Journal des débats 1986-déc-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Eves: On Tuesday, December 16, Bill 7 was passed in the Ontario Legislature. At this time I would like to read into the record the names of the following Progressive Conservative MPPs who were opposed to subsections 18(1) through 18(5) of Bill 7 and to the process by which that section was incorporated into the bill:

The members for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes); Durham West (Mr. Ashe); Cambridge (Mr. Barlow); Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett); Kenora (Mr. Bernier); Sarnia (Mr. Brandt); York Centre (Mr. Cousens); Durham East (Mr. Cureatz); Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis); Wentworth (Mr. Dean); Parry Sound (Mr. Eves); Sudbury (Mr. Gordon); Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory); Cornwall (Mr. Guindon); Nipissing (Mr. Harris); Fort William (Mr. Hennessy); Burlington South (Mr. Jackson); Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson); Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane); York West (Mr. Leluk); Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland); Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey); Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague); Eglinton (Mr. McFadden); Elgin (Mr. McNeil); Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller); Carleton (Mr. Mitchell); Brock (Mr. Partington); Rainy River (Mr. Pierce); Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock); Cochrane South (Mr. Pope); Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe); Leeds (Mr. Runciman); Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard); High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko); York Mills (Miss Stephenson); Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling); Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson); Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) --

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Ms. Gigantes: On June 5, I asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) for a commitment that legislation providing equal pay for work of equal value would benefit all women in this province. I quoted the brief of the Chinese Canadian National Council for Equality, which stated, "To apply size restrictions on the application of pay equity" -- that is, the size of the firm - "would be analogous to limiting the coverage of minimum wage regulation."

The Coalition of Visible Minority Women expressed the same concern at its October 29 press conference, pointing out that hundreds of thousands of women work in firms with fewer than 50 employees, the size of firms that will not be required to have equal pay plans under Bill 154.

For women who work for employers with fewer than 50 employees, Bill 154 offers only that six years after the bill is in effect, they can complain to the Equal Pay Commission of Ontario. The coalition was very clear about the implications of this kind of proposal. It said, "It is in these businesses that immigrant and visible minority women are concentrated."

Its judgement is that Bill 154 makes equal pay for visible minority women a mirage. Visible minority women suffer double discrimination and deserve priority consideration when we legislate equal pay protection.

ANNIVERSARY OF WILLIAM LYON MACKENZIE KING

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It gives me great pleasure to rise today and bring to the attention of the Legislature the fact that on this day in 1874 the Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King was born. Mackenzie King was born and spent his formative years in Berlin. His boyhood home, Woodside, is now a national park visited by tens of thousands of tourists each year.

Mackenzie King's tenure in office is rivalled only by his achievements as Prime Minister. It was under his prime ministership that Canada emerged from being a colony to become a truly independent nation. It was Mackenzie King who kept this nation united through the turmoil of the Second World War, and it was Mackenzie King who laid the foundation for Canada's social welfare system, a system dedicated to providing food, shelter and dignity to all Canadians.

Mackenzie King will always be remembered by those who appreciate compassion and political longevity. The former virtue, few will argue, is shared by another truly great Canadian, whose birthday is on December 28, the Premier (Mr. Peterson). The latter virtue, political longevity, is very much in the hands of the people of Ontario. I feel confident that, as Canadians did in Mackenzie King's time, they will provide the present Premier with a long and successful mandate.

EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Mr. Treleaven: Since I was in the chair on the consideration of Bill 7 during the committee of the whole House, I wish to place on record to my constituents my opposition to Bill 7 and that I voted against it on third reading, as did the following Progressive Conservative members, who were also opposed to subsections 18(1) to (5) of Bill 7: The member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner); the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman).

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Reville: It is exactly one year since Drina Joubert froze to death in a truck at Sherbourne and Dundas Streets. Today the Basic Poverty Action Group held a commemorative luncheon at All Saints Church, followed by a march to city hall, where it laid a wreath in memory of all the homeless people who have died.

This is what it says on their leaflet:

"Just two years before, she had her own apartment. Then her mother, who helped pay for it, died. Because of the lack of affordable housing, she began wandering from hostel to hostel. Sometimes she couldn't handle the crowded hostels and stayed outside in an abandoned truck for privacy.

"On December 17, 1985, her frozen body was found.

"Some people say that Drina was a drinker and was mentally ill and that's why she died....

"How many rich people who are big drinkers or who are mentally ill die outside, frozen to death?...

"People who are forced to live in the hostels know how bad things really are....The hostels are so crowded and unhealthy that some people just break down mentally and physically....

"In the last year homeless have protested loudly and government has been forced to give out a few million dollars for permanent housing. It's not nearly enough."

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Callahan: I have the fortunate opportunity today to have three of the young pages who will be leaving us tomorrow appear and relate to other young people in the communities of Ontario the things they do as pages. One of them, a young lad by the name of Paul Yaroshak, is from the riding of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon); the second young man, Jeramie Whalen, is from the riding of the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Munro); and the third, Marc Steyn, is from the riding of the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan).

The public often is not fully aware of the tremendous service these young people effect for members, and all too often we are not aware how much they serve us. We snap our fingers and a glass of water is brought to us or a message is transferred to another member in the House. On occasion we should recognize that these young men and women serve Ontario as a very integral part of our system of legislation. I would like to wish them all merry Christmas and happy new year.

RECOGNITION OF DOWNHILL SKIER

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a world-class achievement by one of my Wellington-Dufferin-Peel constituents, Laurie Graham from Inglewood in the town of Caledon. Last Saturday, December 13, in Val d'Isere, France, Laurie was victorious in winning the ladies' downhill event. She has once again proved to the world that Ontario is a province to be recognized for its ability to provide excellent downhill skiers who have always stood in the top ranks of the World Cup title competitions.

For the sixth time in Laurie's illustrious career, she has demonstrated her ability and determination to excel. She has solidified her position among other greats in Canadian women's skiing history, Nancy Greene and Kathie Kreiner, to name just two. Laurie's victory in this very prestigious event has put her in second place in the World Cup standings, thereby enhancing her chances of bringing a World Cup title to Ontario.

I am confident all members of this Legislature will be more than happy to join me in extending sincere congratulations to Laurie for her recent accomplishment and in wishing her continued success in the near future.

I would also like to read a final name into the record in opposition to section 18 of Bill 7, the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean).

13:42

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ANNUAL REPORT, EMPLOYMENT EQUITY FOR WOMEN IN THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have two announcements to make in my capacity as the minister responsible for women's issues.

First, it is my pleasure to table the 1985-86 annual report, Employment Equity for Women in the Ontario Public Service. It shows we have come a long way since 1974 when, as some of the honourable members will remember, Ontario was the first province to introduce an affirmative action program for women in its work force. The government of Ontario was considered a leader and a role model for other employers then. The annual report I am tabling reinforces that position.

I would also like to point out today that for the first time we are replacing the term "affirmative action" in the annual report with the term "employment equity." This is not merely a name change; it is designed to reflect the commitment of the government to a variety of progressive employment policies and practices, including equal opportunity, working conditions, child care, benefits, training and pay equity. All are designed to improve the status of women in the work place.

Earlier this year, the Ontario women's directorate conducted a review of the Ontario public service affirmative action program to evaluate the various program components. Our conclusion was that we are moving along well towards the goal of full employment equity in the OPS, but we want to ensure that the advance continues at a steady rate. Therefore, we have resolved to improve further the status of working women in the Ontario public services by implementing the following program enhancements:

1. A system of five-year goals for each occupational group to accelerate the representation of women will be developed during the next year to replace the long-term goal of achieving a minimum 30 per cent representation by the year 2000 in all occupational groups.

2. The revision and improvement of the target-setting process for hiring and promotion to assist in the achievement of that goal.

Mr. Gillies: With regard to the statement made today and the report tabled by the minister responsible for women's issues, this report speaks to various employment equity initiatives of the government, which are just fine in so far as they go. However, I note several points.

