable to proceed with those parts of the bill?

Further, what is stopping the minister now from proceeding to abolish the "where numbers warrant" clause? That has nothing to do with guaranteeing every French student the right to education. What is stopping him from amending section 277 of the act, giving powers to the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario, which right now has no powers at all to deal with any issues?

Reluctantly accepting that the minister may have been delayed with the other matters, what has stopped him from dealing with those two issues? Why did he not come forward and tell this House instead of replying yesterday to a newspaper reporter from the Globe and Mail? Why did he not tell the members of this House and Franco-Ontarians, clearly and up front, what was going on?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have always been up front on this matter. I suggest we have spent more time discussing this than my friend has spent thinking about it. We have had the legislation ready and we are prepared to introduce it when the court decision is rendered. We expected that court decision some time within the last six weeks. It has not come yet.

We do not stand up and announce every piece of legislation that is held up for another week because this or that event has taken place. What the member has to understand is that parts of those changes do relate to the questions that were asked of the courts. The courts have made it known to us that it would not be in very good taste to introduce that legislation until they render their opinion.

11:20 a.m.

GRANGE COMMISSION INQUIRY

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a concern about the amendment to the terms of reference of the commission of Mr. Justice Grange as that commission moves into phase 2 of its inquiry. I am particularly concerned because of the facetious remark, as reported in the press a while back, of Barry Percival, counsel for the Metropolitan Toronto Police force, that he would make his merry way to the Divisional Court.

As I understand it, on Wednesday the Attorney General amended the provisions of phase 2, which specifically provide that the Honourable Mr. Justice Grange is, without expressing any conclusion of law regarding civil or criminal responsibility, "to inquire into, determine and report on the circumstances surrounding the investigation, institution and prosecution of charges arising out of the deaths of the above-mentioned four infants."

As I understand it, he added a provision. "Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the commissioner may receive evidence and submissions and comment fully on the conduct of any person during the course of the investigation, institution and prosecution of the charges arising out of the deaths of the above-mentioned four infants, provided that such comment does not express any conclusion of law regarding civil or criminal responsibility."

The minister will recall that in his statement to the House in which he announced the commission, he said it would provide in what is commonly known as phase I of the inquiry the fullest public knowledge of the circumstances of the deaths; and in what is commonly known as phase 2, the criminal proceedings that followed them.

Is it the minister's understanding now that the amendment will permit full and complete questioning, by counsel for the commission and other counsel with standing, of the officers of the Metropolitan Toronto Police force and members of his ministry who participated in any way in the investigation, institution and prosecution of the charges arising out of the deaths of those four infants?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied this is going to be the result of the amendment, which the member for Riverdale will recall was suggested as a possible alternative by the commissioner, Mr. Justice Grange.

In reference to the comment by the counsel for the Metropolitan Toronto Police department, I am pleased to report two things have occurred following this amendment. First, Mr. Justice Grange, through his counsel, has stated that by reason of the amendment he is now planning to proceed with the second stage of the proceedings.

Furthermore, I have some information this morning that would appear to have emanated from the counsel for the Metropolitan Toronto Police department, indicating that he is not going to challenge the proceedings in Divisional Court. In view of the amendment, he expects the matter to proceed into phase 2 without any court challenges in so far as the Metropolitan Toronto Police department is concerned.

To date, my information is that we do expect this full public accounting of the conduct of the individuals to whom the honourable member has just referred in relation to both the investigation and the prosecution.

Mr. Renwick: I appreciate the response of the Attorney General. Is he in a position to tell us two things: does the amendment the government has made to the order in council fully satisfy the request and concern expressed by Commissioner Grange about the terms of reference; given the information he has now about the position of counsel for the Metropolitan Toronto Police force, can he give the same assurance with respect to counsel for the Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not sure I quite understand the latter part of the question. Certainly, it is our view there must be a full accounting. Counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General will be proceeding on the basis that is going to be the case.

I can only assume Mr. Justice Grange is satisfied with the amendment by reason of his announcement that the second stage of the inquiry will now proceed. Inasmuch as he indicated last week there was some doubt about that, I can only assume he is satisfied with the amendment, although he has perhaps not expressed it in terms of complete satisfaction. I think it is fair to state that the reasonable interpretation can be made, by reason of the stated intention to proceed and proceed expeditiously, that the amendment does meet the concerns of the commissioner.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment with respect to the operations of the Nanticoke thermal unit owned by Ontario Hydro. Since Nanticoke has supplied the peak power loads for Hydro's requirements and since it is pressed into service now as a result of the shutdown and retubing requirements of the nuclear stations at Pickering, it is my understanding that the production of acid gas emissions has reached or is reaching record proportions for that facility.

In 1982, I understand some 255,000 tons of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions were registered by that station and represented the top amount out of all seven plants Hydro operates. Can the minister inform this House of the expected emissions from Nanticoke for this year and the next number of years while the retubing takes place at Pickering, and would he give the ministry's assessment of the impact on Ontario and the United States of these emissions?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, there is no question the SO2 increases that are occurring at the moment with respect to Hydro are troublesome to both my ministry and to the Ministry of Energy. We know the reasons for some of those SO2 increases taking place.

I can only assure the honourable member the levels of increase are constantly under review by my ministry and the Ministry of Energy. We have taken no action with respect to Hydro other than the control order at present in place relative to 1986 reductions and 1990 reductions, with which the member is fully familiar. I have no indication at the moment of what those peak loads will be, other than that they could reach what may be marginally higher levels than Hydro has reached in the past with respect to total emissions from that and other coal-fired plants.

Mr. Elston: It is my understanding, as a result of bad weather and a number of difficulties, the mix of coal that was required at Nanticoke to keep sulphur dioxide and NOx emissions low, that is, a mix of high-sulphur coal from the United States and low-sulphur coal from western Canada, was not possible because of dwindling coal stockpiling at Nanticoke.

