Journal des débats 1985-déc-18 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Eakins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: A few weeks ago the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and I delivered a Christmas tree to the city of Buffalo on behalf of the citizens of Ontario as a way of saying "Seasons Greetings." Today, in exchange, a group of carollers are in your gallery who have been entertaining us with some very beautiful Christmas music. I ask the honourable members to greet our friends from Buffalo.

Mr. Rae: While wanting to join in that welcome, I would say that in selling our trees for a song, the Liberals are continuing the Tory policy of the last 42 years.

Mr. Reville: It might be of interest to the guests to note that I am wearing a buffalo tie today, and proudly.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Members are aware that the regional municipality of Sudbury is facing employment reductions by Inco and Falconbridge that will amount to substantial numbers of jobs being lost in the next year. Regrettably, this is part of a pattern of job attrition we have seen in Sudbury over the years as those companies take steps to remain competitive in an extremely tight world market.

My colleagues the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) are in Sudbury today, along with the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration to announce a federal-provincial pilot project to assist the people of the regional municipality of Sudbury adjust to this situation.

Our announcement today is the product of discussions we have had over the past two months with Sudbury region officials, union representatives and the two companies. In reviewing the Sudbury situation, our aim was to develop a concerted adjustment program that both addressed Sudbury's problem and included elements that are transferable to other resource development communities in northern Ontario that face similar situations.

We are announcing today a pilot project that addresses those two aims. Five million dollars will be invested in the project, with $2 million from the province, $2.5 million from the federal government and the balance from Inco and Falconbridge.

If there is one thing Sudbury does not need, it is another study. The situation in Sudbury demands action. The Sudbury pilot project will be administered through a local committee to be struck as soon as possible. That committee, which will be broadly representative of Sudbury's business, municipal and labour interests, will recommend projects to the federal and provincial governments. The committee will have a three-part strategy to guide it.

Its first aim will be the development of worker adjustment programs, especially for those older workers experiencing employment disruptions due to layoffs. These programs will include skills training and financial assistance for the unemployed and the underemployed.

The committee will also work with Inco and Falconbridge to find ways of achieving increased efficiency with minimum dislocations and layoffs. Topics for discussion will include work-sharing plans, extended-leave options and early retirement.

Its third task will be to work with the regional municipality of Sudbury to implement a long-term development strategy leading to the creation of permanent employment opportunities. This is a major component of the Sudbury pilot project. It will include incentives for such things as entrepreneurial development, including the provision of industrial space and venture capital for small businesses, marketing studies and strategies and other forms of assistance to start or expand small businesses in the area.

Comme je l'ai mentionné tout à l'heure, l'un des avantages les plus importants du projet-pilote de Sudbury réside dans le fait qu'il peut être appliqué ailleurs. De nouvelles idées seront lancées et nous aurons la possibilité de retenir les meilleures d'entre elles pour mettre au point des programmes qui répondront aux besoins d'autres localités du Nord qui, tout comme Sudbury, sont aux prises avec les problèmes causés par l'effritement de leur économie.

If we are successful, our long-term goal of helping the north to build a stronger and more stable economy will have been realized.

HONDA PLANT

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have the great pleasure this afternoon of bringing to the Legislature some important news concerning automotive investment in Ontario.

At 2 p.m. today, the Honda Motor Co. announced it will double its employment investment and production at its new Alliston, Ontario, automobile production facility.

As many members will recall, during June 1984, Honda Motor Co. announced it would build an automobile production facility in Alliston. The initial investment was set at $100 million, with employment to be approximately 350 people and annual production targeted at 40,000 cars per year. With today's announcement, Honda has decided to increase its investment to $200 million, to double its employment to 750 people and to raise the annual production capacity of this facility to 80,000 cars per year.

Honda, in character with the company's past accomplishments, was the first non-North American automobile manufacturing company to announce it would undertake to build an automobile manufacturing plant in Canada. Now, less than 18 months after this initial announcement in Ontario, the company has decided to double its production plans. This is a tremendous vote of confidence in Ontario and Ontario's people.

Production will begin at the facility during 1987 and will reach capacity by 1989. Canadian parts makers will be given every opportunity to bid on the parts that will be required by this facility.

This announcement represents a tremendous boost for the automotive industry in Ontario.

2:10 p.m.

[Later]

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: It is a privilege to share with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) his great pleasure in the announcement he was able to make today on behalf of Honda Canada Inc. The people in Alliston and area, in Tecumseth township and within a radius of 25 to 30 miles from Alliston, are also very happy.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Hon. Mr. Scott: Members will recall that on November 18, 1985, Mr. Justice Potts of the Supreme Court of Ontario granted an interim interlocutory order prohibiting the government from providing full public funding on an interim basis to grades 9, 10 and 11 of the separate school system.

Today the Divisional Court, in a unanimous decision, has reversed the decision of Mr. Justice Potts. In reaching its conclusion, the Divisional Court stated:

"On the evidence before this court, as between the applicants -- the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and Mr. Boone on the one hand and the Roman Catholic separate school boards, teachers, students and parents on the other -- the balance of convenience overwhelmingly is in the latter's favour. The disruption of the educational system and its interim funding is, in the opinion of this court, a matter to be avoided at all costs."

I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) is not here to hear this statement.

"The applicants will not suffer irreparable harm if the interim prohibition order is set aside, and a continuance of the regulations for a short period of time will not substantially alter the applicants' position."

I also wish to advise the House that the Divisional Court accepted the government's position that the funding regulations must be accepted on an interim basis pending a determination of the full case. I again quote from the judgement:

"The regulations in question should be presumed to be valid until the court orders otherwise. This court, in the present case, is not dealing with the constitutional validity of Bill 30. That matter rests with the Court of Appeal. This court is, however, dealing with the validity of the regulations to which reference has previously been made."

I am glad, therefore, to announce that there is now no reason the government should not continue on an interim basis to fund the extended separate school program for the 1985-86 school year.

There is no reason not to proceed, and the Divisional Court has indicated there is every reason of convenience for interim funding to proceed. I am advised by my colleague the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) that the funds intended to be delivered to the boards in question in December 1985 will be forwarded shortly.

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) enjoyed my last statement. I will try another one on him.

I am pleased to announce today the appointment of Walter Pitman to be my adviser in the evaluation of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the current structure and processes of governance of Ontario's community college system.

Following the publication of the report of the Instructional Assignment Review Committee -- generally known as the Skolnik report -- in the late summer of this year, I announced that I would be appointing an adviser to examine the system of governance in Ontario's colleges of applied arts and technology.

This evaluation is part of this government's program to update and rejuvenate Ontario's post-secondary educational system. We hope to identify both the strengths and the weaknesses in the current structure of college governance to allow us to build on those strengths and rectify those weaknesses.

In carrying out this task, Mr. Pitman will be speaking to college students, faculty, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, college administrators, college governors, the Ontario Council of Regents and staff of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

In particular, Mr. Pitman will be examining the structure of college governance as established by legislation and will be reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of the current governance structure; he will be considering the communication requirements among the government, the Ontario Council of Regents and the college boards of governors, and he will be addressing the advisory/executive role of the Ontario Council of Regents.

It is anticipated that Mr. Pitman's task will be completed by May 31, 1986. I note for the record that the statement I distributed refers to March 31, but the appropriate date is May 31.

Mr. Pitman has long been associated with education in Ontario. In addition to his experience as a teacher in both the secondary school and university systems, he was Education critic for the New Democratic Party in the Ontario Legislature from 1968 to 1969. He was appointed president of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute in 1975. He became a life member of the Canadian Association for Adult Education in 1969 and was president of the association from 1978 to 1982. Since 1980, he has been the executive director of the Ontario Arts Council.

I wish to acknowledge the assistance and co-operation of my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) and Mrs. Sonja Koerner, chairman of the Ontario Arts Council, for allowing Mr. Pitman to undertake this most important task at this time in addition to his current responsibilities.

I am sure the members will agree that Mr. Pitman's background and experience make him particularly qualified to carry out this task, and I am looking forward to working with him on this most important undertaking.

LOAN AND TRUST LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am very pleased to announce that today I will be introducing for first reading the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, 1985.

The members will recall that a white paper concerning amendments to loan and trust corporations legislation was widely circulated in November 1983 and considered in detail by the standing committee on administration of justice. As well, there were numerous meetings at the ministerial level, at senior staff levels with provincial and federal governments, and with the industry and several professional bodies.

In June 1985, a consultation draft of the proposed legislation was released for public consideration. This draft had the benefit of detailed review by the Dupré Ontario Task Force on Financial Institutions. I am pleased to report that the response to the consultation draft has been generally positive. In its final report, the Dupré task force suggested further areas of revision, but at the same time indicated that this legislation is desirable and generally supported by the industry and the public.

This act has been in development for two years and has been needed for many more years. We believe existing economic conditions and outdated legislation require this new act as soon as possible.

The act I am introducing today is based on five general principles:

1. The maintenance of public confidence in the loan and trust corporations industry by the introduction of stronger provisions for depositor protection;

2. The equality of application of the provisions in the act to federal, Ontario and extraprovincial corporations. This is called the equals approach;

3. An emphasis on a strong board of directors and the importance of managerial responsibility;

4. The initiation of a general ban on self-dealing and strong rules regarding conflict of interest;

5. The introduction of proactive regulatory measures.

I note that, as directed by the standing committee on administration of justice, we are not adopting a 10 per cent limit on ownership.

This act is the result of considerable industry and intergovernmental consultation. I want to assure the House that consultation will not stop. My ministry will continue its work with federal and provincial governments to achieve the cooperative regulatory regimes that are so desirable in the regulation of financial institutions.

Following our second reading debate, I will be recommending that the Loan and Trust Corporations Act be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature for clause-by-clause review so that the members of this House will have a full opportunity to have input into the act.

2:20 p.m.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I wish to inform the House that the Advertising Review Board has completed its open competition for the appointment of an agency of record. The AOR competition was widely publicized and totally accessible, in accordance with my announcement of the new government policy in September.

As a result, eight qualified advertising agencies and media buying services tendered bids to the Advertising Review Board, based on a bottom-line price for their services. The best five bidders, including Foster Advertising, were placed on a short list. Foster is the government's current agency of record, with a contract to December 29.

Competing with Foster were four other bidders: Harrison, Young, Pesonen and Newell Inc.; MacLaren Advertising Ltd.; McKim Advertising Ltd.; and Media Buying Services (MBS) Ltd.

I understand that it has been a long-established practice in the advertising industry for agencies of record to be paid a media commission of 2.25 per cent. For the past 11 years, for example, the Ontario government AOR worked on that basis, with Foster retaining 2.25 per cent for its services. I am pleased to report our new system has produced a better deal. We have succeeded in breaking through the 2.25 per cent floor price, and significantly so.

Two other capabilities were essential to winning the AOR account, besides the fundamental bottom-line consideration. They were and are (1) the availability of senior, experienced staff for a quick startup; and (2) an outstanding record of highest-quality service to its clients.

Taking into account the three major criteria, namely, the best price, the immediate availability of a senior startup team and a proven track record of good service, the board was unanimous in its recommendation.

I am pleased to announce that Management Board, and subsequently the cabinet, have acted on the ARB's unanimous recommendation and have approved the appointment of McKim Advertising Ltd. of Toronto to be this government's agency of record at a contract commission rate of 1.5 per cent. This means the new agreement will produce savings to the taxpayer for the first full year of operation of approximately $471,000.

McKim has a large and experienced team in readiness to accomplish the AOR turnover from Foster as smoothly and as efficiently as possible. They will assume operating responsibility for the AOR effective January 1, 1986. A contract will be drawn up for 27 months, to run to March 31, 1988, with a standard 90 days' cancellation clause.

In all of this, I have satisfied myself that the policies I outlined at the time I made the announcement of the new system have been adhered to in total by the ARB. I am more than encouraged that the new process is working well. I wish to record my personal appreciation to the ARB for its conscientious efforts.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am pleased to announce the appointment of Vickers and Benson Advertising Ltd. as the new tourism advertising agency for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Vickers and Benson was selected for my ministry's tourism account over three other finalists in an open competition supervised by the government's newly established independent Advertising Review Board.

Our previous agency, Camp Associates, competed for the account and reached the short list of four finalists. The other two competing agencies were MacLaren Advertising Ltd. and Cossette Communication-Marketing Inc.

The appointment of Vickers and Benson to a three-year contract was the outcome of a two-and-a-half-month agency search conducted by the Advertising Review Board, which was established by this government in September to run open, fair and accessible competitions for all government advertising contracts. I am pleased to inform this House that the Advertising Review Board's recommendation of Vickers and Benson Advertising as our tourism agency was unanimous.

The unanimous recommendation of the Advertising Review Board went forward to Management Board of Cabinet yesterday morning and received approval there. At the full cabinet meeting this morning, it was again approved and the Advertising Review Board was complimented for its very open and proper procedures in arriving at its final decision.

On October 1, 1985, I sent a letter and a news release to some 250 advertising agencies across the province, advising them that the tourism account was being reviewed. A total of 54 agencies expressed interest and were asked to complete a qualifying questionnaire. Responses came in from 17 agencies and seven were placed on a short list after an extensive screening. Those seven agencies were thoroughly briefed and then made capability presentations to the Advertising Review Board in mid-November. Four finalists were selected.

G. Campbell McDonald is the chairman of the Advertising Review Board. The members of the Tourism Agency Review Board included Peter M. Sharpe, acting assistant deputy minister of the tourism division; Greg McKnight, director of the tourism marketing branch; Patricia Jacobsen, executive co-ordinator of the management policy division, Management Board of Cabinet secretariat; and R. T. Brown, retired president of Gulf Canada Products Co., who is the private sector representative.

Further details on the awarding of the new tourism advertising contract are contained in the news release from my ministry, which is now being distributed. Essentially, the Vickers and Benson contract is effective January 1, 1986, and will run for three years to December 31, 1988.

There is no question that this was an excellent competition, and I believe the open selection system represented by the Advertising Review Board has served both the government of Ontario and the tourism industry well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOUSING POLICY

Mr. Timbrell: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier will recall that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) in his statement on Monday indicated that the government over the course of the next five years will be providing the financing for slightly in excess of 55,000 units, most of them rental but not all of them.