In the list of achievements the minister put before the House today, we find the proud claim that pay equity legislation for the Ontario public service was introduced in the Legislature in February 1986. It certainly was, and where is it now?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) introduced pay equity legislation, a totally inadequate bill covering 1.5 per cent of the working women in this province. He introduced inadequate initiatives to bring about something the government called pay equity in the long term. When the two opposition parties decided to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by making something positive out of this initiative, we ran into obstruction and foot-dragging by the government members of the committee. As far as we can tell, that bill has disappeared from Orders and Notices and we have no idea when this minister intends to bring pay equity into the public service of this province.

The minister also boasts rather proudly that in the Ontario public service the wage gap between men and women was closed in the past year by 1.3 per cent. I indicate to the minister that to the best of my recollection, that is no great improvement over past initiatives in recent years. It is not a boast of which the minister should be particularly proud.

Since 1974, the wage gap between men and women in the public service of this province has closed by but 7.5 per cent. The standing committee on administration of justice has offered the minister a piece of legislation that, as amended, would bring about accelerated pay equity in the broad public service within the next five years. It would address all the areas he cites in his initiatives today, such as colleges, universities, boards of education and municipalities. All the areas he tinkers with in this report could have meaningful pay equity if only the minister would show the courage that could be characteristic of somebody of his stature, bring the bill back into the House and let it pass. That is the initiative we on this side would apply.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to make some comments on the statement made by the minister responsible for women's issues.

We have had the tabling of the report, which is now called Employment Equity for Women in the Ontario Public Service. We should all pay vast attention to the change that has taken place here. What used to be called affirmative action, we are told proudly by the minister, is now called employment equity. We have to see what changes we have.

I was interested in the comments of my Conservative colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) about the minister's statement. He is right on in terms of discussing the problems the government has had dealing with equal pay. The minister said, for example, that the government's commitment is to a variety of progressive employment policies and practices, including equal opportunity, which is this statement; child care, about which we do not even have a white paper after a year and a half; working conditions, though I do not know what that is supposed to mean; benefits, though what are benefits without equal pay and without coverage for part-time women; training, and where is that; and pay equity, which we do not have.

All these things that the government feels are important signs of its commitment to progressive employment policies and practices are not in place after a year of this government. I am surprised my friend the member for Brantford was so scathing in his criticism because, after all, the Conservatives can feel quite proud. What the Liberals have told us is that they are going to carry on in the fine old Conservative tradition, which is to announce programs that do not do anything, that cost money and that involve the appointments of people to carry out programs without goals.

We have an announcement today that the government is going to move towards employment equity. It is dropping the old goal, which was 30 per cent in each employment category for women, and that goal was to be reached in the year 2000. It is replacing it with five-year goals, we are told by the minister. We are not told what those goals are. The public service of Ontario has not yet been given goals. That is the public service. The public sector, while it is using the employment equity incentive grants, does not have a goal-oriented policy that it has to follow from this government, as it did not from the previous government. The private sector? There is nothing happening in the private sector -- nothing at all.

This is a government that committed itself in the accord to employment equity policies and programs, and all it is doing is talking about programs with no goals. How can one have employment equity unless one sets goals and has a timetable for reaching them? We are not talking only about women here; we are also talking about visible minorities. We are also talking about handicapped people in Ontario. This government has not moved one inch beyond old Conservative policies.

This crowd of Conservatives ought to be applauding these gentlemen. I notice there are fewer with red ties today. It may be a sign that they are in fact turning into Conservatives. There are more blue ties over there than I have seen in a long time, and they are proudly carrying on the tradition of the former government in doing nothing on employment equity. We wait impatiently.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY INCENTIVE FUND

Hon. Mr. Scott: My second announcement today is about the extension of the employment equity incentive fund. This fund was established in 1984 to provide startup money for employment equity programs in the broader public sector, including school boards, universities, hospitals and municipalities. It represents a major collaborative effort between the Ontario women's directorate and the ministries of Education, Colleges and Universities, Health, and Municipal Affairs.

The original incentive fund totalled $4.3 million over two years. Initially, individual institutions were eligible for $20,000 towards the cost either of hiring a co-ordinator or for special employment equity projects. In addition, a one-time grant of $3,000 was available to conduct studies, such as an employment equity needs assessment.

We have recently reviewed the incentive fund and have found, on balance, that it is producing excellent results. Nearly half the broader public sector organizations -- 225 of them -- that have more than 100 employees have introduced employment equity measures for women. Those organizations that have received funding include 79 school boards, 15 universities, 72 hospitals and 21 municipalities.

During the two-year period the funding was offered, there was a 36 per cent increase in the number of employers with employment equity programs. This represents a promising cooperative effort on the part of the Ontario women's directorate in the four ministries. Together, we have demonstrated the potential to make employment equity a reality for the women who work in the broader public sector. Our collective initiative is also a powerful example for all employers who are taking their own steps towards implementing effective employment equity programs for their female employees.

The initial incentive fund was planned to end on December 31 this year, but I am pleased to announce today that the program will now be extended and that more than $12 million will be distributed to the broader public sector over the next five years. The extended funding will give further support to established employment equity programs. We believe it will encourage the development of new ones. The funds allocated will be tailored to the individual needs of each employer involved in the program.

On a regular basis, my colleagues and I will be reporting back to the Legislature on the progress the respective sectors are making in employment equity for women. It is clear that women continue to face barriers to equality in employment in Ontario. This government is committed to removing those barriers in as short a time as possible. Reaching that goal will take a truly co-operative effort, not only from the public sector but from the private sector as well. We urge all employers in Ontario to take the initiative in making full employment equity a reality.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I wish to expand on today's announcement by my colleague the Attorney General and provide members of this House with an update on the employment equity incentive fund program in Ontario's public hospitals.

To date, just over $1.3 million in employment equity funding has been allocated by my ministry. Last December, this program took shape with the support and co-operation of the Ontario women's directorate and the Ontario Hospital Association; 72 hospitals with more than 100 beds were given funds to establish programs .

The participating hospitals established their own affirmative action employment equity programs, including five key elements: a policy on employment equity; an employment coordinator; an employment equity committee; a collection of data to identify areas where there are few women employees, with data forming the basis of employment equity planning; and, finally, a review of employment-related policies and procedures to identify any discriminatory sections that need to be changed.

In addition, five hospitals received funds to develop specific employment equity initiatives they will share with other hospitals. Funds were also provided to the Ontario Hospital Association for the cost of operating the employment equity program.

While employment equity programs to date have initially been confined to the larger hospitals, I strongly believe smaller hospitals must also join in this process. I am pleased to advise that 51 of the 88 Ontario hospitals with fewer than 100 beds are now developing ideas and plans with employment equity consultants. As we move to the next stage of our employment equity program, next year -- 1987-88 -- the ministry will disburse $922,000 to complete its two-year incentive program. The funds will be used to advance the programs now under way in 72 hospitals. An additional 55 hospitals will join in the program for the first time.

I am genuinely pleased that so many hospitals have chosen to become actively involved in this program. I fully expect Ontario hospitals will make a strong contribution to this important initiative in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am pleased to announce that Ontario's colleges and universities will receive up to $1.8 million in employment equity grants over the next three years. Universities, which received $382,000 in 1985-86 to implement employment equity programs for female faculty and nonacademic staff, are eligible to receive incentive funds for a further two years. These funds will be available on a matching grant basis and will provide a sound base for the continuance of the university employment equity program.

For the first time, for three years beginning in 1987, colleges of applied arts and technology will be eligible for employment equity incentive grants.

Le gouvernement de l'Ontario s'est fixé pour objectif l'équité en matière d'emploi, tant dans le secteur public que dans le secteur privé. Dans cette optique, le programme d'encouragement à l'équité en matière d'emploi veut aider les universités et les collèges de l'Ontario à atteindre l'équité en matière d'emploi par le biais de leurs pratiques d'emploi. Je suis fier d'annoncer que plusieurs établissements d'enseignement postsecondaire ont déjà fait preuve de leadership dans ce domaine.