Has the minister instructed his officials and is the Ministry of Energy now requiring Nanticoke to maintain a certain mix of low-sulphur coal and high-sulphur coal to ensure that acid gas emissions are no higher than projected by his ministry and by Hydro? Can he also tell us that the promise made in the speech from the throne of March 9, 1982, about the implementation of scrubbers plus the introduction of washed coal and high-sulphur coal-burning at Hydro plants will not be breached any further than it already has been?

11:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: As the member has indicated, there is some difficulty with respect to the combustion reaction that takes place between the low- and high-sulphur coal mixes. There are in place at the moment at Nanticoke mixing facilities to bring about a use of the lowest possible emitter of sulphur dioxide with respect to that type of mix.

I can only again assure the member the matter is under constant review. There have been some unexpected upsets with respect to the nuclear program, which is obviously a cleaner-burning fuel and one we would prefer to have available to us as an option.

I stated in the House, as the member will recall, that if there is going to be a greater dependence on coal-fired plants that are emitters of sulphur dioxide and the NO_x problems as well, then Hydro may well -- I underline the words "may well" -- consider the installation of scrubbers as an option in its total environmental control package. That has not been made mandatory by my ministry at this time. We do not dictate the technology or the kind of retrofit that would be necessary. At the moment, our major concern is to control the level of emissions.

The difficult period Hydro is going through is of concern to both the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) and myself. We are actively reviewing that and we do so on a continuing basis.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. It is related to our disappointment with the minister's response this morning regarding lead levels at Mack Canada in Oakville.

If the ministry was as vigilant in enforcing the lead controls at Mack Canada as the minister indicates, can he explain why in June 1982 the Ministry of Labour accepted an assessment and control program at the plant based on an Industrial Accident Prevention Association study whose tests did not include specific lead tests?

Can he also explain why it had to be Mr. Gallant of the union who eventually pointed that out rather than the ministry realizing it? From his statement this morning, is he indicating that he is rejecting the engineering controls that have not been done and is accepting medical monitoring as an adequate way of protecting the health of the workers at Mack? Is he saying lead levels are not a real health problem at Mack until the workers' blood lead levels are of such a degree that they are already suffering from industrial disease?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I ask the honourable member not to put words in my mouth. Those are not the circumstances at all. Let me go back a bit and provide a little more detail. It will take only a moment.

The lead regulation came into force in August 1981. It provided or prescribed a more stringent biological control limit than the previous guideline. After the coming into force of the lead regulation, the ministry conducted a special visit to the company to determine whether there was compliance.

On April 15, 1982, the ministry issued an order for a lead assessment to the company, and a further order that a control program be instituted should the assessment indicate that exposure was likely and the health of the workers was likely to be affected. Less than two months later, on June 7, the company advised the industrial health and safety branch that the assessment had been completed and a program to control exposure to lead was in place. Copies were given to the joint health and safety committee, as required under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and it appeared the workers were satisfied.

That control program provides that painters work in a controlled environment in an air-circulated paint booth. An approved respirator must be worn. All skin must be covered. The control program contains provisions for medical surveillance, including annual physical examinations, semi-annual blood tests and annual lung function tests.

I am getting to the point that will directly answer the member's question.

I understand there was a plant layoff and no spray-painting operations were carried out from September 1982 to May 1983. Ministry files do not contain any concerns regarding exposure to lead prior to February 6, 1984, when the ministry's industrial health and safety branch was notified of a dispute concerning the use of respirators in the company's lead-control program.

The following day, February 7, 1984, the industrial health and safety branch commenced an investigation of the dispute. That brings the member up to date, along with the information I provided earlier. Our people agreed with the union that a better respirator should be provided and issued an order for the company to do so.

Mr. Wildman: The minister has not explained why the ministry accepted the report of the company in June 1982 in response to the order of April 1982, which was based on an IAPA study that did not have specific lead tests. They just tested for total particulates.

Why did the ministry not identify that as a problem and order proper tests to be carried out? Why was it left to the joint health and safety committee of the union?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The only way I can answer that is in two parts. First, copies were given to the joint health and safety committee and it appeared at that time the workers were satisfied with that control program, but I will commit myself to following up on that question.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on resources development be authorized to meet on the evening of Monday, May 28, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 81, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, this bill would permit the Milk Commission of Ontario to determine prices at the retail as well as the wholesale level for milk, skim milk, buttermilk, flavoured milk and cream.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, and with the indulgence of the House, this is the last day for the current group of pages to be with us and I think we should acknowledge their presence and their fine service for the past few weeks.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 5, An Act in respect of Extra-Provincial Corporations.

Bill 36, An Act to amend the Ministry of Energy Act.

Bill 37, An Act to amend the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act.

11:40 a.m.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved second reading of Bill Pr37, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ASSOCIATION OF THE CHEMICAL PROFESSION OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved second reading of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Association of the Chemical Profession of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE CANADA AND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT

Mr. G. I. Miller moved second reading of Bill Pr15, An Act to Incorporate Baptist Bible College Canada and Theological Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved second reading of Bill 54, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, Bill 54, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, is a bill to extend coverage under the Public Service Superannuation Act to part-time civil servants, seasonal workers and certain other employees in government-related jobs that are of an ongoing nature.

Auxiliary to this purpose is an amendment to allow contributors to establish credit for past noncontinuous service. This will permit the buy-back of credits for past part-time or seasonal service. The bill also includes some amendments that will bring the Public Service Superannuation Act more into line with other recent legislation.

Last but not least, a number of housekeeping items are contained in the bill that are necessary for administrative purposes.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this bill and certainly intend to support its principle. I think its ramifications in the years ahead will be far greater than we may expect as we pass it rather routinely in the House this morning.

Employment in this province and in this country is becoming more and more a part-time thing. Those people who feel they have some of the answers to the high level of unemployment in our province usually list among those answers the fact that employment is going to have to be shared more in the future than it ever has been in the past.