The Premier will also be aware from his discussions with the building industry that it indicates an annual requirement of 17,000 new rental units, or 85,000 over five years, just to maintain the terribly, disastrously low vacancy rate we have now, all of which suggest there will be a minimum of a 30,000-unit shortfall over the course of the next five years, further exacerbating the problems of the availability of rental housing.

Can the Premier tell us today how his government intends to see that the 30,000-unit shortfall is eliminated through additional construction? More than that, how does he intend to re-establish a competitive rental marketplace so that we do not have to live with this in perpetuity?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member identifies a very serious problem that we attempted to address in the policy review by my colleague this week. We view it as a balanced approach; obviously, we have a responsibility to protect tenants as well as to encourage building.

The member will be very familiar with the problems we inherited. As a former housing minister, he knows of the crisis that was allowed to develop over the past 10 years. We were presented with this. On one hand, we have our commitment to the tenants; on the other hand, we have a great responsibility to encourage building.

I have real difficulty understanding where the member comes from. He is against rent controls, but the party critic is in favour. I believe we have addressed that with sensitivity. We conversed with the developers and the builders, who told us that even though there is no question they would like to see rent controls disappear tomorrow -- they are not going to -- they can build within the context we presented to them.

There will be incentives in a variety of areas and there will be direct government help in some areas. There will also be private building. We are most optimistic that we have succeeded, in the first instance, in changing the mentality.

There is a tremendous amount of distrust, which goes back to things the developers told me. They told me, for example, they were brought in before the 1981 election and told by the then minister, "If you guys would just be quiet about rent controls, we will get rid of them as soon as the election is over and we have a majority." They felt abused. I do not want to be uncharitable, but they felt they had been lied to by other governments which were not setting forward clear parameters.

They now know with certainty where we stand and they have indicated positive responses. With their help and the help of the builders, mortgagors and others who must flow billions of dollars into this area, I am persuaded we will see a healthy building climate and we will be able to solve the problem.

Mr. Timbrell: I thank the Premier for that lengthy answer and for his references to the building industry. I refer him to a letter the industry sent him a week ago Monday, signed by four gentlemen, all of whom were involved in the discussions the Premier had with the building industry. They start off by being rather glowing in their commendations to the government. They then point out that he has changed his policy of 10 years with respect to building construction since 1976.

On page 3 of the letter, they say: "We are encouraged by the government's commitment to allow units that are currently chronically depressed to move up to market levels. Clearly, the industry understands that the incentive for building additional rental units in the future to address current needs and to increase vacancy rates is on the basis of a commitment from this government that everything built before 1976 would be brought up to what is euphemistically referred to as market rents, in other words that new construction will be based on higher rents for people in existing buildings."

Is that the Premier's understanding of the commitment he has given them? Is that the secret deal we were trying to get at yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member and his secret deals: is he now in favour of rent controls? He is a very curious fellow. On the one hand, he was arguing in the campaign that we had to get rid of them and now he is saying we should not. What did the minister announce the other day? The member should have read the policy we are addressing in a task force. A group is looking at the question of pre-1976 rents. The tenants understand that and they have been most thoughtful about this whole situation. They said they recognized the right of a landlord to make a fair profit.

We also want to avoid gouging over a period. We are building in a right of return for the builders on the money that comes into the marketplace. It is a very sensitive and open process. There is no hidden policy here. The members opposite are so used to a hidden agenda they assume other people have one. We do not. They are so used to making their own sneaky deals they assume we do. We have no secret deals. It is all there to be seen. If they read the very thoughtful presentation by my colleague, it is all laid out clearly in the most comprehensive housing policy this province has ever seen.

Mr. McClellan: Could the Premier explain an aspect of the housing supply program announced on Monday that continues to mystify and baffle me? The minister announced that the government will spend $75 million over three years under the Renterprise program to produce 5,000 units of affordable rental housing and during the same period will spend $72 million in nonprofit and co-operative housing to produce 20,000 units, 15,000 of which will be affordable rental accommodation.

Can the Premier explain to me why it takes $75 million in the private sector to produce 5,000 units and $72 million in the nonprofit sector to produce 20,000 units? Why is he wasting money like this?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We see that it is going to require a multiplicity of strategies. There is no one way to encourage the kind of building we have to do and the kind of renovation we have to do to meet the real demands pointed out by my colleague opposite. That is a problem.

We are trying to mobilize and not only improve existing housing stock but also bring variety and new types on to the market. We think our policy fits that mix and that balance. If it does not, we can look at better alternative ways of spending those funds. We are prepared to do that. On the basis of the evidence we have so far, and we have discussed this with the builders and with the people in the business, we think this is the quickest way to meet the demands that are there.

Mr. Timbrell: In answer to various questions this fall respecting housing supply, the Minister of Housing has always had the same answer. In September, he told the London Free Press that rent controls would be gone within a year. In October, he said in the House, "If the member will just wait a while, he will see a good policy coming about soon." On November 29, he used the word "soon" twice during his responses. On December 5, he said, "forthcoming shortly"; on December 9, "our policy will come soon"; and on December 12, "soon" was used four times.

In the minister's statement last Monday, he indicated the intention to finance 32,000 rent-geared-to-income units over the next five years. The existing list of applicants today is 40,000 in Ontario, before adding any new applicants over the next five years. Is that to be the government's answer to applicants for subsidized housing, that they will get a unit soon, five years from now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have real trouble with the member's questioning. He is a former minister and one who left us a big long list that we have been moving with dispatch to address. We have a faster policy. The member is the one who does not even believe in rent-geared-to-income housing. He is the one who does not even believe in rent controls. Now he is telling us we should have more of this. I have real trouble with that.

The member is not credible on this question. If he has specific suggestions on how we can meet the need, I will be very happy to hear from him, but I can tell him we have dealt with a tough situation sensibly and it is going to work. Just watch.

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege, before I proceed to my second question. I do not expect the Premier to do anything about it. He does not answer questions. He does not care about the privileges of the members of this House. In his nonanswer, the Premier said I do not believe in rent-geared-to-income housing. That is not the case. If he has a quote from somewhere he would like to trot out to try to substantiate that statement, I would be happy to see it. The point is that it does not exist.

Mr. Speaker: That is not an appropriate point of privilege.

Mr. Timbrell: My second question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. We will see if we can get some answers from him.

REMOVAL OF WINES

Mr. Timbrell: Can the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations explain to this House why it is going to take six months to test all Liquor Control Board of Ontario products for ethyl carbamate?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The LCBO has 3,000 products on its shelves at present. The standards that have been set by the federal government are so small and precise that it has asked that all samples we do should be confirmed by the federal government. We are going to take all the products that are highly suspect, do those as soon as the federal government tells us the methodology, then send the results to Ottawa for confirmation.

By dint of numbers, it is going to take up to six months. We do not know the exact number, but I can assure the honourable member that under the old system of identifying products that exceeded 500 parts per billion, in the past four weeks we have been testing continuously and we have not found one product that exceeds the limits.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Timbrell: On checking with the LCBO this morning, we were told by an official of the board that they will probably start testing next week.

My question is very simply, how can he test 1,000 products, one third of the inventory, in a month, but now he is saying it is going to take a further six months to test the balance of the inventory or to redo the first ones? How can they do 1,000 in one month but they cannot do 3,000 in a much shorter period than six months?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I should tell the member we are talking about two different processes. For the first 1,000 products we were using the existing criterion at the LCBO, and that was 500 parts per billion or more. That was relatively easy to do.

The federal government has come up with a standard that is as low as 30 parts per billion; not only that, but it has said: "Once you identify a product that falls below that level, we want you to send the product to us for confirmation. We will let you know that is the limit and we will then remove the product."

Mr. Swart: Would the minister not agree that even with the present equipment they can find products that have a very high content, whether it is 200 or 300 parts per billion? Why can they not test those quickly and then get them off the shelves?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We are testing the balance of the 2,000 to see whether they exceed the limit of 500 parts per billion on an ongoing basis. The problem is that the federal government sets not only the standards but also the methodology. Until it confirms the methodology to us, we are literally in its hands.

Mr. Timbrell: The same official of the LCBO informed us that the minister and his staff have access to additional machines at the LCBO. What is more, we have learned of companies in the private sector that are available, whether at the Ontario Research Foundation or in other places, to do these tests.

Why will the minister not avail himself of the extra machinery and staff available within his own ministry or within the private sector -- or within the universities, for that matter -- in order that the concerns of consumers as well as those of producers, who are seeing a 30 to 40 per cent drop in wine sales in this province at this time, can be alleviated as quickly as possible?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The basic problem we have is waiting for approved methodology. We are expecting it from the federal government. When that happens, the highly suspect products can be tested very quickly, in a matter of days. There is minimal risk because, as I have said, for four weeks we have been testing products and have not found one that exceeds the limit of 500 parts per billion. We can continue to do that. It does not make any sense to send those out on a rush basis, because we have not found anything in four weeks at that level.

The problem is the suspect areas we know of; we know where they are and we can test them very quickly. Therefore, the six months is not for every product. The products that present the most risk will be tested immediately. To go through all 3,000 products, with which we believe there is very little risk because of our past experience, is going to take up to that time. I do not know exactly how long it will take. We will do it as quickly as we can.

HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

Mr. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. There are many thousands of cases, but I want to raise one with the minister; it involves a woman whose name is Irene Farthing and who has Alzheimer's disease. She lives with her daughter and son-in-law in my constituency. Her daughter has given up her job to care for her mother. Her son-in-law is a trucker who makes $8.50 an hour; he does extra work delivering the Toronto Star and makes an additional $100 a week.

Can the minister explain why this family is not eligible for the home care program and has been cut off that program? Why has this family been continually and consistently denied services through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and why has it been told by his ministry that it will furnish care only if the family takes the first available nursing home, which is entirely unacceptable to the family since they want to keep Mrs. Farthing at home for as long as they can?

Can the minister explain why this is happening? In 1981, Frank Drea said there was going to be a program for the frail elderly. In 1982, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) said there was going to be such a program. It was repeated in 1983, endorsed by the Liberal Party in 1984 and specifically mentioned by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in his speech in this House on July 2, 1985.

Can the minister explain why we still do not have a decent program for older people who want to stay in their own homes and who need some help from the Ministry of Community and Social Services?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The home care program is a medical program that comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health and not under my ministry. We do have a home maintenance program and a home support program. I am not certain from the honourable member's question whether the lady would qualify for either of those. If she does, I will be delighted to look into it and to assist him with a specific situation.

With respect to the planning, the Ministry of Health and my ministry are working jointly on an integrated homemaker program that I expect will be in place by January or February, in which case families such as the one that has been described can come to one centre to have their needs assessed to determine whether they need medical care, home maintenance care or home support care. Whatever their need is, it will be assessed and delivered through one agency rather than two as at present.

[Applause]

Mr. Rae: I do not know how anybody can applaud that statement. That is the same gobbledegook and bureaucratic crap we had from the Tories for the past five years on that issue. It is exactly the same. There is no difference, not an iota of difference. Nothing has changed. A minister is appointed who is responsible for introducing a program and the program is completely sandbagged in cabinet, where it has been for the past two months.

The problem is that Mrs. Farthing does not qualify for the home care program under the Ministry of Health, and she has been denied services by the Ministry of Community and Social Services precisely because there is no such program in place. The minister goes around saying he is going to assess people for a nonexistent program. It is a bloody disgrace and he knows it.

When is the minister going to introduce a program that will finally deal with the problems of Mrs. Farthing and thousands of other seniors like her who have been getting nothing from the government but vague promises?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I attempted to indicate before that there are two different programs available at present. The first one, the home care program under the Ministry of Health, requires a medical authority and a medical need to have the service delivered. The second program, under my ministry, is a needs-tested program. It is evident that in the past people have fallen between the cracks of those two programs. That is why the two ministries have gotten together to set up an integrated homemaker program, which will be in effect in January or February and which will amalgamate both medical and social needs. I suspect that is the response the member is asking for.

Mr. Cousens: The minister is talking about the cracks and the people who are falling through the cracks. The question was asked about a specific woman with regard to Alzheimer's disease. It is these specific individuals who are suffering because of the lack of integrated services right now.

The minister is talking about working out a program with the Ministry of Health. What can he do now about this particular person, who is typical of hundreds of people who have no home care, who do want to go into centres but want care within their own homes? Can the minister do anything for her today?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I cannot do anything for her today, because she does not qualify for either of the two programs that are currently available. That is why the new, integrated program will combine the qualifications of both and people simply will not be falling through the cracks. That program is in the organizational stages right now and has been for a couple of months. I have already indicated in answer to the two previous questions that we expect it to be in place in January or February.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: This has to be the only ministry that has two deputy ministers, one of whom is sitting in this House. It is exactly the same nonsense.

Is the Minister of Community and Social Services aware of what has been the fate of the reports coming from his colleague the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), the Minister without Portfolio? Can he tell us what is the fate of that report with respect to the relationship between the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health?

How can the minister justify the delay in bringing in a program that was promised in 1981? On June 21, 1984, his colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), who is sitting in front of him now, together with Sheila Copps, raised the question of privilege in this House, complaining about the delay in the implementation of the program. That is a year and a half ago.

Where is the minister's sense of time here? Where is his sense of people who are out there waiting for a program and of others who are locked in, caring for their loved ones, who cannot even get out to a movie once in every three or four weeks because they have to stay at home all the time with their loved ones? Where is his sense of urgency about a problem in this province that affects people where it hurts?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I understand that the report my colleague the Minister without Portfolio has been preparing for cabinet is complete and has been delivered to the cabinet office.

The second question deals with the fact that my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) built into his recently announced budget an amount of $11 million for expanded home support programs. That is going to be allocated precisely to the program I have already described.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Treasurer about the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. I hope to continue the enlightening exchange we had yesterday and perhaps get some indication as to where the government is coming from on this issue.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will agree he was misquoting the resolution.