Le fonds d'encouragement leur permettra de donner de l'expansion à leurs programmes ou d'entreprendre de nouvelles initiatives à l'intention des femmes faisant partie de leur corps professoral ou de leur personnel. Le fonds incitera les autres établissements à progresser dans cette voie.

Earlier this year, a multi-year faculty renewal fund for universities was implemented. One of the primary goals of this program is to increase the percentage of female faculty at Ontario universities. I am delighted to report that to date 56 per cent of the new faculty positions under the fund have been filled by women. The faculty renewal program is also intended to assist young Canadian scholars. In this respect, women in universities should benefit significantly from both programs, as women now comprise more than 35 per cent of the full-time doctoral enrolment in Ontario institutions. This percentage will probably continue to grow during the next few years.

In the college sector, women represent 35 per cent of full-time faculty and 58 per cent of support staff. While volunteer affirmative action programs have been in place in colleges since 1976, it is anticipated that the incentive fund will result in an increase in the representation of women in senior administration and nontraditional occupations.

The incentive grants, in conjunction with the increased number of female faculty hired under the new collective agreement, represent a tangible increase of effort in this most important area.

My ministry will continue to provide leadership and work co-operatively with the post-secondary institutions of the province in pursuit of our common goal of achieving employment equity for women.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am pleased to be able to announce today that the Ontario Ministry of Education is committed to continuing the affirmative action/employment equity incentive fund for women employees of Ontario school boards for three more years, effective January 1, 1987.

Along with my colleagues, I share a commitment to developing effective affirmative action/ employment equity programs in all sectors. This is certainly the case in education, which employs large numbers of women in a variety of capacities. Our goal for school boards, and indeed for the Ministry of Education, must be the achievement of an equitable representation of women and men at all levels of the educational system. With the support of the affirmative action/employment equity incentive fund, the next three years should witness significant progress in this area.

I am therefore pleased to announce, in extending the affirmative action employment incentive fund for three more years, that each participating school board will be eligible to receive funding for a maximum of three years more than the total five years of the incentive fund, which will end in December 1989. For 1987, the amount available to school boards will be $2.1 million, followed by $1.1 million in 1988 and $500,000 in 1989, bringing the total for those three years to $3.7 million. In addition to this amount, $975,000 will be allocated, from 1987 to 1991, for other program support.

School boards have traditionally shown leadership in this area of affirmative action. They were the first public sector employers involved in an affirmative action employment equity incentive fund program. This program was launched in January 1985 as a joint project of the Ontario Ministry of Education and the Ontario women's directorate.

In addition, I plan to announce amendments to the Education Act to require all school boards to promote and maintain affirmative action/ employment equity in the employment and promotion of women. I shall be requesting that the annual report of the chief executive officer of each school board include reference to affirmative action activities for its women employees. Let me emphasize that by the end of the incentive fund period, school boards should plan to demonstrate evidence of significant progress towards the achievement of an environment that exemplifies sex equity.

I am requesting that school boards adopt the objective of achieving an equitable representation of women and men at all levels of the education system. Through this strategy, and through the co-operation already taking place between Ontario school boards and the Ontario Ministry of Education, I know we can create an atmosphere of growth and equal employment opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to inform the House of my ministry's new employment equity initiatives.

Mon gouvernement est conscient de la complexité du problème d'équité en matière d'emploi. Nous savons qu'il faudra, pour le résoudre, adopter plusieurs mesures différentes. Les bonnes intentions ne suffisent pas. C'est pourquoi le ministère des Affaires municipales entend promouvoir activement l'équité dans les emplois municipaux.

I am therefore pleased to announce that the government will extend the municipal affirmative action program. A total of $4.9 million will be allocated to municipal employment equity programs. Two years ago, before the fund was established, only five municipalities in Ontario were involved in employment equity initiatives. To date, the municipal affirmative action program has provided more than $500,000 to subsidize programs in 21 municipalities. In effect, this ministry is doubling its annual commitment to employment equity initiatives.

The programs will assist municipalities in developing employment equity policies and programs. As well, the ministry will provide financial assistance towards an internship program for municipalities designed to attract women who have recently graduated from colleges and universities. Under this program, existing municipal employees with similar or equivalent qualifications will qualify for and be able to participate in developmental positions to qualify them for more senior management positions in their municipalities.

For smaller municipalities, my ministry will provide up to $30,000 for joint employment equity projects involving two or more municipalities, as well as technical assistance for municipalities.

Monsieur le Président, cela m'a fait plaisir de vous annoncer les nouvelles mesures d'équité en matière d'emploi.

I believe what we are doing in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs helps women in municipalities take another major step on the road to true economic equality.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In co-operation with the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, I am pleased to announce increased protection for Ontario home buyers. Yesterday the Ontario building industry announced major changes that would help home buyers by improving disclosure and protecting against delayed closings.

I want to stress today that the buyer protection clauses in purchase agreements will be enforced by the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. These new buyer protection clauses will give the Ontario New Home Warranty Program an increased vigilance and enforcement role to investigate unethical builders. Actions will continue to be taken against builders who do not act with honesty, integrity and in accordance with the law.

I remind members that revocation of registration under the new Home warranty program means that, effectively, the builder can no longer carry on business in Ontario. We are especially concerned about cases where unethical builders may attempt to escape from their duty to complete their contractual obligation.

As members know, the Ontario New Home Warranty Program issued a proposal to revoke the registration of Ryan Homes in response to allegations that the builder was not carrying out his obligations. As a result of these actions, I am advised that Ryan Homes is now prepared to honour its obligations. Today purchasers are being sent a letter that includes an agreement to restore the transaction.

I want to underscore that this program already has strong power to revoke the registration of unethical builders. Given the new buyer protection clauses, this power will be used with even broader vigilance to protect consumers in the future.

My ministry will be closely monitoring problems that consumers are having with home purchases. If these enforcement powers are not effective enough to meet new conditions, my ministry is prepared to introduce further measures.

In addition, I would like to inform the House of major enhancements that will be made to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program early in the new year. These five changes have been requested by the home buyers of this province and will extend the new home warranty program's consumer protection mandate. They are:

1. An increase from $20,000 to $50,000 in the first-year coverage for warranted repairs;

2. A guarantee that up to $5,000 worth of incomplete work on an occupied house will be finished if the builder goes bankrupt;

3. Publication of a list of builders who have achieved a high level of performance;

4. An extension of coverage from one year to two years for leaky foundations; and

5. Two incentives for builders to meet these standards: merit awards plus a reduction in enrolment fees.

We believe the tougher policing of the home building industry and the consumer protection measures announced yesterday will provide the home buyers of this province with the best consumer protection available today in Canada.

Mr. O'Connor: By way of reply to the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I note that his statement is again a case of too little, too late on his inexorable march, an ever excruciatingly slow march, towards legislation in favour of new home buyers.

Under his plan, the only remedy for builders who abuse their power in a situation is deregistration. It is a sledgehammer or nothing. Surely deregistration, which occurs after the fact, after there has been abuse of the situation, is a less adequate response than would be legislation that would prevent some of the problems, legislation that we have been urging on the minister since March 1986, legislation that would involve interest from closing dates and not four months after closing dates as his present plan suggests, legislation that would include no sales prior to registration and legislation that would include a standard type of contract to protect both sides to the contract in the purchase of a new house.

When will the minister understand? When will he finally adopt legislation in this area? He seems to be moving very slowly towards it. How many people have to be left out in the street? How many people have to lose their new houses? How many people have to lose interest on substantial deposits before he will finally adopt a program of legislation in this area?

Mr. Cousens: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is giving a builder's solution to a builder's problem. When are we going to become advocates for the consumers and the new home buyers in the province? It is high time we started to do it.

More than 15,000 new homes are being built in my riding right now, and the people who are moving in there are not receiving the service and support of this government. It is high time we began to build in some protection for them.

What I see here today is only window dressing. Let us get on with real action. It is time the government made some changes. It should not wait for the new year, but get on and do something. There are more problems than the new home warranty program. It starts with the builders. The first and most important decision anyone has to make when he is buying a new home is the builder. The second decision is the builder and the third decision is the builder.