This is true not just of women who join the work force but of men as well, as full-time permanent employment becomes more and more difficult to achieve. The government in this legislation is recognizing, I believe, that they have a role to exhibit some leadership in providing a package of benefits for those people who do not have the benefit of full-time employment.

Certainly, there have been a number of part-time employees in the service of the government of Ontario and its various agencies for many years, but this number is bound to grow. We all know as members of the Legislature ourselves that some of us employ people in our constituency offices who have only part-time responsibilities. It is my hope that once this legislation becomes law we can apply some of its aspects to the employees in our constituency offices who are other than full-time in their contracts.

I want to return for a moment to talking about changes in the general concepts of employment in the work force. There are those who talk about getting back to normalcy, I suppose the way Calvin Coolidge did in 1922. We are never going to return to the concepts of full-time employment that were once considered the norm in the time when some of us older members of the Legislature were joining the work force.

Nowadays, people who look forward to full-time employment are much rarer than they were a decade ago. I believe the statutes, the regulations and the concepts that govern the laws of this province are going to have to adjust to this changing matter. It is not a temporary adjustment. It is becoming a permanent and accepted fact in employment practices in Ontario and Canada and in the western world.

The bill itself goes at least part-way towards providing a package that should be reproduced in large measure in the private sector. A good many employers already have at least part, if not all, of this package and, in some rare instances, an even greater package of safeguards for part-time employees. I hope this legislation will be in some measure an example to the private sector in moving in the direction of providing this sort of coverage for part-time employees.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, we support the bill. As the former leader of the Liberal Party has suggested, it does go part-way in the direction we have advocated for a number of years and that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union has advocated for a number of years.

I am pleased the minister has agreed to allow our request for the bill to go to committee for one day of hearings, which I understand will be next Wednesday. I have been told OPSEU representatives will be appearing and making specific recommendations on certain sections of the bill.

I am left with a number of questions which I hope will be answered in committee as a whole and in our one day of public hearings and discussion in committee. First of all, we do not really know how many part-time employees are out there whom this bill will affect. Members of this House and members of OPSEU have asked the government for figures and have not been successful in getting a numerical breakdown. We get a photograph at one time in the year, and that does not give very clear picture of who is affected.

I wonder why there is the change to four months rather than three. I suppose the minister will make the argument that he wants to exempt summer students and those kinds of people. There are other ways of exempting these people, if that is his intention. I also wonder how many people will be excluded by using four months instead of three. I suppose we could argue, why not two? It is reasonable to come down with some kind of cutoff. I am the first to admit that. I suggest, however, that the minister will have to justify to me why it should be four months and not three and discuss how many people will be lost as a result of that extra month's difference.

11:50 a.m.

I also have some concern as a member of the select committee on the Ombudsman and as our party's critic on the Ombudsman as to why the government in amending this act has so blatantly refused recommendation after recommendation made by the Ombudsman's committee on section 16 of the act. As early as 1976-77, in the second report of the Ombudsman, there was a detailed summary, which I will not go into at great length.

The complaint was about a retired provincial employee who became re-employed on a casual basis with the Ontario public service. As a reemployed superannuant, the complainant found his earnings restricted, in accordance with section 16, by a formula which permitted him to earn only $1,074.64 per quarter. Any excess earnings were to be deducted dollar per dollar from his pension. It was his contention that the formula contained in section 16 was too restrictive.

It is interesting that the Ombudsman's conclusion was similar. He thought there was a miscarriage of justice in this and requested that it be changed. Interestingly enough, the government at that time expressed its intent to make those changes. Here we are years later bringing in an act which completely ignores the request of the Ombudsman.

It is not as though that request were simply made in the second report and dropped. It was raised again in the third report of the select committee on the Ombudsman, recommendation 24: "The Ministry of Government Services table appropriate legislation in the Legislature during this current session removing the present restriction on the total current earnings of a provincial superannuant." Then it went into details on page 58 of that report.

Then again in the 11th report of the select committee on page 20: "Recommendation No. 24 of the committee's third report provided that the ministry should table appropriate legislation removing the present restriction on total earnings of a provincial superannuant. Management Board of Cabinet has approved in principle an amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act which will remove the present provisions requiring a reduction or suspension of the pension benefits where a pensioner is reemployed by the crown. Representatives of the ministry assure the committee that the amendment is a priority."

That is the statement by the ministry. The ministry made that promise to the select committee and the committee printed it in good faith and thought the problem was solved. Then here we have this minister coming in and breaking the promise. After so many reports of the select committee, after the Ombudsman has found an injustice is being committed, after the former minister has promised the select committee that the necessary changes would be made, I would ask why this minister is now breaking the promise.

With those comments, I will close. I look forward to vigorous and intensive scrutiny of at least those two problems in committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, as has already been indicated, we have agreed that the bill would go to the general government committee for one sitting of that committee next Wednesday. I am sure much of this debate and discussion on the pros and cons of the bill can be taken care of at that time.

I would like to touch upon a couple of the issues raised, particularly those by the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip). I appreciate the support indicated by both parties opposite and the acknowledgement that it is a very positive step to recognizing changing times. I think these changes are just a start in light of the nature of the problem and the changes there will be in the decades ahead.

As far as the numbers of people that would be eligible is concerned, we will have some figures next Wednesday, but there is no doubt that is a changing number of what is felt to be appropriate. In my view, the four-month period for eligibility is a very rational one. The four months definitely covers people who are employed on a seasonal basis, for example, whether they be winter seasonal or summer seasonal. For people involved in a period shorter than that, their employment probably is not a significant portion of their total remuneration in the year. It would not be the predominant part of their present earnings, let alone their future retirement earnings. At least one third of the year is reasonable, rational and, last but not least, practical for administration.

Why did we not include changes to section 16 of the act? I never fail to keep the promise. We always keep the promise. I am not breaking it. The answer is a policy issue. Although the Ministry of Government Services administers the act and does all the work involved in it, we are not the policy ministry in that regard.