Mr. Rae: As Christmas comes even closer, I know the Treasurer's mood will take on the degree of benign recognition that all of us are human and make mistakes from time to time. I am reminded of mine every day, and I know the Treasurer is as well.

The Treasurer said he was under the impression that the negotiations between OISE and the University of Toronto were to continue for the next four months. Does he not realize that as a result of a board meeting last week, on December 10, there are no direct negotiations between OISE and the University of Toronto; that the director has been requested not to participate and that, in a memorandum he sent around to his faculty on Monday, he indicated he was fully in agreement with that decision and request of the board and fully in support of the board's position?

Is the Treasurer aware of those facts? What does he intend to do to resolve what has now become a complete impasse with respect to the future of OISE?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am also under the impression that the leader of the New Democratic Party is spending quite a bit of time assisting the board of OISE in this difficult matter. Evidently he has become its major spokesman in this House, because I had not been made aware of that matter. However, I had seen a list of the resolutions to which the member has referred in which the director had been requested by the board not to continue negotiations. The director did not take an actual part in the discussions other than as an observer in the discussions with the chairman of the board, Dr. Jones.

I have a very high regard for the chairman of the board, whom I have known for a good long time. I do not share his view of the inadequacies of the education faculty at the University of Toronto. However, I got the distinct impression from my discussion with him in the presence of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara), who took part in the discussions, that the chairman was prepared to go forward with discussions, if not negotiations, with the University of Toronto with an eye to meeting a deadline, if I might use that word, at the beginning of the fiscal year. At that time, the financing of OISE would take place through the University of Toronto.

The chairman has not informed me of any change. If they see fit not to follow the budgetary direction of the province, then we will have to examine our alternatives. I will be glad to be further informed by the member in this regard.

Mr. Rae: I will be more than delighted to do that. As I am sure a number of other members have been, I have been meeting not only with the OISE board but also with the faculty association. Also, I have received dozens of letters, not only from Ontario but also from all around the world, with respect to the work OISE has done. The feeling in the educational community is very widespread that what the Treasurer proposed by fiat is completely inappropriate, unfair to OISE and does not reflect the current reality in 1985-86 with respect to that institution.

The Treasurer has indicated that he is aware of the decision of the board and the resolutions that have been passed by it. I am sure he is aware those decisions have been endorsed by the director, by the faculty association and by a number of constituent groups.

Does the Treasurer not realize the effect of his unilateral announcement has been quite the opposite of what was taking place between OISE and the University of Toronto, which was a discussion about affiliation and some kind of integration with respect to the faculty of education? The effect of his announcement has been to scuttle that and to put a major divide in any discussions; it is encouraging OISE to look elsewhere and at other solutions that are quite different from the ones I am sure the Treasurer initially had in mind.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I regret it if the two organizations can no longer discuss their relationship as a result of my announcement. I know discussions were going forward to maintain the status quo, which seems to appeal to the leader of the New Democratic Party. The University of Toronto is responsible for the degrees that are granted by OISE, and it would be unfortunate if the University of Toronto found itself not in a position to grant those degrees to the students at OISE.

The leader of the NDP and all the other members know the University of Toronto is a world-class, independent educational institution, and it seems rather strange to an objective observer, let alone the member and myself, that an organization such as OISE, which itself has an excellent reputation, would object so strenuously to being associated with the university except on conditions that it promulgates itself.

It is not as if OISE were being consigned to some sort of administrative process that is unacceptable. I think it should be very acceptable. No one, and certainly not the Treasurer, has suggested that the financing of educational research should be reduced in any way or, as I said yesterday, that the work of OISE should not proceed in an effective way.

Mr. McFadden: The basis on which the Treasurer announced the transfer of OISE to the U of T was to eliminate duplication. Obviously, as far as the board is concerned, there is a difference of opinion on the advisability, for education purposes, that this be done. Perhaps the Treasurer will share with the House exactly what duplication he intends to eliminate by this transfer and what dollar amounts are attached to it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: To begin with, we obviously would not need two boards if it were administered by the university.

Mr. Rae: That is pathetic. If that is the basis of the decision, the Treasurer knows how pathetic that is.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Get aggressive.

Mr. Jackson: Which finger was that?

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: Is he worried about his camera angle? Is he not getting enough ink? What is the Treasurer's problem?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I notice the member gets aggressive only when they are following.

The Deputy Speaker: Order; question.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: One has to have more than one gear, that is all, and I intend to show the Treasurer yet another gear.

He must be aware that the University of Toronto gets about $18 million as a result of students who are enrolled in the faculty of education and it gives that faculty about $9 million in return. That is one of the principal concerns OISE has, and the Treasurer must know it.

In his final answer to me yesterday, the Treasurer indicated he was considering using his financial power in an attempt to bludgeon OISE into a relationship with the University of Toronto. Will the Treasurer withdraw the statement that he will so cut the budget of OISE on its own, that he will punish any attempt by OISE to retain its autonomy within the university system in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that you allow the honourable member to paraphrase my moderate comments yesterday in such a way. The words "bludgeoning" and "cutting" are his rhetoric, not mine.

In response to the member's rather inappropriate question yesterday, I indicated that while I believed in the long run I would have the power as Treasurer to do the really terrible things he is suggesting, I thought the wisdom of the boards associated with the two institutions would make any such suggestion completely unnecessary and hypothetical.

Mr. McFadden: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The Treasurer's proposal to transfer OISE to the University of Toronto has upset and alarmed students and educators throughout Ontario, as the minister must be aware. Would he inform the House whether he, as Minister of Colleges and Universities, intervened with the Treasurer on behalf of OISE? Would he also tell the House what advice he gave the Treasurer on this very important matter?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure exactly what my friend is getting at. If he is asking me to intervene, I can tell him simply and straightforwardly that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and I had a number of discussions on this subject, both before and after the budget announcement. The member for York South (Mr. Rae) and my critic in the Conservative Party have taken and encouraged a very negative approach to this whole process.

It is clear that our initiative is directed towards an attempt to enhance both the University of Toronto and OISE. If I might suggest a precedent, I refer to the union of some years ago between a quasi-independent law school, Osgoode Hall Law School, and York University. The union of those two institutions under the umbrella of York University has been very effective for Osgoode Hall Law School, now fully a part of York University. The negativism that is coming from the other side misses the point entirely.

The question of consultation is one I have answered before. There is no doubt that the Treasurer and I have talked about this. I have also talked with faculty members and students, and our position is clear.

Mr. McFadden: Perhaps the minister made a mistake in the earlier advice he gave. We can probably take notice of that from the reaction it has had.

If the minister is not now prepared to intervene and to act as an advocate for the education community in Ontario on such an important matter as OISE, how can students, faculty and administrators in our province's colleges and universities have any confidence that the minister will be anything other than a front man for the ideas of the Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not think I am a front man for anyone. Since this government has taken office, the government collectively and I as minister have been the most outspoken advocates of post-secondary education at OISE and every other institution.

Ms. Bryden: It seems to me it is time the minister sat down with the various communities at OISE and talked to them about his concept of the role of OISE in the educational system. Has he taken any initiatives to talk to the faculty and the unions beyond talking mainly to the directors?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have answered that question before in this House. I have met with the faculty and union representatives. I have met with the director. I have met with members of the board. I have met with the president of the University of Toronto and the director of OISE. The discussions are proceeding.

What we are looking for now is an appropriate model in which to bring these two institutions together so that the work of both can be enhanced. The question is what are the appropriate structures we need so that the cement that binds these two institutions together allows for each of them to prosper as a collective whole.

TRANSITION HOMES

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister is aware that the government's advertising program is putting increased pressures on the services which transition houses provide to battered women and their children. The new projects which are under development were all initiated by the previous government and last year half of the women and children seeking service in Ontario were turned away. I would like to ask the minister how long the policy of turning away women and children is going to continue?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The purpose of the advertising program was not just to speak to women who were looking for shelter but rather to be a wide-ranging source of information for a number of different purposes, and that is precisely how it is being used. In addition, we have set up a telephone hotline or help line with the assistance of a number of women's groups, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

We have also set up some family resource centres, particularly in the northern part of the province, to meet the additional need. The provision of additional services for transition houses and interval houses is an ongoing program, and new beds and new houses are being added on a continual basis.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to point out to the minister that all those new developments were initiated or announced under the previous government. In March of this year, the leader of the Liberal Party made a speech to the Lakehead Women's Commission in which he illustrated what he called the failure of Tory policy by using the fact that Mississauga has only one shelter to serve 500,000 people and that it turned away 1,000 desperate women and their children last year.

He went on to promise a "solid commitment" to both first- and second-stage shelters and services and to "introduce a bill devoted exclusively to services for battered women." Where is that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As I have indicated, the program is an ongoing one. New services are being added. New houses are being opened up. In the six months I have been minister, I have personally officially opened three new houses and started a new hotline. The whole purpose of the program is to provide a network of services so that any woman requiring help at one source and unable to find it is redirected to another source. That is an ongoing program.

Mrs. Marland: I have not yet heard the answer to the previous question, and I would reiterate the concern about the people of the region of Peel. It is actually in excess of 500,000 people. The need has been identified for another interim place in Peel. Can the minister please answer that question, other than in the format of two minutes ago? There is a desperate need and we need the answer.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: If the honourable member is asking whether or not we are aware of the need in Peel and whether Peel's needs are being taking into consideration along with everyone else's, the answer is yes.

3:10 p.m.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Partington: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. The minister must be aware that across Ontario 205,000 Ontarians over 25 years of age are unemployed, and 106,000 of them are women. After all the brave talk about the Futures program and skills training, what is the minister doing for those people? What hope is there for those 205,000 unemployed?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: While the provision of jobs in the province comes within the responsibilities I have as Minister of Skills Development, it is not exclusively my own responsibility or that of any particular minister.

The member will be very aware of the initiatives this government has taken, through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and a number of other programs, to deal with the very serious problem of unemployment. Let us talk directly about the initiatives we have taken in the Ministry of Skills Development.

The Futures initiatives deal specifically with young people under the age of 25. We acknowledge there is a very serious problem of unemployment throughout the province.

We announced a project today that will be launched in Sudbury to deal with that very serious problem; and that is not the end, it is not the last step. Our ministry, in conjunction with the work of a number of other ministries in this government, is looking at ways in which to mount creative training programs and retraining programs that will help the serious problem of unemployment.

Mr. Partington: The 205,000 unemployed people of Ontario over 25 years of age deserve a better answer than that. Can the minister please be more specific? What plan will he implement? What is he going to do to help solve this unemployment crisis?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not want to take up the rest of question period with a series of plans. Let me refer to a couple.

We have negotiated with the federal government, under the successor to the National Training Act, a scheme for training and retraining that will be much more market sensitive to the needs of business and industry in the province. Sums that were previously spent on training which was often not effective, will now be more effective. We are taking the pulse of industry much more directly now to find out where the employment needs are, so that we can match the training we do in skills development, in conjunction with the federal government, with the needs of industry.

Mr. Harris: That has been going on for a year.

Mr. Gillies: We started that a year ago.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lupusella: Considering that the Futures program was announced more or less one month ago, can the minister tell this Legislature how many people in Metropolitan Toronto applied to this program and what kind of help did they receive?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not have figures for Metropolitan Toronto, but my understanding from the latest figures I have seen is that some 10,000 young people have registered in the Futures program since its inception.

While I have the opportunity, may I point out that one thing that is very gratifying to me as minister with respect to the Futures program is that a great number of these people -- my understanding is almost half -- have opted for the one-year guarantee, which is one of the most significant and important aspects of the program.

DEMOLITION CONTROL

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to demolition and conversion control legislation. I am sure he is aware, as is the government, that we in Ontario are in danger of losing as many affordable rental units through the process of demolition and conversion as he will be able to build in the first year of his new housing supply program.

Can he explain to the House why he was not ready with his draft legislation when the housing policy was announced on Monday? When does he intend to bring the legislation into the House so we can pass it quickly before we lose any more affordable rental accommodation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That question should be more properly directed to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling).

An hon. member: He is not here.

Mr. McClellan: My apology, Mr. Speaker. I meant to say the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As I mentioned the other day when the Minister of Housing introduced his new program, I will be introducing new legislation very shortly. It is in draft form now, but some municipalities have been requesting a delay of one year while other municipalities have requested a delay of three years. At present, we are trying to find a suitable compromise to accommodate these municipalities. Very shortly after the holidays I will be introducing legislation that will satisfy all three parties, especially the government.

Mr. McClellan: I was hoping to give these letters to the Premier (Mr. Peterson). I will give them to him later this afternoon when he returns from his meeting. They are from 67 tenants from an apartment building at 580 Christie Street in my constituency. It is a 155-unit building, which is being converted to co-ownership and 155 tenants have received eviction notices and been asked to move out on to the street.

The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has already written to them to say, "I regret that I cannot be of further assistance." Of course he cannot because of the absence of legislation.

I want to ask the minister if he will agree to bring the legislation into the House in the first week of January when we return? Second, will he make the legislation retroactive so that it will cover the tenants at 580 Christie Street and other tenants who find themselves in this disastrous situation?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As the honourable member knows, at present the municipality can delay conversion of the units he just mentioned simply by delaying the construction permit. I can assure him that right after the holidays and before the end of January I will be introducing legislation to prevent demolitions and conversions.

Mr. McFadden: I think the problem we are facing, particularly in the city of Toronto, is a crisis this winter for a large number of tenants. In the event that it were not possible to amend the Municipal Act in such a way that it was universally acceptable to all municipalities, would the minister at least undertake to bring in legislation that would allow the city of Toronto and other municipalities with a lot of housing stock that could be subject to conversion to at least be able to delay demolition?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am negotiating with the city of Toronto to try to accommodate it. The city would appreciate a three-year delay in demolition, and my staff is trying to find the right compromise.

I should also mention to the honourable member that the city of Toronto does have a special delay clause of one year, but I am looking at the possibility of accommodating it with a three-year delay.

LOANS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Brandt: My question is also of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It concerns the arrangement his ministry made with the city of St. Catharines. This deal consisted of two loans to the city to cover the interest losses -- I point out that is the interest losses, not the capital -- the city had as a result of its investment in the Canadian Commercial and Northland banks.