If you know who your builder is going to be, get a good person and then get a start. Let us begin to get rid of the bad builders. The government is saying it has not accomplished that yet. It has to licence the individual, and if that individual breaks down the system get rid of him; do not let him practise again. If you are an insurance agent you are not allowed to practise in the insurance industry if you have broken the law, but if you are a builder, you can.

It is high time this government began to understand there is a crisis out there. The crisis is taking place all around Toronto, in Cambridge and in other areas where people are buying homes. They cannot get delivery and there is no one to back them up.

It is time the government began to realize there is a serious problem and it can do something about it if it decides to do so.

Mr. Philip: One can drive a bulldozer through the program announced by the Ontario Home Builders' Association and by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Once again, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has shown that he is a wimp when it comes to standing up for consumers against vested interests, in this case those of the builders.

Under the proposal announced by the Ontario Home Builders' Association and by the minister today, the builders will still be allowed to sign contracts for homes on land that is not registered, and that is the crux of the problem we have been facing in the past few months. They will still be allowed to do it.

Under this program, the people who have been affected to date, and indeed the people who will be ripped off up until March 1, will have no satisfaction, because the program offers a window for builders to rip off more people between now and March 1, since it does not go into effect until then.

The program announced still allows an exit clause, albeit an exit clause that cannot be exercised before 240 days. In using that exit clause, it does not even provide for a full payment of interest for the total term of the deposit by the would-be home buyer. Thus, the builder can exit and not even pay interest on the total term.

The wording of the proposal is so vague that it will be a giveaway to every lawyer in this city who wants to practise this type of law. It will be a delight of the courts. It will be a delight of the lawyers who are practising before the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.

What is clearly needed is a standardized contract. The minister has failed to provide one. It is possible for the government to design a contract that will balance the interests of the consumers with those of the builders. What is needed is a ban on the sale of properties where plans are not registered.

The previous Conservative government, in bad judgement, allowed the sale of pre-registered properties. This Liberal government is following in that same Conservative tradition. The minister has passed the buck to industry, and he is saying he will monitor and study it. This minister has to study more topics than anybody I have ever seen. In fact, he should apply for an Ontario student loan, because he undertakes more studies than any graduate student in this province.

The minister in this program reminds me of the fellow who studies Freud all of his life and never has a date. There comes a time when one has to stop studying and take some action. This is a complete sellout. It is following in the Conservative tradition, the Conservative policies of the previous government that protect the builder and do absolutely nothing for the consumer.

If this Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations wants to borrow that, he should cross the floor and join the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for one minute.

SMALL BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Today I am pleased to table the first annual report of the state of small business. The report details the performance, concerns and priorities of small business owners in the province. As a record of the achievements of small business owners in Ontario, I believe this report spotlights their crucial impact on wealth creation and the reduction of unemployment.

There are 304,000 small businesses in Ontario, and they continue to be the most dynamic source of job creation in our economy. Eighty-two per cent of all net new jobs in Ontario come from small business, and the majority of these from the formation of new companies.

The role of women and young people as small business owners is becoming increasingly significant. Nearly a quarter of Ontario businesses are now owned by women. Young Ontarians are turning to new business startups as a viable alternative to traditional employment. More than 40 per cent of new businesses are started by people under the age of 30.

These findings are just a few of the highlights of the report, a report submitted to me by the committee of parliamentary assistants for small business.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have unanimous consent to complete this.

Mr. O'Connor: Well, can we have more time?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We would be delighted.

Mr. McClellan: I would suggest three minutes per party.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Whatever you want. Take the rest of the day, Ross; you are worth listening to.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to have that clarified. The standing orders say five minutes for responses. Is there some agreement for six minutes?

Mr. McClellan: No; three minutes for each of the parties.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: In its first year, the committee has achieved a remarkable level of activity. I salute the chairman, the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro), and the members of his committee: the member for Downsview (Mr. Cordiano), the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Poirier) and the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli).

Since the committee was formed early this year, it has listened intently to small business owners. The committee has brought important messages to the attention of the government and influenced decisions on leading issues that concern the small business community.

Shortly after the appointment of the committee, I announced that its chairman, the member for Wellington South, would be appointed to the position of small business advocate. This was in response to the insistence of business owners that the government create a point of access through which groups could engage the government in dialogue on small business issues.

This government has listened; it has put small business high on the agenda.

Small business owners are making an enormous contribution to Ontario's development and prosperity. We are prepared to speak out for their interests, and we are hopeful that the members of the Legislature will continue to respond with faith in Ontario's small business community.

Mr. Barlow: I am pleased that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the government still recognize the very important contribution the 304,000 small businesses in Ontario make towards our total economy. In his statement, the minister said the government and the committee that represents small business have listened. He mentioned that on a couple of occasions. In many cases they listened, but they did not hear what business was saying. They cannot be the most antibusiness government in Canada and expect small business to have any faith in them.

I think the statement said the committee headed by the member for Wellington South has been meeting since January. They have brought in only one program, the new ventures program. They pay lip service to the pleas of the many business organizations they have been meeting with. They cannot keep loading on the costs they have been loading on to business and expect business to survive. They need to disclose to business the costs of all these many programs so that business can find the true balance between the handouts being given by the government and the actual cost to business.

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS STORAGE FACILITY

Mrs. Grier: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Having read carefully your comments of December 15, but also being cognizant of the fact that the primary privilege of a member of this House is the privilege to hold a minister accountable for his actions, my point is that the timing of a decision to be announced tomorrow by the Ontario Energy Board is such that the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) cannot be questioned in this House.

The Ontario Energy Board, with the addition of a member of the Environmental Assessment Board, had extensive hearings last October into an application by Consumers' Gas for an enormous storage facility in Northumberland. That issue has been raised in this House on many occasions. The Ontario Municipal Board opens hearings into the official plan amendment to allow the facility on January 5. The Ontario Energy Board plans to announce its decision tomorrow. It has scheduled a press briefing for three o'clock, and the decision is to be announced at four o'clock.

That is too late for any questions to be raised in this House. Given that the dates of the recess of this House were well known in advance, I would like you to ask the Minister of Energy to change the timing of that decision.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the member for Lakeshore. It certainly was a point of information. I understood the member was asking the Speaker a question in the final comment she made. The Speaker cannot request a minister to make a statement or do anything at any time. However, I thank the member for the point of information.

14:22

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding probably the most flimsy and embarrassing announcement his government has made in its one and half years in office. The minister has no doubt studied the problem of the Bolton home owners. I wonder whether he can share with the House the terms of the offers to purchase signed by the builders and the prospective owners and how many months the builders had provided in the offers for the right to extend the closing date.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I do not have those exact details.

Mr. Grossman: Does the minister mean to say that after he and his colleague manufactured for themselves headlines such as "Clean Up Your Act Or Face Legislation, Home Builders Told" -- of course, the minister persuaded only the Toronto Star to publish this -- and after all the speeches he and his colleague made about cleaning up the act and getting a remedy for the prospective home purchasers in Bolton, he can rise today and tell us he does not even know how many months the builders had a right to extend the closing date?

I have the answer and a question for the minister. Under the offer to purchase, all the purchasers affected in Bolton faced a six-month extension to the closing date as per their agreement of purchase and sale. In fact, a six-month extension is provided in most standard form contracts; I have some here today. Can the minister explain why his grand announcement today extends that from six months to eight months? He claims that is consumer protection; it is builder protection.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Leader of the Opposition will know this initiative is not aimed at just one builder; it is aimed at the problem confronting those areas experiencing this heated market.

What we have done is work in conjunction with the home builders, consumer groups and the Ontario New Home Warranty Program to come up with a program that is going to be fair and equitable to all the parties. We are not dealing with specific issues; we are dealing with the broad problem and dealing with it on a broad solution.