I suggest that question should more properly be posed to my colleague the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) who, I presume, will be passing on to a degree the views of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission. That is where the policy emanates. We are only the practitioners who carry the policy direction we receive into the practical administration of the act.

The member can ask him for a further explanation behind the answer. The decision was made, rightly or wrongly, that over the last number of years things have changed, times have changed, there is a much more definite issue of a policy nature involved, and this should be dealt with in a policy way in the total issue of mandatory retirement.

To look at section 16 of this act in isolation would not be looking at the total issue of mandatory retirement. It has been put aside until that occurs. With that, I have covered to some degree the questions posed with respect to second reading of this bill. We look forward to the bill being in committee next Wednesday.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on general government.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 57, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the minister made a statement when it was introduced. My colleagues and I have examined the provisions of the bill carefully and we are in support of the principle.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the usual intention is that a person's pension should start on the day of his anniversary, not as was the case prior to this amendment when it could go back five or six months. This bill will provide that. In line with most other pensions, the pension will start on one's anniversary date whereas it did not before. We will support this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

12 noon

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved second reading of Bill 67, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Milk Act expand the power of the Milk Commission of Ontario to make regulations, obviously with the approval of cabinet, thereby enabling all regulations that relate to milk products to be made under this single piece of legislation. Currently, regulations for dairy products that are also milk products must be made under the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.

I commend this piece of legislation to the House in order that we may improve the efficiency of provincial statutes governing milk and milk products.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, we were originally under the assumption that the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), the parliamentary assistant to the minister, would be piloting these bills through the House. I thought for once we were going to have a grass-roots farmer dealing with agricultural matters. I do not know whether it was a case of the parliamentary assistant simply refusing to do the work of the minister because he has been held at the same post for more than 20 years, which I think is rather unfortunate.

I firmly believe, and I have said this on numerous occasions, it is most unfortunate that a man like the member for Elgin, who has been a farmer all his life, who has graduated from the Ontario Agricultural College with a degree and who has come into this Legislature with a good deal of knowledge about agriculture, is for some reason not considered by the Premier (Mr. Davis) to be capable of filling the ministerial position.

The Deputy Speaker: Can the member help me as to how this ties in with second reading of Bill 67?

Mr. Riddell: That was just a little prelude, a little history.

Bill 67, An Act to amend the Milk Act, is basically a housekeeping bill concerning the administration of the Milk Commission of Ontario. Basically, the bill expands the regulation-making powers of the Milk Commission of Ontario to the grading, packaging, packing, marketing and labelling of milk products.

Looking into this bill with those people more directly involved, such as the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, I understand some clarification was needed between federal and provincial regulations concerning the grading, packaging and labelling of milk. Also, whereas the regulations pertaining to such matters were made under the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act, they will now be made under the Milk Act. We certainly have no reluctance in supporting this particular amendment.

There are other amendments in the bill, including a change in the quorum of the commission from a majority of the members to three members including the chairman and vice-chairman. The amendment to the quorum of the commission would result in the commission and the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board, which has the same total of nine members, having the same quorum.

There are also some definition changes in the bill. The definitions of "plant" and "processing" have been expanded to include facilities that process milk products and engage in packaging and packing.

As I indicated at the beginning, it is a housekeeping bill. We in the Liberal caucus will certainly support the bill.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we also will be supporting this bill on second reading.

I cannot disagree with what the minister had to say about the main purpose of this bill. It does provide for uniform handling of the purchasing, distribution and sale of milk in the areas where the Milk Act gives any such authority. I suggest, as the minister has, that combining them under one piece of legislation will improve the administration of that grading, packaging, etc.

As has also been stated by the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), it is largely a housekeeping bill with some changes in definitions to conform with today's situation.

I have two concerns with the bill, and we will be asking that it go to committee of the whole House. The first is with regard to section 3, which changes the existing wording, which says, "Such officers, field men and other employees as are considered necessary for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties of the director may be appointed under the Public Service Act." The minister is adding a few words there, and I think I understand the intent of adding the words "or may otherwise be appointed for such purposes by the minister."

My understanding is that there may be federal inspectors and so on who can do the inspection provincially as well. I do not disagree with that, but I would think the minister would also admit that the wording we have here would provide that any persons considered necessary for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties of the director -- and that would be provincial inspectors, graders, whatever -- could be appointed, if this were to pass, outside the Public Service Act.

I am not suggesting this is the intent of the legislation, but unless the minister can correct what I am saying, to my knowledge this would mean that he could appoint them outside the act. If that is the case, it could mean that at some future date the Public Service Act could be bypassed; that, with regard to seniority, political appointments could be made. The public service association and the present employees would raise a tremendous fuss about that, but the legislation would be supreme and the minister could proceed with it.

I would like to think that this is not the intent of the legislation; but unless I am seriously off, this is what would be permitted. I would like it to go to committee so I can move an amendment to make it clear that it would only be employees of the federal government who could be named by the ministry to do that work.

The second part of the act that I disagree with is that there is no provision in the amendment to set the retail price of milk in this province. Unfortunately, the minister was out of the House when I raised the issue today.

Quite frankly, in preparation for the debate on this act I called Quebec to find out a bit about their milk act. In the course of our conversation, I found out about the extremely low retail price of milk in Quebec compared to the prices here. I have been in touch with Quebec on other occasions, of course, when the price of milk went up here and I have found out that their price was less than ours by three to five cents a litre, 10 or 12 cents for two litres and perhaps 20 cents for four litres.

12:10 p.m.

But when I checked it out this time, the facts were almost unbelievable. I doubted them so much that I had a call made a second time to the equivalent of our milk commission in Quebec, and they gave the same figures. Then this morning I even phoned some of the supermarkets in Quebec to find out whether those prices were real.

It simply means that in Quebec the maximum price that can be charged for a litre of homogenized milk is 85 cents. I am comparing the southern part of Quebec to the southern part of Ontario. That is the maximum that can be charged in Quebec. In fact, they are charging less than that in many of the supermarkets.