Assuming the minister's own officials have told him about the deal and the loans, could he tell this House the total amount of loans made to the city of St. Catharines? What interest rate is being paid on the loans? When are the loans due? Why were details of the loans never made public by his ministry?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I can assure the honourable member there was a press release on this which appeared in a number of newspapers. The total loans, which were made in two phases, amount to $21 million, interest-free naturally. There was a clause that we would charge them the same interest they would have collected if the federal government had made good. Since the federal government is not willing to pay interest on the $25-million loss, we will not charge them any interest.

In answer to the second part of the member's question, the loan is due on January 1, 1986.

Mr. Brandt: I want to stress that I am not criticizing the loan to St. Catharines. I am, however, criticizing the manner in which the loan was arranged.

I would like to quote from the St. Catharines Standard. The mayor of St. Catharines in discussing the issue said "he had been instructed by the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs not to reveal any information about the loans to council or the public without the ministry's permission. The mayor said the ministry feared other municipalities would come to the province for money if they found out about the loans."

Is the same deal available to Orillia, East York, Sarnia and other communities that are in the same position as St. Catharines?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I said before that a little while ago I was being accused of keeping it a secret. The member has read it in a newspaper; so there is no secret. There was a press release also. I have never instructed the mayor of St. Catharines to keep mum about it. It is open.

Mr. Harris: The minister has his own little sweetheart deal and nobody else gets it.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Maybe the question should be addressed to the local member.

Mr. Pope: No walls, no secrets.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will you let the minister answer the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have never asked the mayor to keep mum on this. It is a well-known fact that we are a responsible government. We have a responsibility to municipalities, and I have to help them.

EMISSION DISCHARGES

Mrs. Grier: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I am sure all of us on this side of the House applaud the minister's attempt to control acid rain, but we at this end of this side of the House are very concerned about the loopholes that exist in his program with respect to Ontario Hydro.

Could the minister be a little more precise than he was yesterday and tell us under what circumstances Hydro in 1986 might be allowed to exceed the 390,000 tonnes it can emit at present? Can he explain his definition of the catastrophe provision for which his regulation allows?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is a very fair question and I will quote this answer to it:

"In the event of a major disruption in electrical supply -- for example, an unanticipated long-term shutdown of one or more of the nuclear units -- Hydro will be able to apply to the provincial cabinet for special permission to exceed the emission limit by a specified amount over a specified time. This catastrophe provision has been provided in recognition of the realities of Ontario's dependence on electricity. The government of the day will decide if any other options are available to meet the emergency."

We are talking about a catastrophe that would leave the province in a blackout situation or a major brownout situation.

Mrs. Grier: I too have read what the minister has read to the House. Can I try to persuade him to be even more precise? We know, for example, that at present two reactors are down at Pickering for retubing. Does that constitute a sufficient catastrophe for an exemption to be allowed? In the case of further retubing of nuclear generators, will that be considered reason for an exemption?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Any particular situation that arises must be brought to the attention of the cabinet, and certainly to the attention of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio), and we would have to evaluate at that time the justification being provided by Hydro for the opportunity to use some of its banking allowances. It would depend on the individual circumstances, and I would have to evaluate them at the time.

I cannot answer the member's specific question right now about whether the present circumstance would constitute that, but I can tell her that full documentation would have to be provided. As I have indicated, this is the kind of information I would want shared with all members of the Legislature through the mechanism of a committee or even in the House, so they would be aware of that information too and be able to evaluate it.

Ms. Fish: As a follow-up to the question of varying levels, can the minister confirm that his approach with Hydro and with the private sector is to provide an annual cap and not a daily cap, thereby opening up the possibility of substantially increased emissions on a daily basis that might, none the less, through plant shutdowns or closings, accord the same average over the year but still be very damaging to the environment in the short term?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member would be aware, in most of these circumstances, they are on an annual basis at the present time. They will all be on an annual basis; that is correct. The evaluation will take place on that basis.

We think that is a reasonable way of doing it, because it has arisen in the past that, because people have to meet daily requirements, they do some rather interesting things to meet them. We think the accumulation on a yearly basis is most important.

As a ministry we continue to monitor -- and the honourable member would be aware of this from her time in the ministry -- on a daily basis emissions that take place in all of these plants to give us an idea of what is taking place, even though the averaging takes place over a year. That would be the basis on which the control orders are placed. We think it is fair, reasonable and environmentally sound.

JUDGES' SALARIES

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board. Was a commitment made by cabinet or by anyone on behalf of cabinet to the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee that if the committee recommended to the cabinet a salary level for the judges of $80,000, it would be accepted by cabinet?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: No.

Mr. O'Connor: In the light of the fact that Edward Greenspan, a member of that committee at the time, states unequivocally that such a commitment was made and that the chairman of the committee, Alan Marchment, a committee member, Arthur Clairman, and the secretary of the committee, Doug Beecroft, a civil servant with the Ministry of the Attorney General, do not deny that such a commitment was made, is the minister prepared to stick to her statement that there was a misunderstanding or that no commitment was made? Or is she prepared to admit that those four honourable gentlemen may be right in their interpretation of what happened?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Yes to the honourable member's first question; no to the second.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I know the House would like to be informed that a good friend of ours, the former member for Essex North, Dick Ruston, is sitting under the Speaker's gallery on the government side. We welcome him back here.

3:30 p.m.

HOCKEY GAME

Mr. Sargent: I have a very important announcement to make. For the first time in 20 years, at Maple Leaf Gardens today the Legislature hockey team beat Ontario Hydro's team, winning 12-4. The four stars were the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward) and Alex McFedries.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Pierce: I have 300 petition cards signed by 307 constituents in the district of Rainy River requesting that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) preserve public education in Ontario.

Mr. Rowe: I too have some 300 petition cards signed by members of District 27 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and other interested parties, urging the Premier to give consideration to the extension of funding to the separate school system.

Mr. Offer: I have a petition signed by 238 members of the Coalition for Public Education in opposition to the extension of public funding to the separate school system.

Mr. McLean: I also have several petitions on behalf of District 27 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, which I present to the Premier.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

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

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Health be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Ministry administration program, $57,796,700; institutional health program, $3,450,894,000; emergency health services laboratories and drug benefit program, $346,623,800; mental health program, $311,022,100; community and public health program, $413,900,900; health insurance program, $2,093,206,700.

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Health be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Institutional health program, $63,000,000; mental health program, $1,927,400; community and public health program, $1,018,200; health insurance program, $2,719,300.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved, seconded by Mr. Offer, first reading of Bill 87, An Act to revise the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Mr. Riddell, first reading of Bill 88, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The purpose of the bill is to introduce amendments to subsections 60(1) and 60(2), section 61, subsections 62(1), 64(1), 65(1) and 67(1) and sections 68 and 69 of the Legislative Assembly Act. These enactments will allow for a salary increment of 3.9 per cent for members' indemnities, leaders' allowances, additional indemnities for the Speaker, Leader of the Opposition, leader of the third party, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole House and the chairmen of standing committees.

The same 3.9 per cent increase will also apply to the additional indemnities for the chief government whip, deputy government whip, government whips, chief opposition whip, opposition whips, chief party whip of the third party and the party whip for the third party. Expense allowances for chairmen of committees and members of committees will likewise increase by 3.9 per cent.

The opposition House leader and the House leader of the third party will also see their additional indemnities rise by 3.9 per cent.

Members' severance allowances, which currently provide for a severance allowance on retirement, defeat or resignation, equal to one half of the annual indemnity paid to a member immediately before leaving office, will be changed to one month of salary for each year of service with a minimum allowance of six months' salary and a maximum allowance of one year's salary.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Riddell, first reading of Bill 89, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Executive Council Act in order to provide salary increments of 3.9 per cent for the Premier and president of the council, ministers with portfolio, ministers without portfolio and parliamentary assistants to ministers. This act would come into force on April 1, 1985.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Riddell, first reading of Bill 90, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The purpose of this bill is to introduce amendments to the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1985. The term "spouse" is defined in accordance with the definition in part III, support obligations, of Bill 1, An Act to revise the Family Law Reform Act, recently introduced into the Family Law Reform Act.

In accordance with recommendations received by the Board of Internal Economy from the standing committee on members' services, the pension accrual rate for members will change from the present four per cent for each of the first 10 years and 3.5 per cent for each of the next 10 years to five per cent of the average annual remuneration of the member multiplied by not more than 15 years of service. The eligibility requirement that age plus years of service must equal 55 will remain. Under part II of this act, the rate of contribution by the member will change from 8.5 per cent to 10 per cent. The effective date of these amendments will be January 1, 1986.

3:40 p.m.

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Poirier moved, seconded by Mr. Morin, first reading of Bill 91, An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Poirier: The bill is intended to facilitate the obtaining of human organs for transplant purposes by creating an automated register for the names of all persons entitled to insured services under the Health Insurance Act, indicating whether each person has filed a general or specific consent to post-mortem organ donation, has filed an objection to the procedure or has done neither. Provision is made for the amendment of the register and for keeping it confidential.

NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. D. S. Cooke moved, seconded by Ms. Gigantes, first reading of Bill 92, An Act to amend the Nursing Homes Act.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: This amendment would build financial accountability into the system by having financial information presented to the Minister of Health and then tabled in the Legislature for the scrutiny of all members. The public has a right to expect its money is going for care, not for profits, and if this bill is adopted, we can examine how money is spent in the nursing home system.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. D. S. Cooke, first reading of Bill 93, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Mackenzie: The bill adds three holidays to the definition of public holidays. They are Easter Monday, the first Monday in August and Boxing Day.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. O'Connor: I give notice under standing order 28(b) of my dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Ms. Caplan) and express my intention to raise this matter tomorrow night at 10:30.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. This matter will be debated at 10:30 p.m. tomorrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 45, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act;

Bill 46, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act;

Bill 47, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act;

Bill 48, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act;

Bill 49, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Bill 50, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act;

Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I require the attention of both opposition House leaders at least.

I made quite a point when introducing the revenue bills that they would not go into effect budget night, but only when they received royal assent. They have now had third reading. His Honour awaiteth to give royal assent now, but I am told by the officials of the Treasury that since this date was somewhat uncertain, adequate preparations to impose the new taxes immediately have not been made.

I have also been informed by the Clerk of the House that once a bill has had third reading, it is absolutely impossible to approach His Honour without asking royal assent of all bills that have had third reading. No doubt that must have made sense some time in parliamentary tradition.

So that I am not going to have to have royal assent of all the bills, which would be somewhat inconvenient for the people in Revenue who have not had a chance to know the specific date in advance, I am asking the House to revert to motions so that I can repeal the whole shooting match -- no, rescind the order for third reading. The third reading order will come forward to the House again in two stages in the next two days for reasons that may or may not be made apparent and that members may or may not care about. I would like unanimous consent to revert to motions at this time. I am calling in all my IOUs.

Mr. Ashe: The minister does not have any.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do so. I just gave the member two this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House?

Agreed.

MOTION

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that third reading of Bills 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 be rescinded.

Motion agreed to.

SAULT STE. MARIE PIED PIPER NURSERY SCHOOL ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, on behalf of Mr. Morin-Strom, second reading of Bill Pr8, An Act to revive the Sault Ste. Marie Pied Piper Nursery School.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Shymko moved second reading of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, on behalf of Mr. Charlton, second reading of Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Dean: I am pleased to take part in the debate on this bill. I wish to confine my remarks to the section that has to do with the suspension of licences when a driver is convicted of a crime under sections of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, are you not going to follow the rotation? The person who adjourned the debate yesterday was also a member of that party.

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. When the order was called, the only person who stood up was the member for Wentworth. No one else was on his feet; so I am sorry, but I must go ahead with the member for Wentworth.

Mr. Dean: I will not be long. The member knows me: quick and dirty.

3:50 p.m.

I know that every member of this Legislature, in common with everyone in Ontario, is concerned about the terrible problem of drinking and driving as it affects traffic accidents, loss of life, injuries to people and property and all the other undesirable effects.

Without wanting to repeat the very important comments that have been made before on this bill, I wish to remind members that traffic accidents in themselves are the fourth leading cause of death in Canada and are the number one killer of youth under 30 years of age. That is really a tragedy: the number one killer. That is not just traffic accidents caused by drinking and driving but traffic accidents in general.

In Ontario last year, 550 people were killed and 27,000 people were injured in alcohol-related accidents. Let us put that statistic another way: Every day in Ontario, on the average, two people will die in alcohol-related accidents and 81 will be injured, including some who will be maimed for life. Although these figures have dropped by 10 per cent since 1980, alcohol is still far too significant a factor in 50 per cent of the fatal accidents and 30 per cent of the personal injury accidents.

Those statistics are bad enough in themselves, but let us look also at the immeasurable cost in dollars. In 1981, the most recent year for which I could obtain figures, the cost across this country for alcohol-related accidents was $5 billion. Those are facts and figures and they can be kind of cold; perhaps one gets numb to them after a while. The personal loss tells the real story. How much larger than any of those statistics is the real cost in human suffering resulting from this lethal combination of human beings, alcohol and motor vehicles?

I ask the members of the Legislature who are present to imagine the positive effects in Canada of channelling the $5 billion that is lost across the country as a result of this kind of accident into job creation, housing, education or many of the other issues we have so much before us here, instead of having to see it as a loss caused by a problem that need not exist to the degree it does, if at all.

The problem is not confined to some sleazy, hard-core criminal element of society; it is a very public concern about a public safety problem. It is the common habit of far too many of us and our fellow citizens to climb behind the wheel of a motor vehicle after what we call social drinks. The consequences of this widespread habit pervade many institutions: from hospital rooms to courtrooms and from there, sometimes, to funeral homes.

I would like to refer briefly to a study of this issue by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada in 1980. I agree that these are not the most up-to-date statistics, but they are better than none. They compared the blood alcohol level of 1,643 fatally injured Canadian drivers with a control group of about six times that many, about 9,750 drivers not involved in accidents who were stopped at random in a national roadside survey.