Mr. Grossman: We know that before the minister entered politics he sold real estate. He had a licence. In his time, he will have seen many standard form offers and will have seen they all contain a printed standard form clause that gives the builder the right to a six-month extension. The minister wants to take the position that he has done something for the consumers or the home buyers; yet can he explain why his grand announcement today says to builders that an extension to eight months, not six months, is appropriate?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member, who is supposedly learned in the law, will know that if the home buyer and the builder were to abide by that contract, at six months there would be no deal and there would be no recourse under the law. That would be the deal and that would be it.

We have tried to work out a solution whereby they cannot impose that legal solution. In all the problem cases we have right now, the builders are saying, "Legally, we have no obligation whatsoever." We are saying, "You may be right, but there is a moral and ethical problem and we think you should honour those contracts."

If we went to court, the contract could not be upset, because the agreement states that the builder has an opportunity to extend it for six months and that is it. That is the defence Ryan Homes used and it is the defence we attack; that is the one it has backed down on and the one where the problems of those purchasers have been solved.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: The minister must have negotiated with Rod Lewis and the Urban Transportation Development Corp. That is unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your second question?

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Grossman: My question on Sunday shopping is for the Attorney General and acting Solicitor General. A headline we read yesterday said, "Store Staff Cannot Be Forced To Work on Sunday, Scott Says." Can the acting Solicitor General tell us what legal reference he had when he made that statement?

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is my view that if a store is prohibited by law from opening on Sunday, it would be a breach of the law, which would produce a civil, although not necessarily a criminal, remedy in the event that an employee were required to work on that day.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, the minister's statement, for which he got a headline the day he gave out his phone number, said that store staff cannot be forced to work on Sunday. There are thousands of employees who are looking to him for some guidance --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the Christmas season is coming. Supplementary. Order.

Mr. Grossman: The employees of this province would like to be gifted by the Attorney General with some specific advice on this simple question. Ms. Gaynor, counsellor for the branch of the Ministry of Labour, said that under the Employment Standards Act, if an employee did not accept work on Sunday, the employer would have to give him notice or pay in lieu of notice but would have the right to terminate his employment.

Will the Attorney General confirm that advice or call the Ministry of Labour and tell its people they are giving out wrong information?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member knows it will not advance the situation if he confuses a number of businesses covered by the Employment Standards Act and the businesses in the retail trade, which have Sunday closing dealt with under the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Under the Retail Business Holidays Act, it is an offence to sell at retail in certain enumerated kinds of retail stores on Sunday. In my opinion, there is nothing in the act that prohibits a direction to an employee to work, but there is a civil remedy at law if the employee is required to do so.

14:30

Mr. Grossman: Let us be clear. The Attorney General is saying to employees: "Never mind the statement of last week, December 4, when the Premier said" -- I will admit it was in the absence of the Attorney General, who was away from the House; that is probably the problem - "in response to this very question, `I can assure my friend if there is not a statute that is applicable, we will bring one into the House to protect these people.'"

What the Attorney General is saying is very simple. He is saying that this Sunday, regardless of what the courts do, employees face this option: to be fined under the Retail Business Holidays Act, which he has just referenced, and sue their employers a month later; or to be fired, since there is no protection under the Employment Standards Act.

Will the Attorney General be kind enough to weave his way through that fine-or-be-fired option? The employees of this province now know that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was giving out information that might have caused them to act in an inappropriate way and that the Attorney General has misled the public in terms of that answer.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am sorry about the last observation, but there is nothing I can do about it.

I want to emphasize that the advice the Premier gave, according to that press report -- I was not here that day -- is (a) entirely correct and (b) entirely consistent with the statement I have made today.

ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is of the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the use of contingent electric shock or cattle-prod therapy for the developmentally handicapped.

When the minister announced in September his strict new controls, as they were called then, on the use of cattle prods, he indicated -- or at least two press reports said -- that these would be limited to Cedar Springs in Blenheim. My evidence today is that they are being used in D'Arcy Place and Midwestern as well as in Blenheim.

When I asked the minister on June 2 what would happen to a woman who was going back to D'Arcy Place and whether she would have to get the shocks there that she had been receiving at Durham Centre, the minister replied as follows:

"The member indicated that some people in Durham are going to D'Arcy, which does not use this procedure. If it were required to be continued, they would not go to D'Arcy. They will be assisted until they are ready to go into the community."

Can the minister explain why this woman is back in D'Arcy receiving this treatment, as is a 17-year-old boy?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I remind the honourable member that at that time I said no new cases would be started at any centre other than Southwestern. The two cases the honourable member refers to were ongoing and part of the 11 at that time. Those two people have been transferred to D'Arcy. The program they were on at Durham is continuing at D'Arcy; it is not a new program. In both cases the approval, support and encouragement of the parents is part of the decision to continue the former regimen.

I also point out to the honourable member that at that time there were 11 cases across the province. There are now only nine.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In my view, there can be zero if we have the will. But the minister has just indicated he did not tell me the truth on June 2.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I resent that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Not as much as I do.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I said clearly that there would be no new cases started.

Mr. Warner: It is in Hansard. Hansard does not lie.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member accused another member of not telling the truth. Will he please withdraw that?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Fine.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: However, I remind the minister to look at the Hansard of June 2, which I just read. It says specifically what I said, which is not what he has told me today.

Under the minister's strict new treating rules, they are supposedly going to have control over who is administering this shock therapy. Can he explain why the 17-year-old boy who is receiving it in D'Arcy is having it administered by a 21-year-old unclassified staff member, who under other regulations is not allowed even to be left alone in charge of patients, let alone to administer such things as medication?

Is the minister sure the right kind of controls are being put on the administration of shock therapy? It is my understanding it is often administered to this young man by one person and one person alone.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: When this was brought to my attention earlier today, the first question I asked was whether the shock treatment was being administered by a qualified staff person. I was assured it was.

An hon. member: A cattle-prod artist.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is true. He is a cattle-prod artist, trained in a community college to do it, as I understand it.

On May 29, 1986, the minister said to me: "I remind the member that this procedure is used as an absolute last resort and for a very short period of time. If it does not produce the results, it is not used." Then he went on.

Can the minister explain to me why Walter in Midwestern has been receiving this for several years and why the woman at D'Arcy, who was at Durham before that, has been receiving this treatment for several years, as has this young 17-year-old boy? Since this kind of stimulation is obviously not working, why are no alternative programs being tried for these people?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The young woman the member refers to was having 100 incidents per day of personal aggressive behaviour prior to the administration of the shock treatment. That is now down to three. When it is down to one, it will be eliminated.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: On a point of personal explanation, Mr. Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity to correct the record and to offer my apology to the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). When he placed his supplementary question, I understood him to be referring to new cases. I have been informed he was not. Rather, he was referring to existing cases being transferred from Durham Centre to D'Arcy Place. The record of June 2 clearly indicates he was correct and I was wrong.

LAKE POLLUTION

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It is a matter of some serious concern to the Hamilton region and has implications for all of Ontario.

The minister will be aware of the findings of the special committee on long-term cleanup plans for Hamilton harbour. For the first time, we have had some hard economic figures to put on the necessary changes. It appears that between $84 million and $107 million can achieve a substantial cleanup in the harbour within five years and could even lead to the possibility of swimming there.

Will the minister inform this House, and specifically all Hamilton members, whether he is prepared to initiate the necessary immediate action to start developing the plans as outlined in this report so we do not have another plan sitting on the shelf?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will be aware that one aspect of the problem that exists in Hamilton harbour, and one that has had the greatest focus of attention, has been Windermere basin itself. When the individuals from the city of Hamilton and the regional municipality came to see me to discuss funding for the cleanup of Windermere basin, for instance, as only component of this whole program, I was happy to indicate to them that the province was prepared to commit $1.25 million at that time. They were delighted with that step in the right direction and indicated they had tried for five years to get that kind of action. The only reason I mention it is as an indication that we are prepared to translate into specific action the kinds of proposals that are being made.