I know the minister is going to say there are all kinds of sales. However, there are no sales on this. The average price of a litre of homo in the supermarkets in Toronto is $1.08, but the farmers are paid only one cent less per litre in Quebec than they are in Ontario. The farmers who produce in the southern part of Quebec are paid $48.96 a hectolitre. In Ontario, they are paid $49.98; that is $1.02 per hectolitre less in Quebec or one cent a litre.

These prices contrast 10 cents and 15 cents. In the particular case I gave the members, that would be 23 cents. For two litres of homo in Toronto, the average price is $2.09; in Quebec, it is $1.68. Four litres of homo is $3.59 in Toronto; in the areas of Montreal and Quebec City, it is $3.24. The same sort of thing is true with two per cent milk. One litre here is $1.06; in Quebec, it is 81 cents. That is 25 cents less a litre. Two litres are $2.06 here and $1.61 in Quebec. The average price for four litres is $3.49 for two per cent milk -- that is the normal price -- but it sells there for $3.08.

I know the minister is going to get up and say there are sales. I admit that is true, but the sales carry on for only a limited period of time; and, generally speaking, it is only for one or two types of packages. For instance, seniors who by and large buy their milk by the litre because of the small amount they consume, are paying $1.08 or $1.06, compared with 85 cents and 81 cents in Quebec. In fact, it is less than that in Quebec; it is 79 cents in Quebec in the supermarkets at the present time.

There is no secret about one of the main reasons milk is so much cheaper in Quebec than it is here. That government has passed legislation which sets the minimum and maximum prices of milk. I have given the maximum prices which are in effect at the present time. Incidentally, this is not something that is going to be raised just next week. The increases were put in effect in April. Although theirs was not as much, generally they are reasonably well in step with Ontario in the timing of the increases.

Here in this province there is no control as there is in varying degrees in other provinces in this nation. Although I think I have as much conviction as the minister in the free enterprise system, or I should say in the competitive system, the fact is that when competition disappears, one has to have an alternative. That is what the minister and the government of this province refuse to admit.

When one company, John Labatt Ltd., owns at least 50 per cent of the processing capacity of milk in this province, according to what it has stated itself, we are getting to a monopoly stage. When there is a situation where in the last 15 years the number of companies processing milk in this province has dropped from something like 175 to 30, competition is substantially lost.

I suggest to the minister that he has to take a look at this. He has to do an in-depth examination to see whether the time has not come when the government should intervene on behalf of the consumers. The people on the other side of the House have done a lot of talking about restraint, but the application has really only been to wages and salaries. The government has not done any restraint when it comes to Ontario Hydro rates; it has not done any restraint when it comes to prices, even though the corporations may be making huge profits and may be semi-monopolies; and it has not done any restraint when it comes to the price of milk, one of the most essential commodities in our society.

I suggest to the minister, to this House and to the people of Ontario that this bill has a very serious omission. Therefore, I would like it to go to committee of the whole House so we can move an amendment to correct that omission.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of time I will be very brief. I am pleased the honourable members opposite support the bill in principle.

In answer to the two points raised by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), I simply want to state that his understanding of section 3 of the act, which was given to him at some length over the telephone by Mr. McMurchy of my ministry staff, is correct. Experience has proved that, legally and technically speaking, we need this amended wording to be able to cross-appoint employees of the federal government who from time to time are involved in plants in this province when we ask them to carry out the purposes of the act. I understand what the honourable member is saying, but I cannot agree that the construction of the wording here could be abused in the ways he is suggesting.

With respect to his second point, which I understand forms the basis of the private member's bill he introduced this morning, first of all I am not going to dwell on the price wars, although they do occur from time to time -- in fact, with some regularity. I watch them very carefully myself; having the kind of household we have and consuming the amounts of milk we do, we are very conscious of it.

Even in my own community, I see wide fluctuations in the price of milk, as much as 30 or 40 cents for a four-litre bag of two per cent; so I do not know that taking a price in southern Quebec and comparing it with a price in a given store, or even a given area, is necessarily a fair comparison. I do not think, though, that he should dismiss so casually the significance of the one cent per litre for the farmers, because that represents about 2.5 per cent of income and is therefore significant.

The member's comments with respect to Labatt's and its involvement in the milk industry are well noted. I should point out to him, though, that notwithstanding the acquisitions by Labatt's in the last year or two, it has recently lost market share. The reason for that has been the entry into the field by Dominion Stores through the introduction of the new Heritage Farm line of dairy products into its stores. So notwithstanding their acquisitions, Labatt's has in fact lost a significant proportion of market share recently.

I hope we can carry this now on second reading. We will go into committee of the whole House to hear the member's amendment. On the basis of what he has said to this point, I doubt that I will support it, but I will wait until I see it. Then we can perhaps stack it and carry on with the other two bills that are standing in my name this morning. I hope we can deal with them all today.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

12:20 p.m.

GRAIN CORN MARKETING ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved second reading of Bill 68, An Act respecting the Marketing of Grain Corn.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides that fees be collected when grain corn is sold in this province. This compulsory but refundable checkoff would be forwarded to the Ontario Corn Producers' Association. The association would use the funds to advance the production and marketing of grain corn. I commend this act to my colleagues in the House. It will provide for the long-term financial stability of what has developed into a very important producers' organization in Ontario.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, it is not often I have an opportunity to give the minister credit -- he seldom gives one the occasion -- but I have to congratulate him for bringing in this legislation shortly after he met with the executive and other members of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association.

I am a little surprised, however, that the association had to learn about the introduction of this bill by reading a newspaper article. They had no idea the bill had come in for second reading until opposition critics contacted some members of the executive, informing them the bill had come in for second reading and asking for their comments.

Of course, it caught them off guard because they intended to have a meeting next week to go over the bill and come to their own conclusions as to whether they liked it or not. Obviously, they are not going to have that opportunity because they learned only last night, when opposition critics contacted them for their comments, that we were going to be debating it on second reading.