The results showed first that the risk of collision is higher for all groups of drinking drivers than for nondrinking drivers. Even drivers who have consumed moderate amounts of alcohol -- for example, 10 to 49 milligrams per 100 millilitres -- are, on the average, between 1.3 times and 2.9 times more likely to be fatally injured than are drivers who have not been drinking.

These data provide no support whatsoever for the contention we sometimes hear that small amounts of alcohol may make a driver more relaxed and thereby less prone to involvement in a collision. The fact is that the driver is more relaxed, but to the point of not responding to stimuli such as something he is going to hit.

Continuing from those smaller amounts of blood alcohol found, as the driver's blood alcohol level increases, so does his risk of collision. At lower levels, the rate of increase is relatively slow, but the risk of collision accelerates rapidly with an increasing blood alcohol level. When one reaches or is slightly above the statutory limit of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres, the likelihood of collision is between 5.5 and 13 times as great as the average nondrinking driver.

Those are stunning statistics. It is not that one is slower or less alert, but the actual likelihood of colliding is from five to 13.5 times as much as one approaches the 80-milligram level.

The real conclusion to that is one stated very succinctly by Jean Robitaille of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, who said: "These results lead to one conclusion: If you drink, don't drive at all."

There is no question that the tragedy that results from drinking and driving is becoming less and less acceptable in all quarters of our society. We are no longer willing to tolerate such an enormous waste.

There is increasing evidence that we are changing our attitude towards drinking and driving and recognizing instead that some drunk who uses an auto as a three-ton missile is just as guilty of a criminal action of death and destruction as anyone else who contravenes the Criminal Code. We are coming to realize, and to insist, that such a person be treated by the courts in the same way as we have historically dealt with vandalism, robbery and murder.

Recently, as a sign of this change of attitude, not only among the general population but also among the judiciary, drunks have been subject to more vigorous detection, prosecution and sentencing.

For example, within the past year, a drunk driver who killed two men on Highway 401 in a hit-and-run accident got three and a half years in jail. That does not solve the tragedy of the people who were killed, but it does show we are beginning to mean business in this issue.

I want to quote very briefly from a statement made in October by His Honour Justice B. J. MacKinnon of the Supreme Court. As an aside, I became acquainted with Mr. MacKinnon when he was a student at the same fine university I attended, McMaster University. In his courtroom, as he extended a 20-month sentence to three years, thereby setting a good example for other judges, he said other judges should attack this problem by handing out stiffer sentences. He went on to say:

"In my view, the sentences for the so-called lesser offences in this field should be increased. The variations in the penalties imposed for drinking and driving are great, and increasing sentences for offences at the lower end would emphasize that it is the conduct of the accused, and not just the consequences, that is the criminality which we are punishing. The sentence should be such as to make it very much less attractive for the drinker to get behind the wheel after drinking."

I think we can all applaud those statements of Mr. Justice MacKinnon.

The bill we are considering now, as has been stated by other speakers, was first introduced by the minister of the day, the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague). It contains many of the same provisions but has been strengthened since then. I think I speak for most of us here when I say I welcome the strengthening of the provisions for licence suspension that are in the bill, which I do not need to rehearse. The fact that it is now proposed that the suspension be automatic for a first-time offender is most important and most encouraging.

4 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a number of private conversations around the member who is trying to speak. The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), please.

Mr. Dean: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I can hardly hear myself sometimes. Maybe I am lucky.

Like my colleagues, I have strongly supported the reduce impaired driving everywhere program which has been applied by the police for many years. I believe, as some of my colleagues have stated, it should be extended to a greater portion of the year, as police officers are available to do it.

As desirable and important as RIDE is to the resolution of this whole issue, even more desirable and a more permanent solution is to change attitudes towards drinking and driving.

In years past, while we were still the government, our party helped to establish the many anti-drinking-and-driving committees in more than 60 municipalities in Ontario. These have a real potential to change public attitudes and to reach our goal; a complete unacceptance for drinking and driving.

I also support the provisions in the bill for dealing severely with drivers who drive while their licences are suspended. If these measures seem too strong to anyone, may I refer that person to someone who sat in this House for many years and who dealt with the same problem, former Attorney General Mr. McMurtry. I quote from a statement he made about a year ago, "It makes little sense to impose minimum sentences for impaired driving or driving with more than 80 milligrams and to provide for no minimum sentences for criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving or leaving the scene of an accident; all offences that often involve drinking and driving." This is the sentence that is important, "Lifetime driving suspensions should be considered in any case where death results."

I think some might find that a little extreme at this point, but I think it is a goal we should move towards. We cannot afford the carnage caused by careless drivers who drink.

In closing, I would like to state that I also support the movement that is afoot for raising the minimum drinking age to 21. Impaired driving is a major contributor to the problem that we have with young people and alcohol and their driving. In my first remark, I pointed out that it was the major factor in auto accidents and in deaths of people under 30. Alcohol is a big portion of that.

I strongly support these anti-drinking-and-driving measures in Bill 17.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Before the debate continues, I have a point that should be brought up about the withdrawal of one of the amendments. The amendment to subsection 26(4), dealing with certain licence suspensions issued prior to December 14, 1984, contained within motion 4, has already been circulated to the critics. This will not be brought before the House, on the advice of the Ministry of the Attorney General, and following consultation with the relevant critics.

Mr. Swart: Like the previous speaker, I rise to speak on this bill primarily because of the section that it contains with regard to the loss of the driver's licence for a period for conviction on impairment charges. I want to take part in this debate because it is such an important issue and because I support the bill. I guess no one can do otherwise with the statistics quoted by the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), showing that half of the driving fatalities are due to the excessive consumption of alcohol. There are also all of the other related injuries and costs associated with it. With regard to public opinion, I suppose about 90 per cent are in support of tougher legislation for drunk driving.

This is only part of the whole problem of excessive consumption of alcohol that this government is dealing with. I am not suggesting the minister is, but his government is dealing with it in a hypocritical and largely ineffective manner. That needs to be said and documented.

Let us make no mistake about this legislation. At best, by itself it will only marginally lessen drunk driving. In the long run, it may not reduce it at all. It does nothing or very little in the field of prevention, which I am sure the minister is concerned about -- not penalizing but preventing. I admit it will probably have some immediate impact, quite a large immediate impact, in reducing impaired driving in the province, but it will creep back up to almost the same level. The minister must know that has been proved in all the jurisdictions where it has been tried.

I have a rather comprehensive study which has been done on the effectiveness of drinking and driving laws in Sweden and Great Britain. Their laws are much tougher than the ones we will have even after this legislation is passed and after the federal government's legislation is in effect. After talking about all the penalties that are being assessed, including the loss of licence, the writer, H. Laurence Ross, a Canadian from Toronto, said:

"Thus, there is reason to expect that supplementing the risk of injury with the risk of criminal punishment would have beneficial social consequences through the deterrence of drinking-driving. However, there is little evidence currently available concerning the empirical validity of this expectation."

The minister will have studied the interministerial task force on drinking and driving that was tabled, I believe by then Premier Davis, in 1983. It gave an excellent summary of legislation in place in other jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, and the tremendous penalties that are levied against drunk drivers there. In the Scandinavian countries, in Sweden there is a one-month mandatory jail term plus a one-year licence suspension if the blood alcohol is more than 150; in Finland the first conviction carries a maximum four-year sentence, there is an eight-year sentence for an accident resulting in death and on a second offence, permanent revocation of driving licence.

The writer concludes, "However, alcohol-related fatalities have continue to rise for most of the period these laws have been in place, while the actual risk of apprehension remains low." I do not want to take a lot of time, but the minister must know that unless there is a very careful and intensive policing of the laws, they have very little effect over a period of time.

The writer goes on to say, "I would also argue that imprisonment of thousands of people for many weeks on the basis of a scientifically unfounded belief in the necessity of such punishment should be considered dubious social policy and that controlled social experimentation would be possible with regard to this question."

4:10 p.m.

Are the tremendous penalties that have been in place in Europe and the lesser penalties we are now imposing here going to be effective in prevention? The answer has to be no. From the answer given by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to a question the other day, it seems this government does not intend to put money into having a RIDE program all year round. He said they simply cannot afford it. If we do not have it after a period of time, drunk and impaired driving offences will be up to the same level as they were before. Simply stated, it will not do much to solve the drinking and driving problem and it will assess penalties which are going to be costly to individuals and costly to society.

There is another problem with what the minister is doing. By focusing on this issue, as serious as it is, we are ignoring the other alcohol-related problems which in total far supersede this problem.

I am sure the minister will have read the 1983 report of the federal government, Perspectives on Health, which says a total of more than 18,000 deaths in 1978, or 10.9 per cent of all deaths in Canada that year, have been linked with alcohol consumption. There were an estimated 635,000 alcoholics in 1978, or one adult drinker in 20. This total has more than doubled since 1965.

An estimated 1.4 million persons, or one adult drinker in 10, now suffer from an alcohol-related handicap. In Canada, we lose about 2,000 people a year in alcohol-related accidents on the road. It points out here that in total we lose 18,000 people in Canada from alcohol-related deaths.

I have here a study done in Philadelphia which shows that in 34 per cent of all the rape cases, alcohol was involved; a person had been drinking. The American Journal of Psychiatry shows that 50 per cent of all rapes involve alcohol. The minister may think I am getting off the subject, but I am using this to make a point that I shall be coming back to with regard to drinking and driving. Of all those rapes, 35 per cent were performed by alcoholics, according to the American Journal of Psychiatry.

In 1978, the Hamilton police force tabled a report which showed that 44 per cent of the offenders in family violence cases were under the influence of alcohol when that violence took place.

There is no question about it; the greatest social problem we have in our society at the present time is excessive consumption of alcohol. If the government really wants to reduce drunken driving and all these other problems, then we have to reverse the trend of greater and greater consumption of alcohol which has been in place in this province over the last 50 years.

I suggest this is where the government is being hypocritical. At the same time that it is proposing, implementing and enacting the legislation on drunk driving, it is proposing to increase the consumption of alcohol in this province by placing beer and wine in the grocery stores. Members of the government will deny this is going to increase consumption.

If they will take the time to objectively examine the studies, I suggest they will find it will increase the consumption of alcohol, in two areas in particular: one with the young and the other with those people who already are heavy drinkers. The Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation points this out, as I am sure the minister is aware.

However, he may think it is popular to go ahead and introduce beer and wine to the grocery stores. I suggest that if he thinks it is not going to increase alcohol consumption and thus increase impaired driving, he should look at the Gallup polls. Maybe he has looked at them, because they have been taken on this issue.

The public of this province are way ahead of the government in this regard. I have two polls here. One was taken for the government and is a report by the small business section of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology on August 16, 1985. The question was asked, "Do you think the sale of beer and wine in supermarkets, corner grocery and convenience stores would increase the likelihood of alcohol abuse?" The minister must know the figures. Forty-five per cent of the population said yes; five per cent said no. There is a further breakdown and I am sure the minister will have read it.

I do not know whether he has seen the study done by the polling firm of Angus Reid with regard to this. It asked even more specific questions on the anticipated impact of extending the sale of beer and wine to corner stores. It asked a question about sales to minors, "Will it promote less sales to minors?" Five percent said it would and 82 per cent said it would be worse.

On sales to drunks, "improve" was six per cent and "worsen the situation" was 77 per cent. I now come to one that should be of concern to the minister, impaired driving. "Improve the situation" was seven per cent and "worsen the situation" was 70 per cent. Ten times as many people think it will worsen the situation. Another question was about whether the number of social problems related to drinking would increase; 67 per cent said yes and 28 per cent disagreed.

I suggest the minister listen to the public. The majority of the people asked were people who themselves drink. Some of them drink to excess. They said this will be the result of putting beer and wine in grocery stores. If that does take place, it is a real likelihood. I know all kinds of studies will show different results, but generally speaking and on average, the majority show there will be an increase. The probability is that any benefit from the new moves by the government on drunk and impaired driving will be more than offset by easier access to alcohol.

That is the insincerity of this legislation. The government cannot have it both ways. It does not make any sense for it to increase accessibility to alcohol on the one hand, saying, "It is fine for you people. Put it in the grocery stores. It is the same as any other commodity such as food," when it knows the young and those who are already excessive drinkers will drink more, and then on the other hand increase the penalty for drunk driving.

After this does not work, the government will raise the drinking age to 21. The Attorney General has said he has seen a study showing that does not help. That study may be right, although all the other studies show the reverse. If we raise the drinking age to 21, it will cut down on impaired accidents, though not proportionately more than with any other age group.

Studies done in the United States show that raising the drinking age to 21 has not really done anything to improve the drunk driving situation because alcohol is so available. The young people get it when they go to grocery stores. In most places in the US they have it in every store. They go out and get it. That has not cut down on drunk driving appreciably.

What the minister will do if he introduces legislation to go ahead with beer and wine in grocery stores, and there will be such a public demand that the government will do it, is that he will penalize young people between the ages of 19 and 21 for his mistake of putting beer and wine in grocery stores.

4:20 p.m.

I suggest to the minister and his government that he should reconsider that policy if he is sincere about this bill. He knows very well the arguments I have put forward are correct and valid. If that is true, and I suggest to him it is, he should give some further consideration to the next move he is going to make in this House with regard to the consumption of alcoholic beverages. If his government is concerned about the problem of drinking and driving, it should take this as the first step and then embark on a real policy to reduce consumption. That is really what we want to do.

In recent years we have reduced the consumption of tobacco. No one can argue that this has not been beneficial. We have deglamourized it. There are ways of doing it with alcohol, too, if the government has the courage to go ahead and do it. That really is the only answer to the problem we face in our society.

While I am supporting this bill, and I think every member in this House will support the bill that is before us today, if we are really sincere about what we are going to do, then we have to take the next step I have outlined. I have not gone into it in detail, but at some future date I will go into it in much more detail.

We have to take steps to deglamourize alcohol. We do not want to prohibit the use of alcohol -- nobody is proposing that -- but to endeavour to decrease its consumption in our society so we can reduce drunken driving and all the other problems we have that are associated with alcohol.