The member will also know the committee, which is made up of about 48 stakeholders in the area, has brought forward a preliminary recommendation and will be bringing forward a final recommendation. I will be looking very carefully at that. Many of the suggestions I have heard about already are very positive, and the province will play its important role in the cleanup of that harbour.

14:40

Mr. Allen: The question of whether Hamiltonians will be swimming in the harbour in five years, seven years or nine years, as the reports have it, is relatively immaterial beside the question of whether the minister will spring into action on receipt of the final report by that committee and bring together the appropriate groups to implement a workable plan with a specific timetable and with the specific allocation of costs spread across the various parties -- industry, government and environmental agencies -- as is proper.

Will the minister commit himself to doing that when the final report is in the hands of that special committee? He can be assured that if he does that, he will have the co-operation of all members from the Hamilton region on both sides of the House.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is quite correct in indicating that there should be a number of people participating in this, and of course private industry is one component of that. Governments at the three levels should also be participating.

I know this member and other members from the Hamilton area all have a concern about the harbour, and I think the member would want to see us move rapidly to implement the recommendations. I can indicate to him that when I get that final report I will know what the implications of the report are. I can tell the member that I am prepared to see action on this. I do not think we simply have to go on reporting and reporting and reporting. The member is quite accurate in assuming that action should flow from this specific report, and I intend to take action.

Mrs. Grier: I am sure all members will welcome the minister's commitment to the report that is about to be produced. Given that this report concentrates primarily on bacterial contamination of Hamilton harbour, can we have the minister's assurance that the major industrial polluters, Dofasco and Stelco, and other industries discharging into the sewage treatment plants that flow into the harbour will be brought under control within the same five-year period that the committee is recommending?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can indicate to the member as I have indicated in the House in the past, that in addition to the spills bill, which is in force right now and has some effect -- I am not suggesting it is the major factor, but it is helpful in this regard -- with the implementation of the changes contemplated in the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, as she knows, instead of looking at the lumps and colours, as we call them, industries, municipalities and the Ontario government itself will be in a position of assessing the problems, determining what substances are going into the harbour and then abating them.

Thus, I can give her the assurance that the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement will address that problem. In addition to this, the review we are undertaking of regulation 308, the air pollution regulation, will have the effect of reducing the contaminants that will be reaching the harbour by means of air particles.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As his letter clearly indicates, the third-party buyer came along long after the initial discussions of funding to the potato growers selling to Natural Fry. Will the minister today state or agree that the growers were encouraged to continue to sell to Natural Fry while these discussions were going on with ministry personnel?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This matter was given full-blown discussion in estimates, which we completed just about a week ago. I would have hoped the honourable member would have had a little longer memory than he is obviously exhibiting today.

I told him exactly what the situation was when he asked the question yesterday. My staff and I were working on a submission, which we were prepared to take to cabinet, regarding financial assistance for producers who had marketed their potatoes through Natural Fry, but that was pending a third-party equity investor in the company. The third party decided it was not interested because the company was in debt to the tune of about $750,000. Therefore, when they showed there was no interest, the bank put the company into receivership.

All that the growers could possibly have received from my ministry was the fact that we were planning to go to cabinet with a submission for a sum of money to help the growers if it appeared that the Natural Fry company was going to be kept in business.

Mr. Stevenson: It is now quite clear to us that growers were promised money out of a $1.5-million fund that exists in his ministry and does not require cabinet approval to get funding out of. It is also clear to us that his parliamentary assistant's office phoned a former Liberal candidate to say funding was on its way, and we know of visits to the Premier's office regarding this situation.

Is it not now clear that promises were definitely made to these growers to continue to sell to Natural Fry while these discussions were going on and while they fully expected funding from the ministry to guarantee payments on those sales?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The honourable member knows full well I am not listening in on all telephone conversations that are made by my parliamentary assistant, by my ministry staff or by the Premier's staff.

Mr. Grossman: Why did you tell the House something different yesterday?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Until the honourable member can send to me any written commitment that was made by my staff, by the parliamentary assistant or by anyone else, I have to treat his allegation as being unfounded.

Mr. Pope: Are you saying we cannot take the Liberals' word any more?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. G. I. Miller: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member made a statement that is not true. We never indicated to anybody that funding would be made available to anyone.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt would like to ask a question if the other members will allow him to do that.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning his intention to spray Ontario's forests next year. Back on November 13, the minister made a statement saying chemicals would not be used in the spray program in 1987. Why are we now hearing that the whole issue is going to come before cabinet yet again to discuss the use of chemicals when in fact the budworm and the gypsy moth populations are down all over the province? Can the minister tell us why we are having to fight this battle all over again?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We are not fighting the battle all over again. I want to share with the honourable member that there is a request from the federal government to do some research. We have not answered as yet. We are very interested in taking into account what the federal government is saying about this kind of involvement across Canada to protect the forests in Ontario and in other jurisdictions. The question is before us. No commitment has been made.

Mr. Laughren: I do not even know why there is a debate. The minister surely knows that when we spray a chemical on the forest it kills all the insects it comes into contact with, whereas the biological spray bacillus thuringiensis simply kills the budworms.

The minister should read a letter that Dr. David Suzuki wrote to the Premier (Mr. Peterson). I doubt if he has. Dr. Suzuki said:

"Any ecologist will point out that it is a weird notion to control a few insect pests by killing all insects. That would be the same as trying to control crime in New York City by killing all New Yorkers."

Will the minister make a commitment today that there is no need to spray any chemicals on Ontario's forests in the future? That is behind us. It is not necessary any more. The prices are comparable between the chemicals and Bt. It is safer to handle. It is just as effective.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has asked the question.

14:50

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I thought the response was quite clear. I suggested to the honourable member that to protect the forests, the federal government has asked Ontario whether it will participate in a meaningful research program. It did not specify chemicals. The question was whether we should examine the results of Bt, chemicals, wasps and other types of biological sprays. They asked that question and they also asked that it be monitored to have the results prove one way or another what the whole ramifications of spraying are going to be in the future. I have also shared with the member that no decision has been made. We are dealing with the question put before us in a sensible way. When we come up with any answer, the member will be one of the first to know.

SALE OF LANDS

Mr. Partington: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I found the minister's comments on Monday regarding our discussion of the Vaughan land sale a little distressing. I want to give the minister an opportunity to correct the record. Will he confirm now that during our meeting of November 20 he mentioned that a police investigation was under way and that it would be appreciated if I would refrain from asking questions related to the Vaughan land sale for three weeks, by which time the investigation would be completed? How can he truthfully claim our party broke his confidence when he knows that simply is not true?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I recall the meeting I had with the member for Brock, but the member misunderstood or fabricated --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not think I heard Christmas carols there. The minister accused another member of fabricating. Will he withdraw that?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: It was inadvertent. I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. The member for Brock misunderstood the message I gave him. I remind him that at the meeting at which he was present, the acting deputy minister was present, my senior policy person was present and my communications person was present. I never told the member to hold back for three weeks. What I did say was that an investigation was ongoing. I did not give it a date. How could I give him a final date for a report expected from the Ontario Provincial Police and not my ministry?

Mr. Gillies: The minister has had his internal ministry report sitting on his desk since September. Typically for this government, before it is tabled in this House his deputy minister comments on it in this morning's press. His deputy minister said, "The Vaughan land sale practices were far from satisfactory." The mayor of the town of Vaughan, Mrs. Jackson, who apparently has seen the report, or so it would seem, said: "The circumstances surrounding the sale are still a mystery to me. What was the rush to sell with only a $10,000 deposit? The provincial report does not deal with this."

The minister has been sitting on this matter for almost a year. He has had the report for three months. He or his officials are talking about it before it is tabled in this House. Why is he stonewalling on this? What is he afraid of?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As promised last Tuesday in this House, I will be making a statement tomorrow regarding the ministry's report or findings. I will be addressing this House tomorrow with a statement.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, may I rise to correct the record please? I think it is important.

Mr. Speaker: Will you do that after question period?