However, I know the corn producers are happy the minister has introduced the bill. I know the executive of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association has met with the minister and caucus members within relatively recent times to acquaint them with the current status and achievements of the organization.

It had its beginning as a provincial association within the last year, although I believe corn producers have been attempting to organize for some time on a more local basis. I am sure my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) will detail more of the history of the corn organizations when he gets up to debate this bill.

The Ontario Corn Producers' Association has been endeavouring to provide a service to the corn producers of this province without adequate financing. Consequently, they met with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) to discuss the need for a checkoff levy to provide long-term financing for the association and to solicit his advice on the development of a financial protection plan for grain corn.

The corn producers' association, as well as the grain and feed dealers, was hoping that both a financial protection plan and a checkoff levy for the financing of the association would be introduced in legislation at the same time. They hoped that both plans would go through at about the same time.

I am sure the minister is working on legislation for a financial protection plan and I sincerely hope he will advance it expeditiously so the plan can go into effect before the corn harvest season of this year.

We are pleased the minister has responded to the request of the Ontario Corn Producers Association for a compulsory refundable checkoff levy, as the organization has certainly demonstrated during its initial year of operation that it is capable of working effectively on behalf of corn producers, that it has the support of farmers and of the Ontario agricultural community in general and that it can work constructively with other organizations to the benefit of all.

The association had considered the long-term prospect of procuring funding via membership, but rejected such a prospect for a number of reasons, including that benefits from their activities would accrue to all corn producers, that no other major farm commodity group in Ontario is funded by membership fees and that their future levels of achievements would be diminished markedly if they had to spend a large proportion of their time selling and ensuring renewal of memberships.

In essence, the long-term wellbeing of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association depends on the establishment of a levy on product sales, and the minister has met with its request. The New Democratic Party critic and I had a chance to discuss the contents of this bill very briefly last night. The NDP critic expressed some reservations about the bill. First of all, it does not provide for a vote, and he was somewhat concerned that section 5 of the bill appears to give tremendous power to the board of directors of the association. He also questioned the 40 cents per metric ton maximum levy.

I spent all last night sitting up. I could not get to sleep for wondering if the NDP critic's concerns might be justified. Having given them considerable thought and contacted the executive member of the corn producers' association this morning, I have come to the conclusion that these concerns are not justified. The corn producers' association has had more than 40 meetings on this subject, which led up to the introduction of this bill.

I was speaking this morning to Terry Daynard, secretary of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association. I was informed the association has no complaints about the bill as it stands at present. They are more interested in having a speedy passage of this bill than in having the bill go down to committee. They certainly would have questions about the bill if a vote were to be taken, as I am sure may be suggested by the NDP critic when he stands in his place. However, the corn producers' association does not feel a vote is required. They feel justified in asking for a refundable checkoff without a vote.

If the checkoff were nonrefundable, then they would definitely urge that a vote be taken, but it is a refundable checkoff and they see no reason for going to the corn producers to get their concurrence with this bill. Furthermore, the beef and the sheep checkoff does not require a vote, so why should the corn producers be in a different situation? If there were a vote requirement a few years down the road, the corn producers' association would see it as a bit of a time bomb ticking away.

We know what happens in the farming industry. When things are going well, farmers are prepared to go along with a program that requires a checkoff. When times get a little tough, they start to question whether they want or can afford a checkoff. If a vote were taken, it would depend on the price the farmer gets for his product whether he would be prepared to support a checkoff or turn it down flat.

12:30 p.m.

I believe this is what the corn producers' association meant when its members said, "If we were to have a vote down the line, it would simply be a bit of a time bomb ticking away." The association would be hoping that prices would be good, the farmers would be happy and they would be quite prepared to have this automatic checkoff, but it does not always work out that way. The association feels it is justified in having this thing go through without a vote of the producers.

It could be argued, and I am sure once again the NDP critic might argue, that section 5 gives simply too much power to the board. Under the constitution of the corn producers' association, however, the board cannot make any changes without the approval of the members at its annual meeting. The association does not feel the board has all that much power, because it does have to go to the members during an annual meeting to get their approval before any changes can be made. The association certainly would not want the power to change the regulations without the consent of its members, so I see nothing wrong with section 5 as it is written at present.

The NDP critic expressed some concern about the 40-cent maximum checkoff levy per metric ton of corn. The corn producers' association was asking for a checkoff of only 20 cents per metric ton. It is not concerned about leaving it at the 40-cent maximum, however, because 10 years down the road inflation may have doubled. This means the checkoff can move up in accordance with inflation without the minister having to come into the Legislature to get the approval of the House to increase the levy from 20 cents to 25 cents to 30 cents and so on. There is no problem in moving the checkoff levy to 40 cents if indeed, as I have indicated, inflation has been such that it may have doubled in 10 years.

I am not going to ask that the bill go to committee. I did indicate to the NDP critic last night that I could understand his concerns and that maybe the best way to work out these concerns would be to send the bill to committee. After having had a lengthy conversation this morning with Mr. Daynard of the corn producers' association, however, I have come to the conclusion that our concerns are not all that justified.

The association requests that the bill receive speedy passage, allowing the minister to spend the time to bring in some legislation regarding a financial protection plan, which the corn producers hope might be in place before they start to harvest their corn this September or October.

Once again, the minister deserves congratulations for bringing in this legislation and has our support.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express our party's support for second reading of this bill.

Everyone knows the NDP was a strong supporter of marketing boards, farm organizations and many other democratic organizations for many decades before they were popular. Our opinions have not changed. We are still very supportive of marketing boards and organizations that are beneficial to the farmers; they cannot get what they deserve unless they have strong organizations.

I rise to speak on this bill because we in the NDP have had discussions with the Ontario Corn Producers' Association over the fact that this fledgling association has done an excellent job over the year or so since it was formed. I was out to its organizational meetings, unlike the member from Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), and heard a lot of the discussion that took place out there. I realized the problems they had and the problems they were going to have in bringing this organization to where it would have the power it must have if it is going to provide the service it should to the corn producers of this province.