Mr. Shymko: I am pleased to participate in the debate. I support the bill, but I share totally the concerns expressed by the member for Welland-Thorold about some of the contradictions and hypocrisy associated with it. On the one hand, we are pursuing with a firm determination those who create the unacceptable, tragic consequences of consuming alcohol and driving by increasing the original proposal of Bill 17 from a suspension of six months to one of 12 months and from one year to two years on a subsequent conviction. Yet on the other hand, we are contemplating and publicly declaring we will allow for a greater consumption of alcohol at the same time as we will prosecute more severely those who consume that alcohol and dare to take that vehicle, which becomes a weapon of destruction and death.

I find it hypocritical and to some degree sadistic that we are passing strict legislation on suspensions and on convictions and at the same time tempting more people to consume more alcohol, as has been pointed out time and time again by researchers, by facts and by the very people who made this legislation possible today. I refer to a community organization called People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere.

I want to refer to the words of a former Attorney General, who commented in a statement made on September 1, 1983, on a task force report that had been released on August 18 of the same year. This task force report, entitled Drinking and Driving: A Discussion of Countermeasures and Consequences, was the result of the work of eight ministries.

As this report was being tabled, the then Attorney General said: "There have been efforts for the past many years throughout the world to combat drinking and driving, efforts which unfortunately to this day have failed to produce a sustained decrease in alcohol-related deaths, collisions and accidents. Part of the reason for this failure is that up until now we have been too quick to look to our police, to our legislators and to our courts for a solution to a problem which is social and not legal."

That is the main and fundamental essence of a dilemma we are facing today. The problem is not legal and this bill will not resolve the problem. It is a social problem. As we speak on this bill today, trying to find social solutions to a serious problem, 81 alcohol-related accidents will occur in which two people will die. I find it hypocritical that we are speaking of introducing beer and wine in corner grocery stores which will result in nothing else but an increase in consumption.

I know the minister is seriously concerned about the measures that have been taken in this bill. In the next few weeks and months, I ask him to sit down with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) and have him realize that what he is contemplating to do in some future legislation will totally contradict and sabotage what the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) is doing with this bill.

The Addiction Research Foundation has said the following; "Any proposal for the sale of beer and wine in grocery and corner stores will have a tragic impact on public health. It will have tragic consequences socially in this province."

This foundation, in a study of possible effects of permitting beer and wine to be sold in a limited number in 1,700 new outlets, said the sale of beer and wine through private retailers would result in a per capita alcohol consumption increase of 0.6 per cent to 3.2 per cent. It further estimated that the number of persons consuming alcohol as a result of such measures would be at levels associated with alcoholism and would increase by 1.2 per cent to 6.5 per cent.

That is a frightening statistic. What we will be doing is increasing not only the consumption of alcohol, but also the statistics I will quote to the members. The tragic statistics will increase. Instead of having an alcohol-related accident every five and a half minutes in this country, that statistic will increase to a tragic situation of every four minutes.

The statistic for the number of drivers killed who had been drinking will increase to more than the present 50 per cent. The statistics for the alcohol-related deaths of two persons and the 81 motor vehicle accidents which occur every day in Ontario will tragically increase as well. We know that of the 641 drivers who were killed in Ontario in 1981, 58.7 per cent had been drinking. That statistic will increase if the government introduces beer and wine in corner stores.

4:30 p.m.

I point out another very important statistic and statement made by Dr. Eric Single in an article entitled International Perspectives on Alcohol as a Public Health Issue, which was published in June 1984 in the Journal of Public Health Policy. This is what Dr. Single has to say:

"There is a substantial and growing body of evidence which indicates that the greater the availability of alcohol in a society the greater the prevalence and severity of alcohol-related problems, including tragic deaths and accidents as a result of alcohol combined with driving."

Dr. Single has observed elsewhere that when Quebec allowed independent retailers to sell wine in 1978, the increase in alcohol availability was clearly linked to an increase in consumption. An increase in consumption will result in an increase in traffic deaths, as a result of the combination of alcohol and driving. The minister knows very well it is hypocrisy to introduce this bill, while planning to introduce another piece of legislation that will increase the consumption of alcohol.

I would like to point out the views of the Addiction Research Foundation on the connection between easier access to alcohol and higher incidence of consumption, which are shared by such organizations as PRIDE. That group was at the core of leading the concern and making this a public issue that resulted in this bill.

That is stated not only by the former Attorney General but also in the report. I want publicly to congratulate and to commend that organization for raising this issue in the past two years and for doing research which we as a government had not done. As a community group, they have done more research than we have, and I want to give them credit where credit is due.

The report says the drinking and driving countermeasures and any legislation that may result will come from citizen groups such as PRIDE for putting pressure on the social leaders and legislators for action. In a tragic sense, says the report, PRIDE members have become the experts on the consequences of drinking and driving. At the same time, in a positive sense they have been able to create an unprecedented awareness in society of this daily tragedy to which we now are reacting with this legislation.

There is a concern, however, that unfortunately this organization requires more access. They require access to the most up-to-date information on countermeasure activities, as well as a direct line of access to the various ministries, including the minister's own, involved with drinking and driving. If there is anything we should do now as a result of this legislation, we should provide more assistance to organizations such as PRIDE, sit down with them and see whether we can follow some of the recommendations they have been making continuously, not only to our government but also to the federal government and to municipalities and police forces.

I would like to point out that in a speech to the annual general meeting of PRIDE in Toronto on October 19, Dr. Evelyn Vingilis, a researcher with the Addiction Research Foundation, reminded us that in countries where drinking and driving is not tolerated, notably in the Scandinavian countries, the message is consistently being given at all levels. Only through laws, through sanctions, through education and a strong social message, combined with tough controls, can we give a constant message that will be effective in curtailing drinking and driving.

It is a simplistic mentality that thinks we will resolve this tragic problem by addressing it with this piece of legislation. It is an important act, but it is part and parcel of a much wider issue of concern.

I want to reiterate some of the aspects of contradiction I raised earlier between the minister introducing this bill and the thought of future implementation of legislation that will increase consumption of alcohol in this province. The United Church of Canada shares these concerns with PRIDE. The Ontario Liquor Board Employees' Union -- and I think this is why the third party is so concerned because they listen to the wisdom of our working people and of our union leaders -- has said in the following statement from one of its reports:

"The liberalization or Americanization of liquor sales in Ontario would be a dangerous and short-sighted policy that would undermine Ontario society by," and I want the honourable members to listen to this, "dramatically raising the incidence of under age drinking, automobile deaths and injuries, as well as the costs associated with these types of negative developments."

Stubbornly and consistently, the government members refuse to see the relationship between these two areas of legislation. On the one, they are to be complimented for moving in the right direction; on the other, they are sabotaging it in a very sadistic way, tempting people to consume more alcohol, providing more access to alcohol and then slamming them with this legislation. This hypocrisy has to be pointed out today. We will continue to point this out as we debate what the present administration contemplates doing some time in the spring of next year.

I would like to refer to a very important statement which was made as a preamble to the recommendations of this important task force. I have not heard anyone refer to this discussion paper. I would like the minister to listen to what this task force of eight ministries of this government has said: "Regardless of what legislators may or may not do with the recommendations, we are faced with one undeniable fact -- there are no guarantees of success.

"This paper, like so many before it, illustrates that no single measure has proven itself effective in pushing the alcohol-related accident statistics on a sustained downward trend.

"Whatever effort or combination of efforts is decided upon cannot" -- and this is underlined -- "in light of the best research, be expected to effect a permanent change in the drinking and driving behaviour practised by our citizens."

They conclude by saying, "Recognizing the need for a heavy hand in our enforcement efforts and in our courts," -- represented by this bill -- "we nevertheless feel compelled to look to the community itself for the ultimate solution for drinking and driving."

The solution to a social problem is a social solution and it is the community educational process that will really move in the direction of resolving this tragic dilemma.

The example they point out is similar to the anti-smoking campaigns of the 1960s, which created in society a sustained and growing anti-smoking set of values and what can best be described as an anti-smoking society for the 1980s. It took 20 years of campaigning finally to brainwash -- if I may use the term incorrectly -- society to shift its values and realize the importance of the effects of tobacco on one's health.

In a similar way, this task force feels this legislation and future legislation, which should be the opposite of having beer and wine sales in corner stores, should make a similar effort and will be necessary to produce similar results in the area of drinking and driving.

4:40 p.m.

Beer and wine in grocery stores will do the opposite. On the one hand, imagine an antismoking campaign and, on the other hand, government legislation that will promote and try to effect more smoking among citizens. That is the comparison and the lack of logic one would have seen if something similar had been done in the area of tobacco and health.

I would like to point out that the first recommendation calls for a community-based effort. It speaks of the need for the public and politicians such as ourselves to make the necessary mental adjustments, if I may describe them in that way, for a generation-long commitment to a problem that already has killed many individuals who would have been of great benefit in contributing to society.

I will not speak of comparisons with other countries other than to point out that if one makes a comparison of accidents per 100 million kilometres driven, one sees the average is 2.7 for Canada and 2.0 for Ontario, while it is 6.9 in Spain, 5.4 in Austria, 7.7 in Belgium and 3.9 in the Federal Republic of Germany.

While by comparison we are not in as tragic a state as some other countries, nevertheless we should take a look at some of the states south of the border. For example, why is it that in Michigan the comparable statistic is 1.7, in Pennsylvania it is 1.8, in Ohio it is 1.4, in Illinois it is 1.8 and in Indiana it is 1.4? It may be related to the fact that the US maximum speed is 55 miles per hour. There may be other factors. I urge the minister to take a look at these other jurisdictions to see what they are doing and so our statistics could be lowered.

The task force suggests a pilot project. The minister should take a look at that recommendation. In addition, the task force says the problem should be tackled at all levels -- law, education, conventional and alternative sentencing, rehabilitation programs, communications and so on.

The second recommendation is for the establishment of a permanent office to deal exclusively with drinking and driving, an office that would be directly accountable to the Office of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). The Premier may be interested in this proposition. It would be an office whose basic aims would be to co-ordinate long-term planning, to supervise research, to update the information we have, to initiate new anti-driving efforts and to act as a liaison between government and the public. That is something the present administration may want to contemplate.

I would like to ask the minister to look at other issues. I will be concluding my remarks shortly since I see some of my colleagues passing messages to me; I will not read what they say. One note in particular should be passed to the House leader and not to me.

This is a very important issue. What I find tragic is that in addressing this legislation and the problems affecting it, we are being rushed. I would have hoped that this bill would have been introduced two months ago so the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) could have elaborated even more eloquently than he did when he pointed out the fundamental contradiction of what is happening today and what may happen in the future with the new legislation.

I know other members would have loved to have participated. For the sake of allowing that to happen, I will simply say that the following recommendations should be looked into by the minister: increased visible police enforcement; increased roadside checks and breath-screening devices. Another recommendation is to institute what has been done already, photo licences. The task force also mentioned fingerprinting; I know it is a dangerous area to dwell on when one starts asking that fingerprinting be done, but that was one of the recommendations.

Another area is to co-ordinate the communication efforts. We need more driving data. For example, records of drinking and driving do not exist. After five years, I believe, they are eliminated so that, for example, someone who is convicted in Manitoba is not likely to appear in our records here. Someone may have 10 or 15 convictions in other provincial jurisdictions, but we do not know that. There is no co-ordinated effort to record convictions in other provinces. That information is not available, according to the task force.

On the drinking age, this administration should seriously take a look at whether the drinking age is appropriate and perhaps should feel the pulse of public opinion about raising the legal age requirements.

I would also like the minister to take a look at the driving age. The report of the task force says, "We speculate that tradition and traditional views alone do not constitute justification for omitting a serious review of the province's established licensing criteria" -- namely, the driving licence at 16. Those who are between the ages of 16 and 24 account for 40 per cent of all accidents, although they represent only 20 per cent of the population. We can see the problem in the age at which one is issued a driver's licence.

The minister should also look at the advertising aspect. I was notified yesterday by the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) that some private companies, such as Hiram Walker and Sons Ltd., have what they call a "Designated Driver" program. If you go out and party all night and if there are five people, four do the drinking and one abstains. I am sure distilling companies are doing a lot of advertising, but much of the advertising should be done by the government as well.

The last recommendation is that we should lower the blood alcohol concentration level from the present 80 milligrams. That is a suggestion of the task force.

In conclusion, I support the bill, but I want to point out the basic contradiction and hypocrisy of what is being introduced today, which has the support of everyone in the House, and what is being planned in the spring of next year.

Mr. Warner: I have been warned: Five minutes and no more, or I am a dead person.

The members have spoken quite clearly, and I take it the minister has a concern and an understanding as well, that punitive measures alone are not the answer to the problem. Ultimately, we are looking at self-discipline somehow.

I support the bill. I think it reflects the deep anxiety that a lot people in Ontario are feeling and is probably an expression of some very serious and deep concern people have. However, I will raise a different kind of concern, which is that as we move towards a punitive form of handling a problem, we tread on civil liberties.

There are times when we do that, and we always rationalize it by saying that we weigh it against the greater public good. We in this House did tread on civil liberties, for example, when we decided to institute seatbelts. I do not think anyone in this House today would disagree that this was a good decision, and the people of Ontario have accepted the seatbelt. When we did it, though, we acknowledged that in a sense we were treading on civil liberties.

When we move towards the type of program the government is announcing, we are again treading on civil liberties. We have always taken it as a basic premise that law enforcement officers will stop individuals and arrest them where there is cause. That is a fundamental basis of our policing. We have decided that this is not necessary in certain circumstances on the highways; that the police do not have to show cause.

We are willing as a House, I guess, to suspend what is normally a civil liberty for individuals because of what we perceive to be the greater good. I raise it as a caution because, if we start down this path of punitive measures and they are being increased in scope, then we run the risk of abusing civil liberties even more than we are willing to do at this stage. It is a very serious concern. We know from examples around the world that punitive measures are not the final answer.

4:50 p.m.

I am surprised that people bring the question of the drinking age into the debate on this bill. I can only assume it is brought in emotionally and without fact. The fact is that the incidence of fatalities with drinking drivers is almost identical across the age group from 18 to 65. We know that. Raising the drinking age to 21 is not an answer. What it does is punish a group that is no more to blame than anyone else in our society.