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Premier about the radioactive soil under the homes in the Malvern subdivision of Scarborough. In September 1983, the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, accused the government of the day of lack of concern for residents who were "being slowly contaminated by cancer-causing radiation." He went on to say, "The government has used the fact that it cannot find a site in which to dump the radioactive soil as an excuse for total inaction."

This government is using a court injunction against disposing of the soil at Reesor Road as a total excuse for inaction. Can the Premier tell the House why the government has not removed the soil and taken it to one of the two licensed waste disposal sites in this province, the Bruce nuclear plant or Chalk River?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am going to refer this to the acknowledged authority on the subject, the Minister of Housing.

Hon. Mr. Curling: If I understand the honourable member's question properly, she is asking why the province has not removed the soil. Transporting the soil is a federal matter. We have already indicated --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the members know what order means. It means, please be silent.

Hon. Mr. Curling: We are prepared to move the soil whenever the federal people settle it. It has been in the courts for some time now.

Mrs. Grier: I thought I made that point in my first question. The injunction against moving the soil is solely against moving it to Reesor Road. The government could have moved it to the waste disposal site at Chalk River or to the one at the Bruce nuclear power development long before now. It has not done either. Instead, it has rented out the houses to people, who are now living on that radioactive soil. The previous government, having knowingly constructed homes on radioactive soil, why is the minister continuing to allow people to live in those homes?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I hope the member is not using these scare tactics on the tenants living in that area. Experts in the matter have told us that the level of radiation is not such that it is hazardous to the health of the residents. To indicate in some respect that this is dangerous is a matter of opinion on the member's part.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The information we got from scientists who are well informed has told us it is not hazardous to the health of the tenants. In answering the first part of the member's question, while we would like to put it at Reesor Road, that is, as the member properly stated, a matter for the courts. We could move it to somewhere else and end up in the same kind of legal battle. We feel that as soon as that is settled, the soil will be removed.

LSI APPLICATIONS/ SPECTRUM SEMICONDUCTOR INC.

Mr. Gillies: I have a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology regarding Spectrum Semiconductor Inc., formerly LSI Applications Inc., the recipient of a $6-million investment in government funding. I wonder whether the minister is aware that contractors working on the renovation and construction of this company's buildings abandoned their work in early September because Spectrum had failed to make payment for work done months earlier and that, as of September, liens against that company by the contractors totalled more than $3 million.

Can the minister explain why, when his ministry had an investment of more than $6 million in the company, he did absolutely nothing for a three-month period following that? The first occasion when this House was informed there were problems with that investment was in November.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member should be aware that this money was forwarded to this company by the previous government.

There were several problems with it. That was only one of the reasons that triggered our investigation in the matter, bringing the Ontario Provincial Police in and putting in the accountants.

15:00

Mr. Pope: Can the minister indicate to us why in this case as well as in the Wyda case, but particularly in this case, he failed to monitor this investment? Why did he fail to protect the public interest and the public investment in this company? Why did he fail to take even the basic steps to keep track of the intercorporate relationships among LSI, Salient Technologies Inc., Salient Management Systems Inc., Celludata Inc., Advent Technology Limited Partnership and Quattrotech?

Why did he fail to keep track of what was going on? Why did he fail to check even the basic registrations that would have told him the only acquisition that LSI made was a Mercedes-Benz in June of this year when he --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As was mentioned by one of the members behind me, it was because we have had quite a time cleaning up not only this mess that the Conservatives got into but also the Wyda mess.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please be silent if you want a response. Once again I will wait.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I mentioned, when we are dealing with Wyda we are talking about the IDEA Corp. the previous government put into existence, its board of directors, its direction and all the problems we have to clean up. It is the same thing. We are trying to clean up after Spectrum also.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that the Crittenden report on the nursing home system of this province clearly indicated that the quality of care was better in nonprofit homes than it was in profit-oriented nursing homes and in view of the fact that he and his government have said they would favour an expansion of the nonprofit nursing home system, can the minister clearly indicate to us today whether his government is prepared to put a moratorium in place on the expansion of the for-profit nursing home system in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not prepared to put a moratorium on the expansion of for-profit undertakings on the basis that a large number of services are being provided by the profit sector and there are a lot of good operations are going on. There are a lot of problems in the operations as well, as the member points out on occasion, but I cannot indicate that I can put a moratorium on a system where there may be a need for beds in local communities, in small numbers, that can be accommodated by existing operations.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Can the minister confirm what his assistant deputy minister said yesterday in the lockup in the nursing home amendments? Mr. Reid indicated that in the last year since this government announced its favouring of the nonprofit sector the ratio of nonprofit to profit private nursing homes has not changed at all; in fact, there may be a higher percentage of profit-oriented nursing homes in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot confirm the numbers offhand. I will have to take a look at those. I can tell the member that in terms of two recent proposals for call, one in Cambridge and one in Kitchener-Waterloo, 43 beds were allocated to a not-for-profit organization at St. Luke's Place in Cambridge. The other 34 beds in Kitchener-Waterloo were allocated to a for-profit organization that was rated quite highly in the community.

When we make a decision on who is going to be a recipient of an allocation of beds, we take into account the ability of the people to provide the services: the most services, the best services and the best quality of care, as opposed to whether they are profit or not-for-profit.

That being considered, we do have a policy inside the ministry of helping not-for-profit organizations to make applications. We have seen the results when, for example, St. Luke's Place was awarded an allocation of beds in Cambridge just recently.

I suspect that over the next few weeks we will be able to indicate other not-for-profit organizations that are successful in their answers after the call for proposals. I am looking forward to assisting them in any way we can.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Pope: My question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology concerns the Wyda investment, an investment that has Liberal Party written all over it, with the minister's responsibility in that matter. I will remind him --

Mr. Speaker: By way of question, I hope.

Mr. Pope: -- that in August, the standing committee on public accounts unanimously called for an audit of a number of individuals and companies connected with this matter. The minister systematically frustrated that over a four-month period. He never did have an audit until the Ontario Development Corp. moved in four weeks ago. He then brought in the Ontario Provincial Police, who are going to report to the Attorney General and acting Solicitor General (Mr. Scott). He was involved in a meeting with some of the principals in this matter in July.

We want to know why the minister is systematically refusing a full judicial inquiry into this matter so that all the facts can be know.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I have complete faith in the OPP reporting to the Attorney General and complete faith that he will handle the report in the way it should be handled.

The public accounts committee was dealing with it, but when the member made certain requests about that company that were not answered, it triggered the accountants and the OPP coming in. Because he asked for that, we put in these people.

Mr. Pope: That says a lot about this minister. Unanimously in the committee, we said we were not getting the information. For three months, he did not audit the matter. In the meantime, the principal left the country. The minister did not call in the OPP until the matter went into receivership. He has still not provided any information to the public accounts committee.

I took the advice of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). We asked for a meeting with the OPP because it is obvious we are not going to get any answers out of this government.

Will the minister have a judicial inquiry or not?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We have co-operated fully with the public accounts committee. The ODC has been in front of the public accounts committee on at least two occasions. In fact, the member was one of those who complimented it on the report it gave to him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the very conservative Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Will the minister admit that the proposal he tabled today allows a builder to sell homes on properties for which no subdivision plans have been registered or building permits issued? Will he not agree that his proposal still allows that practice, which was at the centre of the problem we have experienced lately? Why does he not ban the practice as a way of curing the problem we have experienced in the past few months?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member should know that notwithstanding that builders are allowed to do it, the builder must notify the prospective purchaser of the status of either the building permit or the subdivision plan. Under the proposals announced yesterday, that has to be included in the documentation.

I would also like to comment briefly on the assumption that the problem is created by the fact that houses are being sold before registration. That is one of the problems but it is not the major problem.

The major problem we have, and I want to emphasize this, is with relatively few builders. The building industry is being maligned by both opposition parties. It is an honourable, reputable factor in our economy, and it is one of the largest employers in this province. Only a few builders are creating the problem, and we are dealing with that. To suggest that the whole industry is at fault and that we have to come down heavy-handed on everybody in the industry is to do them a disservice.