I share with the member for Huron-Middlesex the concern that the corn producers have not seen this bill. That is extremely negligent on the part of the minister, that it would have been tabled in the House and called for second reading before they have even seen the bill.

I do not deny for one moment that the principles embodied in this bill have been discussed at length by the association and the minister. Generally speaking, perhaps totally, those principles are embodied in this bill. However, sometimes a detail of the wording can be improved. It seems to me the association should have had the opportunity to have seen the details of the wording and to have made comments on it before we dealt with it here.

I recognize their desire to see quick passage of this bill. The principles they proposed are now in the bill and they thought if any details were to be ironed out they could be ironed out at a later date. But it would be much nicer and much more appropriate, and I think much more respectful, if they had had the opportunity to see the bill before it came before this House. At least they could have seen it after first reading, before it came up for second reading.

When I spoke to the secretary of the corn association yesterday it was the first he knew this was going to come up in this Legislature today. Although he had taken the opportunity to familiarize himself generally with the bill, he had not had an opportunity to peruse it in some depth.

I think it is not unfair to say the minister should be faulted for not having taken that final step.

However he is to be commended for the fact the bill is even here. I recognize this kind of bill is in some respects in conflict with the right-wing philosophy of the government. To have brought it in at this time, at the request of the corn producers, is to his credit.

I would like the minister to take note of a couple of minor things in the bill and to respond when he gets up. First I would ask what the relationship is between the Ontario Corn Growers Association, as designated in the Agricultural Associations Act, and the new Ontario Corn Producers' Association. The present act does have an Ontario Corn Growers' Association. Is it a lively organization? Has this one superseded it? If it has, then should that act not be changed as well? Perhaps the minister will comment on that when he gets up.

12:40 p.m.

I am also a little concerned, and I do not profess to be a lawyer of course, about the wording of this act. It seems to me it should say in this act that each licensee is a member of the association. I do not see that in the act. How do they become members of the association if the act does not say?

I realize there are provisions in the Agricultural Associations Act for the payment of fees to be a member, but to the best of my knowledge this has not been included in that particular act. Where in this act does it say every person who pays a licence fee, which means every person who sells corn, at least at the beginning will be a member of the corn producers' association? Perhaps the minister would like to mention those two items when he gets up.

I want to acknowledge publicly that this fledgling association has done an excellent job. It got some advance payments for corn producers. It has fairly and very strongly represented the interests of the corn producers of this province. Because of all the difficulties there are in signing up memberships, I am supportive of the fact that at this stage -- when they apparently now have signed producers who are growing about 25 per cent of the corn in this province into their organization, and when there is the difficulty of even finding out who the other thousands of producers are -- the time has come for this revocable and refundable checkoff.

I do not think the member for Huron-Middlesex intended in what he said to convey the interpretation that we were saying there should be a vote to implement the association and the checkoff, but I want to state very emphatically we are not asking for this and that I have never proposed it. I think the member for Huron-Middlesex would agree this has not been our position at all. I do not think there is any alternative to going ahead with the checkoff at the present time. They have shown their good faith, that they are a conscientious organization representing the corn producers.

We in this party support the checkoff. In fact, my only concern with this bill is that it may give some grounds to those who will ultimately oppose this checkoff. Granted, they can withdraw from it, but those who may be in opposition to this bill may be given some grounds on which to mount some opposition to it. I guess that is what bothers me, if anything, about this bill. It is not what is intended to be included in this bill.

The fact that there is no provision for any vote at any time on the checkoff by the association is a matter of some concern. I wonder if the minister would also comment on this when he rises. I believe there is provision either in the regulations or in the Farm Products Marketing Act -- and I may be wrong -- whereby, if 15 per cent of those producers sign a petition, then a vote is taken. I wonder -- and this is why I had hoped we would have the time to go to committee -- if this kind of provision could not be applicable here if we decide, because of time or whatever, that down the road they are not going to put in any provision to have a vote after three or five years or whatever the case may be.

This matter of having the members have the final say on the major policies of an organization is a pretty important principle. It is true, as I have already stated, that the association has done a good job. It is true that I certainly support this initial thrust. I will support the bill and my party will, even if no changes are made in it. But the fact that there is no opportunity for the membership to decide on the major provisions, even retroactively, does concern me a bit. As members of this Legislature, we are passing this bill, which the Ontario Corn Growers' Association has asked for.

If there is any fault relating to the principles of accountability and democracy down the road, that fault will not rest with the corn growers association. It rests with us as members of this Legislature. I am sure the minister recognizes that. I would like to see someplace, whether it is by petition or by vote down the road, where the membership of the association can pass on these major policies involving the association. That is one part of the concern I have.

The second part is that clause 5 states, "Where the board of directors of the association is of the opinion that a majority of the members of the association are in favour thereof, the board of directors may recommend through the minister to the Lieutenant Governor in Council the making, amending or revoking of regulations respecting any of the matters set forth in section 6."

There are seven matters set forth in section 6 that can be done by regulation, including the levying of the licence fee, which is proposed at 20 cents per ton.

The intent of the corn growers' association and the intent of the government, I am sure, is that there would be a resolution passed at one of the annual meetings or some special membership meeting. They would make the recommendation and the directors would then make the recommendation to the minister. If, in the opinion of the minister, the regulation was well-founded, the regulation would be changed to comply with the request.

The actual wording of the bill does not say that. I suggest those in opposition, who will be in opposition when the fees are starting to be deducted, will view that as a lack of democracy. They will point to it as a lack of democracy in the organization just because the bill is worded that way. It will not be from the action of the corn growers association, but because the bill is worded that way.

Theoretically, the directors do not have to bring anything up at the annual meeting. A month afterwards, if they decided they wanted a change in the fee, they could do it. Those directors are not going to do that; nevertheless, the bill is worded that way and can raise some opposition.