Beer in corner stores? What a leap in logic. Beer in corner stores is an issue of availability; it is not an issue of consumption. With respect, it has absolutely nothing to do with the bill before us. I defy a member of this House to put forward a study that shows availability causes more accidents. There are none. Contrary to those folks who are all wrapped up in the puritan argument in Ontario, the Addiction Research Foundation recently told us it was pleased to say that consumption among young people has decreased over the past five years.

Perhaps I will mention a couple of issues now, rather than in clause-by-clause, that the minister can respond to. In subsection 7(3c) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, I assume it is possible to impose a penalty on the owner of a car who may not have been the driver when the ticket was issued. That causes me concern.

I would like an explanation as to why "streetcar" is mentioned in clause 1(a) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill on page 2, and is not mentioned in the following clauses (b) and (c).

On page 3, in section 5 of the bill, I raise a concern about section 29 of the act trying to link payment of a fine, which is an economic question, with licensing. I am not convinced that is a proper thing to do. There has to be a different avenue towards licensing than going at it through fines. I would like an explanation as to why it is being imposed.

Finally, I raise a concern arising from page 6, section 192 of the act, where it refers to "the motor vehicle driven by you or under your care, charge or control...." I wonder whether "charge" means the owner, which would suggest that in a case where they cannot identify the driver, the police are empowered to go after the owner, who may not have been the driver. In the case of someone leaving the scene of an accident when the police are unable to identify the driver, are they then empowered to go after the owner of the vehicle, who may not have been the driver?

Having said that and having kept within the time frame, I am pleased to support the bill.

Mr. Pope: For the benefit of the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), I have decided to comment at length on this legislation. I know he always enjoys it. This is also for the benefit of the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), who threatened me with physical harm if I carried on for more than five minutes.

I want to underline the relevance of the comments that were made by my friend the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko). I hope when members of the government caucus are imbibing together over the holiday season, they will reflect upon their attitudes towards some of the issues that have been properly raised by that member.

I remember a day in July 1985 -- it may have been July 11 -- when some comment was made by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) with respect to a certain reception on the front lawn of this building for which no liquor permit was given. I recall that someone in the executive council had not bothered to get a liquor permit, and he talked to his friends who were assembled there in victory, about sipping the illicit champagne. I recall that happening and no one denying that statement was made.

I also recall something called the Aurora Borealis, a ship in the Toronto harbour, and an invitation sent out on a flyer far and wide across the province. For $20 -- that was right on the invitation -- one could join the Ontario Young Liberals and drink as much as one wanted. Two charges were laid for liquor offences after that reception for the Ontario Young Liberals. Young people were invited down to the waterfront to drink as much as they could and then came back to town. No doubt some of them were driving automobiles.

I recall a very active and busy fall of fund-raising for the Ontario Liberal Party. For $150, $250 or $300 one could go and drink with the Liberals at cocktail parties across the province.

Some hon. members: Shame.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. I remind the member that the debate is on An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. Please continue.

Mr. Pope: I am glad you gave me that rest, Mr. Speaker, because it reminded me of a couple of other things. I recall a leader of a provincial political party going from one end of the province to the other in the months of April and early May talking about making beer and wine more available to everybody. Not only did he want to increase the number of outlets of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario; he also wanted to let people drive to their corner store, pick up beer and wine and drive home or wherever else they wanted to drive to.

Mr. Gillies: And consume a few bottles on the way.

Mr. Pope: Yes, whatever they wanted. It was a wide-open society: no doors, no windows, the sun was going to shine in. One could do what one wanted with alcohol, on the highways, on the front lawn of the Legislature, wherever one wanted.

It seems to me this government should reflect upon its attitudes towards these issues over the winter season and come back and explain to us how it can bring in these reforms on the one hand and do all the nonsense it has done over the past six months on the other hand.

5 p.m.

Mr. Mackenzie: I will be very brief on this bill, which is something I cannot say for some of my colleagues to the right. I support the bill. I do not think it is the kind of bill we need to rant on about in this House. The bill recognizes the tragedy of drinking and driving. The figures in terms of injuries, deaths and family devastation are irrefutable. For that reason, I think all of us will support the bill, which is a step in the right direction.

I make only two points to the minister, without the charges of hypocrisy and all the rest of it. He should take a look at two issues when he is talking to his colleagues. One is the issue, on which I disagree with one or two of my colleagues, of making beer and wine more readily available through the corner stores. I am not sure it makes much sense to move to much tougher penalties, which I support, while at the same time increasing the availability of alcohol in a manner that will involve younger people or people who probably already drink to excess.

Second, and perhaps even more important, is for the minister to talk to his colleagues about the lifestyle advertising that still floods this province in terms of drinking and how great it is to join the boys for a brew.

I think both those issues have the capacity to take away from what we are trying to accomplish in the bill before us. I would ask the minister to think seriously about the lifestyle advertising that goes on in this province as part of the problem we are trying to correct when we come up with stiffer penalties.

Finally, I would like to go on record, as a result of some comments that were made originally by the member for Wentworth. I supported increasing the drinking age to 19. I did it largely on the basis of trying to get it out of the high schools, but I do not think the next step should be an increase in the drinking age. It would be a mistake to bring it up to 21. One is then disfranchising a group of people between the ages of 19 and 21 who should not be treated in that respect.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciate very much the input and contribution by about 11 members of the assembly on this very important issue. I think the fact there have been 11 speakers indicates the widespread and multiparty approach to a very serious social problem that North America, and specifically Ontario, has been facing.

I appreciate the very tempered remarks by the previous speaker, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), in contrast to my friend the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). I should remind him his party is the one that introduced licences to every fish and chip store and hamburger joint in Ontario.

Some of the statistics that were brought forward have been most informative. I recall when the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) spoke he forgot to mention that in one South American country, I believe Paraguay, the penalty for a first offence for impaired driving is fatal. One is shot. I am sure that is not the kind of penalty he hopes we would introduce in this province. I would like to further discuss with him the drinking and driving offences and fatalities during the prohibition years, some 30 or 40 years ago.

The member for Wentworth introduced some very indisputable and useful statistical evidence with which I do not think anyone could disagree. He said what needed to be said in terms of statistics which demand that this kind of legislation be brought forward.

The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) brought the matter home most effectively last evening when he talked about the need for treatment and addressing the matter of alcohol abuse. We need to be addressing the matter of prevention before the fact and not, as he stated, drink, drive and conviction.

In answer to a previous question several days ago, my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) indicated a number of things that can be done by the dispensing bodies related to the issue. I commend the member for Oshawa for his remarks, as I will several others, for offering certain solutions or at least directions that I think this ministry and others can and should take in attempting to resolve this phenomenon that has spread across not just Ontario but indeed North America and many parts of Europe.

It is interesting to look at the penalties across the world. No matter what penalty seems to be imposed, we end up with a continued problem. It is interesting in the matter of licensing, which has been introduced in this debate, that Germany, which has the most stringent licensing requirements, has a very high rate of accidents. It seems to flow through some of the other matters that have been raised.

The member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes), my critic from the third party, has indicated the support of his party. He raised the question of training motorcycle drivers, which is not specifically before us, but I wish to advise him that preliminary meetings have been held with representatives of the motorcycle industry. It is a matter this ministry and this minister will continue to pursue.

I commend the first speaker in the debate yesterday, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), who brought forward some very pertinent and important components and made some very important comments to this argument. He also indicated to us all that we have an obligation, given the time of the year, in which deterrence is more critical than at any other time, given the statistics, to bring this matter into legislation.

Like him, I commend my predecessor, the former Minister of Transportation and Communications, the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague), who last June tabled the original bill before this House.

That is all I have to say at the moment.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

5:10 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

On section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Fulton moves that subsections 7(3c), (3d) and (3e) of the act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(3c) Where a permit holder is in default of payment of a fine imposed for a parking infraction, an order may be made under subsection 70(2) of the Provincial Offences Act directing that,

"(a) validation of that person's permit; and

"(b) issuance of a new permit to that person,

"may be refused until the fine is paid.

"(3d) Where a person who is not a permit holder is in default of a payment of a fine imposed for a parking infraction, an order may be made under subsection 70(2) of the Provincial Offences Act directing that the issuance of a permit may be refused to that person until the fine is paid.

"(3e) An order permitted by subsection (3c) does not apply to preclude the holder of more than one permit from receiving validation of a permit, the plate portion of which was not associated with the vehicle involved with the infraction at the time of the infraction."

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Fulton moves that subsection 7(11) of the act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "specified in the agreement" in the fourth and fifth lines and inserting in lieu thereof "approved by the minister from time to time."

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

On section 2:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Fulton moves that subsection 18(2a) of the act, as set out in subsection 2(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "specified in the agreement" in the fourth and fifth lines and inserting in lieu thereof "approved by the minister from time to time."

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

On section 3:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Fulton moves that subsection 26(1) of the act, as set out in subsection 3(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"1. The driver's licence of a person who is convicted of an offence,

"(a) under section 203, 204 or 219 of the Criminal Code (Canada) committed by means of a motor vehicle or a streetcar within the meaning of this act or a motorized snow vehicle within the meaning of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act;

"(b) under section 233, 236, 237 or 239 of the Criminal Code (Canada) committed while driving or having the care, charge or control of a motor vehicle within the meaning of this act or a motorized snow vehicle within the meaning of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act;

"(c) under subsection 238(5) of the Criminal Code (Canada) committed in relation to the driving or having the care, charge or control of a motor vehicle within the meaning of this act or a motorized snow vehicle within the meaning of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act; or

"(d) referred to in a predecessor to this subsection, "is thereupon suspended for a period of,

"(e) upon the first conviction, one year;

"(f) upon the first subsequent conviction, two years; and

"(g) upon an additional subsequent conviction, three years."

Hon. Mr. Fulton further moves that subsection 3(3) be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(3) The periods of suspension provided for in subsection 26(1) of the said act before its re-enactment by this act continue to apply with respect to convictions for offences committed before section 3 of this act comes into force.

"(4) No person whose licence is suspended or was suspended under subsection 26(1) of the said act or a predecessor thereof has a cause of action against the registrar of motor vehicles or Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario for any misapplication of or misadvice about the suspension period under the said subsection 26(1) or a predecessor thereof."

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

On section 4:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Fulton moves that section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"4. Subsection 27(1) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) The driver's licence of a person who is convicted of an offence under subsection 242(4) of the Criminal Code (Canada) is thereupon suspended for a period of,

"(a) upon the first conviction, one year; and

"(b) upon a subsequent conviction, two years,

"in addition to any other period for which the licence is suspended and consecutively thereto.

"(1a) In determining whether a conviction is a subsequent conviction for the purpose of subsection 1, the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions, and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction.

"(1b) Clause 1(b) does not apply when the subsequent conviction is more than five years after the previous conviction.

"4a. The said act is amended by adding thereto the following section:

"27a(1) Where the licence of a person who is subject to an order made under section 242 of the Criminal Code (Canada), if the order is the result of an offence committed while operating a motor vehicle within the meaning of this act or a motorized snow vehicle within the meaning of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, is suspended under subsection 26(1) or under subsection 27(1), the licence shall remain suspended during the period of prohibition set out in the order, notwithstanding the expiration of any other period of suspension.

"(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), an order made under section 242 of the Criminal Code (Canada) includes an order made under subsection 238(1) of the Criminal Code (Canada) before the 26th day of April 1976.

5:20 p.m.

"4b. The said act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:

"27b(1) Where an order is made under section 242 of the Criminal Code (Canada) or under subsection 26(3) of this act and the court or judge, when sentencing the offender or making the conviction, orders the imprisonment of the offender, and where the period of prohibition or suspension, as the case may be, shall start to run on the termination of the imprisonment, the suspension imposed by subsection 26(1) of this act is thereupon increased by the period of imprisonment.

"2. Where the period of imprisonment referred to in subsection 1 is less than that ordered by the court or judge, the length of the increased suspension imposed by subsection 1 shall upon the application of the offender be reduced by a period equal to that by which the period of imprisonment was reduced."

Mr. Gregory: I have no objection to the particular amendment, but I would have thought the minister might have sent the complete amendment to the critics. I do not know whether my colleague in the New Democratic Party got it or not, but I have amendments and there were probably six or seven paragraphs after the end of the amendment I received. Again, having listened to it very carefully and not understanding it at all, I have no objections.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: My apologies. It was my clear understanding that the critics were sent all of the information.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 12:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Fulton moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"12a. Subsection 191(1) of the said act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1983, chapter 63, section 47, is further amended by striking out `section 35' in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof `sections 27 and 35.'"

Motion agreed to.

Sections 12 and 12a, as amended, agreed to.

On section 13:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Fulton moves that section 13 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(12) For the purpose of this section `court' means a judge or provincial judge."

Motion agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

On section 14:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Fulton moves that section 194a(1) of the act as set out in section 14 of the bill be amended by striking out "section 3 or 27" in the seventh and eighth lines and inserting in lieu thereof "part I."

Motion agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

On section 15:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Fulton moves that section 15 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"15(1) This act, except sections 8 and 14, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

"(2) Section 8 comes into force on June 2, 1986.

"(3) Section 14 comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. "

Motion agreed to.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

Section 16 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 45, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act;

Bill 46, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act;

Bill Pr8, An Act to revive the Sault Ste. Marie Pied Piper Nursery School;

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I repeat this government's concern that municipalities not be caught in what is, in effect, a relatively minor issue involving the transition from the former Planning Act to the new one. It is essential that southern Ontario municipalities in joint planning areas that did not complete the revisions of their official plans by the August 1985 deadline have the authority to amend their joint plans continued by minister's order. When those municipalities complete their own individual plans, the joint plans will no longer be needed.

My ministry currently has more than 30 official plan amendments from municipalities that cannot be processed in the absence of this legislative change. I therefore stress once more the urgency of this amendment.

Mr. Timbrell: With respect to the proposed second reading of Bill 80, I think the minister knows from our critic, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) that we support what he is doing and understand the urgency, inasmuch as I take it that if it does not pass by the end of the session, the proverbial all hell is going to break loose in certain parts of the province where they still have joint official plans that have not been cleaned up by the 1985 deadline.

5:30 p.m.

As the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I hope the minister personally, and through his very capable staff, is bending every effort towards making sure -- and I speak for my constituent under the gallery over there -- we do clean up these joint plans with all due haste.

The changes that were proposed a number of years ago and that my constituent worked for eight or 10 years to create and put forward were and are very sound. I regret that we need to do this, that for whatever reason these joint plans were not cleaned up before now.

Of course, we will support the bill.

Mr. Breaugh: We will also support the bill. We recognize that last August the minister was just beginning his career. He seems to be continuing the great tradition of incompetence in this ministry. We are happy to bail him out one more time and support the bill.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to thank the honourable members from both opposition parties for their understanding of this very important bill. I hope we will satisfy the 86 municipalities involved in joint planning.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmâitre moved second reading of Bill 22, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Mr. Timbrell: I take particular pleasure in supporting this bill on behalf of my colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) inasmuch as I was the one who moved it for first reading back in the spring of this year. It consists of changes that have been discussed for some time.

Mr. Breaugh: See what I mean about continued incompetence? It is hard to tell the difference.

Mr. Timbrell: The member need not tell me his problems. He entered into a marriage; he can live with it.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: That sounds like the voice of a rejected suitor.

Mr. Timbrell: Not me.

It was proposed in 1984 to remove a number of discrepancies that exist in the current law with respect to local and regional councils, particularly in the areas of the ownership and sale of land and various licensing activities, and to allow for the expansion of certain regional councils, notably that of the region of Durham, although that is not the only one.

In my brief time, even briefer than the minister as it turns out, as the minister responsible for municipal affairs, I stated very clearly my belief -- and it is fair to say I speak for the official opposition in this respect -- in greater local autonomy. The amendments that have been proposed by the municipalities are reasonable and do grant more local autonomy, as they deserve.

The only concern I have, which has been drawn to my attention by the member for Sarnia, our critic for Municipal Affairs, is whether on checking with the local officials the minister confirms that they do support what has been put forward. I am positive the answer will be yes, but I would like the minister to put it on the record, if for nothing else, to satisfy my colleague from Sarnia that I did what he asked me to do before he left to do his Christmas shopping.

Mr. Breaugh: We usually raise the same concern around this kind of regional bill. Each time it comes in it becomes very difficult to debate the bill because it is an amalgamation of requests from regions throughout Ontario. I have been able to check with all the regional governments and, with one exception, these are requests from the regions and can be dealt with in that way.

The one exception is the amendment to the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, where there is some dissent about whether there was a formal request on the part of the region to add additional seats to the regional council. Let me quickly say it was not a formal request by the region of Durham. Although I normally am very happy to accede to this type of bill, all the minister has to do is tell me now he is prepared to send back or withdraw or not proclaim that section of the act until such time as he does have a formal request from the region of Durham.

I know the minister is aware of the problem. I know he has been sent letters from the city of Oshawa, the town of Ajax and the town of Whitby and that there is a dispute simmering rather nicely there. It surely would be folly for the minister to proceed to do something that has not been dealt with by that regional council. It is the focal point of some considerable argument.

The minister and I and others have had sufficient conversations to point out that the logical thing to do is not to proclaim that section or withdraw it and send it back as a reference to the regional municipality of Durham and let it have the opportunity to resolve the problem there first.

If it cannot be resolved there, then there is an opportunity and possibly a need for the minister to intervene. However, with that one caveat, we are happy to support the rest of the bill. I anxiously await the response of the minister to assure us he will not run roughshod over the region of Durham, that he will withhold, not proclaim, that section of the act which deals with this problem and refer it back to let the region have a chance to resolve the argument where it should be resolved.

Mr. Ashe: Again, I am going to address my remarks to the same section as the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) did, although I am going to speak in direct opposition to his remarks. I think we would agree that there is no doubt there are many inequities in representation in many parts of the province. Some of the regions have been enlightened enough to recognize those inequities from time to time and to deal with them where they should, which is at the regional council level.

Unfortunately, some members and jurisdictions within some regional councils, for some very selfish reasons, do not want to deal with the realities of growth areas. I am very embarrassed to say the region of Durham falls into that category. I have the privilege and pleasure to represent a significant portion of the growing part of Durham region, which is the whole western end of Durham region. Two municipalities, in particular the town of Ajax, which has shown great growth over the past number of years, have been attempting by annual motion for many years to get the regional council to address and redress the inequities of misrepresentation, if you will, on that august body.

It has failed over the years, led in particular by the only city in the region, Oshawa, which does not want to recognize the fact that its 11 members, already a significant percentage that has been there since formation of the region, are downgraded in percentage. They do not want to address themselves to that reality. It will continue to happen over many years as we have growth to a greater extent in certain parts of the region than in others.

5:40 p.m.

Although there is no doubt that the regional council has not brought forth this particular issue, I think it is safe to say that in the past, traditionally now and we would hope in the future, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is the arbitrator for the kind of impasse that unfortunately does happen from time to time.

I know the minister will have amendments relating to the words dealing with the representation of additional regional councillors, not only in Durham, as in this case, but also in the other regions, because since the time this bill was introduced there has been an intervening election, which has caused a time problem. The minister indicated previously in the Legislature that he will be amending this to allow the municipalities to fill the vacancies between now and the next municipal election in a manner such as is now envisaged within the Municipal Act.

While I endorse that initiative, I do not support in any way the setting aside of section 1 of the bill, which would delay the implementation of bringing some fairness back to the representation around the regional table, at least in Durham.

I recognize -- the minister and I have had informal discussions on this as late as today -- that representation within second-tier councils cannot continue to grow over the years. They are finding this in the Parliament of Canada, and we would find it here if we kept a representation by population number and did not recognize that it has to expand over the years. I appreciate that will happen in all the regional councils that are sustaining substantial growth. We only have to look at the area in and around Metropolitan Toronto to identify four regions that fall into that category.

I throw out a challenge to the minister and the ministry and say that perhaps an amendment should be introduced to all the acts making a review mandatory at an appropriate time -- maybe every five years in substantial growth areas and every 10 years in slower growth areas -- to look at the realities of representation while at the same time recognizing that smaller municipalities perhaps should have representation beyond what their numbers might warrant.

I do not quarrel with that, but when one is talking about urban municipalities, there has to be some equity within the system. The two additional regional councillors, one to Ajax and one to Whitby, as proposed within this bill would right some of those wrongs, at least for the time being. I say "for the time being" because there is no doubt that substantial inequities will be there again five years from now.

I have one last point. I appreciate and understand that the minister will be putting the bill into committee for amendments he has. I want to give notice that I have a further amendment, which I hope he will consider, keeping in mind that in my view the government had every opportunity to pass this bill in the short session we had in July. In effect, it would have been in place in time for the recently held municipal elections.

If the municipal councils choose to fill any new spot by new elections -- and I appreciate and understand that they have the option of appointments or elections -- we should allow, in each case in which representation is being added, the option for the municipality to go the election route if it so chooses. Since the problem became a problem because of the inaction of the government in July, the government should pick up the costs of any elections for this one time only. I will be proposing that in an amendment in committee.

Mr. Sterling: I will comment briefly on this bill. I note the Ottawa-Carleton regional board of health is officially done away with. As a former member of government and as a member of the Legislative Assembly, I would like to put on public record my thanks to the many private citizens who served on that board over its long history.

Although this part of government is being taken over by totally elected representatives from the region, the past board of health had nothing to be ashamed of and was a very nonpartisan type of board. From the experience I have gleaned from various members, such as Dewar Burnett, Russell Dewe and a number of others, the service they gave as citizens to this institution was exemplary.

On another matter, I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) appreciates our goodwill in this season and will consider the same with regard to my private bill, which will be before the standing committee on regulations and private bills tomorrow.

Mr. Cureatz: Unaccustomed as I am to speaking briefly, I will do so for about a minute and a half to remind the minister, as a new member of these chambers and probably unfamiliar with the whole aspect of Ontario, that the region of Durham is represented by four members in this chamber: the member for Oshawa, the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), myself in Durham East and the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), who is not present.

I want to speak to what the member for Oshawa said. I too have some concerns about the city of Oshawa. I represent a good portion of the north end of that city, and I too have been approached by councillors from the city and by the mayor, Allan Pilkey, in connection with what is taking place under this legislation.

By the same token, however, I am a little hesitant in suggesting the possibility that the minister withdraw the whole section with regard to the addition of councillors in my colleague's area of Durham West because, as has been well explained to me not only by my colleague the member for Durham West but also by councillors for those areas, there has been a population injustice, and I think it would be unfair to withdraw it suddenly. That is not going to resolve the problem we have there. Ottawa has certainly put forward a good case for me.

I hope that after the passage of this bill, the minister will have a hearing with Oshawa at which they will be prepared to give a proper brief and presentation, at least to put their case forward to the minister so he can reconsider the possibility, if the addition of the required councillors is warranted, to have the appropriate balance within the whole region of Durham in recognition of the population structure.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I know regional representation is a problem not only in Durham but also right across this province. Regional councils do have the power to amend their own acts, but it seems they are very reluctant to do so. They want to leave it up to the minister, and they often blame the minister for the choice he makes.

I would like to have regional municipalities become much more responsible than they have been in the past and, by resolution and discussion within the individual municipalities, to resolve their differences as far as representation is concerned.

I can guarantee to the member for Oshawa that before proclamation, I will be in touch with the concerned municipalities to make sure they concur with my decision.

I agree with the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) that the Ottawa-Carleton regional board of health did a very fine job. However, like other regional councils in the past, they think they will be much better represented by forming a subcommittee of council.

I hope I will be able to satisfy everyone's needs, but I would like regional municipalities to be much more responsible for their representation and not to leave it up to the minister.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

5:50 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 22, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any questions or comments to any section of this bill?

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I do not mean to be obnoxious, but I have been served with notice of an amendment by the minister. Is it his intention to move it, or is this just a fake?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I move that section 11 of this bill be struck out and the following --

Interjection.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

On section 1:

Mr. Ashe: I have a comment in the sense that --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have had second reading.

Mr. Ashe: I realize that, but I guess I can say it is more of a question to the minister and I hope he can respond to it before we get past section 1. That is why I bring it up now.

How is he going to implement the change in how the new regional councillors in the interim period, between now and the municipal elections, are going to come into being? I do not think the bill seems to read that way now. I do not know. Has he found out that he has the authority through some other means to override what this bill is saying between now and the elections in 1988?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The bill will assure that in the term 1985-88, the elections or appointments will be made to council for the balance of the term.

Mr. Breaugh: I simply want the minister to elaborate on that a bit. There does seem to be some considerable amount of confusion as to precisely how and when this might happen. I think it is only fair that he give us a little clearer indication than he has so far of his exact intentions.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: It is very simple. The municipal acts give councils permission to appoint or elect members in the case of death, replacement, sickness or whatever, but at the regional level no such permission is given. This is what the amendment is doing: permitting appointments or elections to council for the term 1985-88.

Mr. Ashe: That is the amendment which the minister has to section 11. I guess where the confusion came in was that I thought the minister had indicated before that he did not want to go into committee. I was the one who put the bill into committee. That is the only place he can change it, and I guess that is where the confusion comes in.

Does the minister have an amendment to section 11, as I do, and which I have now passed over to him?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I do.

Mr. Breaugh: On section 1, the changes to the region of Durham, can we have a little clearer indication from the minister as to precisely how he intends to proceed from here? I want to make the argument that notwithstanding what might have been said here this afternoon, I believe the regional council of Durham deserves, whether it wants it or not, first crack at how this redistribution of seats ought to be allocated.

It is fine for someone to say there has been a population increase in Ajax and Whitby. There is no denying that at all. That population increase, as well as a building boom, continues as we speak in the city of Oshawa and moving on into the town of Newcastle. There is no argument that the hard services are in the ground. The houses are being constructed now in that developing area, although those plans for development had been approved some time ago.

I want to know how the minister intends to proceed from this point on. If it is fair, by some means, that the town of Ajax and the town of Whitby get additional representation on the regional council on the basis that they have more housing, next year the city of Oshawa will be here saying, "Now we have more housing," as will the town of Newcastle. If that is the criterion, loosely stated, that the minister is going by, he is creating a rather large regional council, which may be no fairer in representation terms than he now has.

I want a little clearer idea in my own mind of precisely how this will happen. If the minister is saying he will not proclaim that section of the act until such time as it has been considered by the region of Durham -- not by the city of Oshawa, the town of Whitby or the town of Ajax, but by the regional council of Durham -- that is fine by me; let them have first crack at it. I have not heard him say that this afternoon, and I very much want to hear those words.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I did tell the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) that the bill would not be proclaimed before writing to each regional council to seek concurrence with this bill.

Mr. Breaugh: Just so it is clear -- I want this on the record, obviously -- my support for the bill and for the section that has to do with Durham and other places where there are changes of this kind is dependent entirely upon the minister not proclaiming those sections of the act until such time as the regional councils have formally responded to any suggestions he might have made.

That clears the way for the local regional councils at least to make the attempt to decide whether changes in representation are appropriate, what the formula might be, what the population bases are and all of that. If that is what he is saying, that is fine by me.

Mr. Ashe: I hope the minister has not been gullible enough to be led astray by the claptrap that just came along there. The minister has not had the opportunity, I am afraid, to look into the background of this file. The commitment he has made means the status quo, which I will not support. That is exactly the situation that was put to him by the member for Oshawa, and he responded yes.

The regional council has had opportunities each and every year over the past many years, and the files in the ministry will substantiate that, to deal with this issue. They have chosen not to do so. I do not know what makes the minister think they are going to deal with it now, unless he tells them it is going into effect, period.

I do agree with my colleague the member for Oshawa when he suggests, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, that this is an ongoing problem that will continue from year to year. All this does is redress some of the inequities that are there now. There will be new inequities a few years down the line; there is no doubt about that. I hope all regional councils will deal with that challenge on a regular prescribed basis, including the council of Durham region.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

18 décembre 1985