Finally, we have put in 40 cents when they are asking for 20 cents. I recognize the validity of what the minister said and what the member for Huron-Middlesex said in this regard. The value of the dollar and the value of the cent changes from year to year. We are given the opportunity here to change that just by changing a regulation. I recognize all that. But somebody out there who is getting $100 or $200 deducted in the first year may raise some opposition to this. He will say, "Look, they can change that right up to 40 cents." He can go around and build quite a campaign on those things.

12:50 p.m.

I have these concerns because I am so anxious that this organization be successful. It is because we may give some grounds to the opposition to work successfully against the organization that I raise those issues here in the House today. I would like to see this bill tabled until the association has a chance to see it, to go over it in detail and to read the debate that takes place here today; then we can make the final decision on it.

I want to say immediately that cannot happen in a week. Maybe we have to pass this bill today because there is urgency. We know how long it takes sometimes to enact regulations. We saw this with the amendments to the Grain Elevator Storage Act. I do not think we have those out yet, and they were passed eleven months ago. We know the kind of delay there can be from the passage of a bill until it is operative.

Having said that, one week, or two or three or four days, does not seem to be unreasonable, so they can read the debate that has taken place here in this House and make their own decision on it. Quite frankly, if the corn producers' association want it left like that, word for word, I am not going to be the one who raises strenuous opposition in this House against it. But I think these are legitimate concerns of people who want to see this legislation be effective and of those who want to maximize democracy and accountability.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise in support of this bill. I have a couple of comments in regard to those made by the member for Welland-Thorold, which lead me into thoughts I was going to present anyway. He spoke about our agricultural critic, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), not having attended a particular meeting.

I want to go back into the history of this corn organization a bit. It started in the area I represent, the riding of Kent-Elgin, particularly in Kent county. Kent and Essex counties were the original corn producers in Ontario when we used to grow the old open-pollinated corn varieties rather than the present hybrid corn varieties. Those were the only varieties that would grow in the heat units we had in Ontario. With the expansion of the hybrid varieties, we now grow corn as far north as Ottawa and even beyond in some cases.

There was an association back in the 1930s, largely of open-pollinated producers, who put on a corn show every winter in the city of Chatham. There was competition among people who selected certain corncobs and developed their own varieties and showed these at the corn show in Chatham in the 1930s. That died out in the war years of the 1940s, which coincided with the time when hybrid corn came into the county

There was another group organized at the time -- I think they called themselves the Canadian Corn Association -- to represent hybrid growers. A couple of the most prominent members of that were the late Darryl Jubenville, whom I remember speaking about hybrid corn at most meetings I attended. Another member, who is still living and very active in corn production and all forms of agriculture, is George Morris. Probably the minister is aware of that very fine gentleman. He knows him personally I believe.

About 1969 or in the late 1960s, we started running into some very low corn prices in the 90-cents-a-bushel range. Production was expanding because of the hybrid varieties, which were moving corn production out of Essex and Kent counties into Elgin, Lambton, Middlesex and right through the rest of the province. The word came out that producers wanted to start a corn marketing board. They had the example of the Soya Bean Growers' Marketing Board and the Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, etc., and some of these were very successful. It was at a time when I was president of the Kent County Federation of Agriculture.

I was a corn producer myself, growing about 125 acres of corn at the time, but I was not really conversant with corn marketing. I took that winter off from my other activities and studied that subject. We had a series of meetings throughout the county -- they were largely in Kent county because it was just beginning. As we developed our program, we took it to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The federation ruled on whether or not it approved of the particular plan we had offered.

We would have had this act presented to us about 10 or 12 years ago had not Mother Nature intervened. It was the closest North America ever came to famine. That seems a little strange to talk about in a country that is so accustomed to having surpluses, but in 1970 or 1971 -- I would have to check the record -- we came close to having one.

A disease began in the United States called the southern corn leaf blight. This disease had always been around in the southern states but had never really attained much prominence. In that year it wiped out the corn crop in the southern states. It moved up through the middle states where it cut production by 30 per cent or 40 per cent and swept right up into southern Ontario where it cut production by possibly 10 or 15 per cent.

The problem had come about through market forces and developments in this hybrid corn business. In order to cut down the cost of seed corn and to get away from the detasseling operation, they developed a new variety. In detasseling one goes through the corn and pulls out the tassels.

They had developed a male sterile variety of corn to use as the male parent in those crosses. Because it was a much cheaper operation than any other method of producing seed corn, all the seed corn producers in North America were using the same male parent material for its sterility. They did not discover until that year that particular germ plasm was susceptible to the southern corn leaf blight. Had weather conditions been just a little different -- had it turned wet through our season in the northern half of North America -- we could have had a total wipeout of our corn crop that year.

Those activities raised the price of corn to the point where producers were not quite so concerned about it. Then in 1972-73 the Russians came in and bought up all the surpluses of coarse grains in North America -- corn, wheat. They cleaned up the market to where we had some pretty good prices for a number of years.

Now we have caught up in production and the growers are again interested in doing something for themselves. They realize, as they did in the 1970s, that it is pretty difficult for Ontario to make much of an impact on the corn marketing of North America when we produce only about 2.5 per cent of total North American supplies. It is a market that is governed by conditions in the United States.

However, there are many things we can do besides directly affecting the price. One concerns the freight rates that apply to moving grain from southern Ontario to Toronto, which is really the main movement of this crop. Surprisingly, instead of going east from Toronto, the corn goes west and north, because the biggest area of consumption is really in the Perth area. That is where there is a major concentration of hogs, cattle, chicken and livestock. The main movement is from storage in Toronto back towards Chatham, although there is movement towards eastern Ontario as well.

There are things such as premiums for corn. When a person sees those lineups of wagons and trucks at an elevator in the fall, he often fails to realize when looking at an individual load of corn what the process is. The person on the receiving end might decide it is a premium corn. It is then dumped into the hopper unknown to the producer; by pulling certain levers and so on, he moves the stream through the mill and that corn goes into a special bin.

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

The House adjourned at I p.m.

25 mai 1984