15:10

Mr. Philip: I am hardly maligning the industry when I ask the minister to enforce the policies that were in place before the Conservatives dismantled the policy and created the problem with their last government. Let me tell the minister this --

Mr. Speaker: By way of question?

Mr. Philip: When I and a number of the purchasers of Ryan Homes met with officials of the Toronto Home Builders' Association only a few days ago, they admitted it would be possible for the ministry to design a standard contract that would give an equal balance to the interests of the consumer and the builder. Since the rather conservative home builders' association felt that was possible, why does the minister not get off his butt and design such a contract to protect the consumers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know the announcement that was made yesterday was made by the industry; it was not made by this minister or this ministry. I made an announcement today stating what I was going to do under the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. The initiatives that were announced yesterday were a result of consultation by the industry. It was their initiative. It was their resolution of the problem. It was not mine; it was theirs.

COURT PROCEDURES

Mr. Callahan: My question is of the Attorney General. There are a considerable number of appeals before the Court of Appeal, specifically criminal appeals, where under the present rules, where application for leave to appeal is required, the application for leave is heard at the same time as the appeal.

I recognize that at the moment this is before Mr. Justice Zuber, who is considering all aspects of the criminal and civil justice systems. However, in the interim, as a short-term solution to perhaps take some of the pressures off the Court of Appeal, will the Attorney General consider an amendment to the rules requiring that a leave application be heard -- it can be, but it is not often done -- prior to the matter being put on the list for a full hearing of the appeal?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member will be interested to hear that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and I were just talking about that very question. As the House will know, on judicial matters, I take very seriously what the Treasurer has to say to me about the profession and matters of that type.

The suggestion the member makes is an interesting one. As he says, it is a matter for the rules committee, which is a committee on which the government has a representative. I will be glad to ask the rules committee to consider the matter.

Mr. Callahan: In addition to the application for leave to appeal, particularly in criminal matters where there is considerable concern because delays tie up the lower courts so that decisions cannot move through the process, I would ask the Attorney General whether he would consider the question of charter applications, which also seem to be tying up the courts considerably, and whether they might be heard in some pre-trial way. Perhaps the argument will be found to be unfounded and the matter can get on in the usual way.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am not sure I can be as enthusiastic about that proposal. If one is concerned about delays in the courts, it is not a useful exercise, by and large, to make two separate hearings out of one, which is essentially what the proposal suggests. I will be glad to look at it for the member and report to him.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations; it has to do with the changes being made that are supposed to help new home buyers.

I do not see anything in what the minister is doing that puts in teeth to protect them when it comes to saying who the builder will be by virtue of the fact that there is no idea who is going to be the builder. You cannot tell who the builder is because there is no registry of builders. When you go to a builder, you might find he was in business last year under another name.

What guarantee is there in the recommendations the minister is making that a builder from whom a person buys will be reputable and will live up to the terms of the agreement?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If the member had followed what the announcement said, he would know the building industry announced that the new form, which will be an addendum to a regular contract, will require that not only the corporate name be there if it is a corporation but also the names of the principals must be included in the offer. The purchasers will know and we will know through the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. In case a builder is proposed for removal from the program and tries to set up another corporation, we will know who the principal is and we will know we have had problems with him before.

Mr. Cousens: The minister still has not solved the problem. There is nothing in this addendum that will be attached to the offer to purchase by a new home buyer that says what the minister is saying. There is nothing in that announcement that came out yesterday. That is my first point.

The second point is that there is no guarantee that a builder who has been disreputable and disbarred, so to speak, will not be in business with someone else. Is there any way the minister can remove the bad builders from the building industry? He cannot. He should tell me how he will.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member raises an interesting question that does not pertain just to the building industry. In any business endeavour in this province, if someone registers a company as a limited corporation and that corporation has a problem, the person, whoever it is, can go on and do something else. We have it in the securities industry and many other industries where such things happen.

We try to be ever vigilant. We try to make sure we find out who the principals are. If we find these people are so-called bad actors, we are alerted to it and we prevent their registration. That is something we are working on.

Also, in the announcement I made today, we propose to publish a list of the good guys. Consumers can be guided by this list, which will be published by the Ontario New Home Warranty program, of builders who have a reputation for fulfilling their obligations.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities with respect to student debt, particularly the case of Theresa Kruple, who after four years at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute graduated with a $10,000 debt. She became an intern in her field at the pitiful salary of $470 a month. Under the Ontario student assistance program she was considered fully employed and incurred a further $1,200 debt in the course of the next year. Then the loan went into default and the student is subject to harassment by collection agencies.

In the past, the minister has been asked a number of questions about OSAP reform and the answers have been very vague. May I ask the minister to do one simple thing this afternoon? Will he redefine "fully employed" under OSAP in such a way that the student in question may be entitled to a reasonable and clear salary level without having to incur further interest or to begin repayment of debt?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The honourable member puts a simple question but raises a rather complex issue. I know the member for Hamilton West undertook publicly to ask a question about Theresa's plight. I am glad he is doing it today.

It should be pointed out that of the $10,000 debt, all but $400 and something is owed to the federal government. One of the problems we have with student aid is that the federal government has not revised its Canada student loan program to bring it in line with the costs that students are experiencing today.

15:20

On the other hand, through my ministry, we have made substantial improvements to the Ontario student assistance program: an increment of about eight per cent during the current fiscal year and abolition of compulsory ancillary tuition fees during this year. These are in place right now and we are working on a number of other things, including improving the OSAP delivery system.

The kind of issue my friend raises today is an issue that is currently under consideration, not in a limited context but within a context of some more comprehensive reforms to OSAP.

Mr. Allen: The minister talked about total solutions and refused to respond to problems in particular cases. I do not think it is adequate to shuffle this off on the federal government. The simple fact of the matter is that the grants portion of OSAP, for which the minister himself is responsible, has been a declining proportion of the overall OSAP commitment.

Why is it impossible for him to stand in his place today, after giving in his first statement as a minister his commitment that OSAP reform would be his first and highest priority --

An hon. member: Where is it?

Mr. Allen: Where is it? Exactly. Why can he not give us some very specific commitments? For example, why will he not extend grant eligibility so that students will not get into debt to the extent they are? Why will he not redefine the full employment category in the fashion I suggested, which is his responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I hear a "Hear, hear" from the president of the Ontario Federation of Students, who has joined us in the gallery today. He should know that is out of order from up there, but it is good to see him here because he is very concerned about that issue.

My friend raises another important point: grant eligibility and the level of grant assistance. He knows the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and I as minister are responsible for that major part of student assistance. That is what we are currently looking at. As I told the president of the Ontario Federation of Students, we will have completed our review probably in the early spring.

I will not tell my friend the member that we are going to raise grants or that we will revise the approach to employment subsequent to leaving school today. We are looking at it and I thank him for his recommendation.

VISITOR

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I know you will want to join with me in welcoming the member for Parliament from Nickel Belt federal riding, John Rodriguez. John has fought back from both political and health setbacks and continues to be one of the most productive members of Parliament in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for that point of information.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition signed by 245 concerned parents from Shelburne and area which reads as follows:

"Shelburne Junior Public School has served the Shelburne community well for 87 years, but now it needs to be replaced. It is badly overcrowded. The fire marshal's office no longer thinks it is safe. It would cost in excess of $1 million to renovate and maintenance costs are prohibitive. We, the undersigned, agree that Shelburne needs a new public school -- now, not in 1990."

I support this petition.

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have another petition about Sunday racing, signed by 34 persons. It reads as follows:

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

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

"Whereas the Ontario Racing Commission in its hearing into the Ontario Jockey Club application for Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track has ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the concerns of residents surrounding the aforesaid racetrack;

"And whereas many residents have shown their concern with the impact of Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track on their neighbourhood and have indicated their wish to voice that concern;

"That the government amend the Racing Commission Act to ensure that the rights and concerns of residents in the neighbourhood of the racetrack and in the surrounding community be considered and protected by the Ontario Racing Commission in setting racing dates, times and schedules;

"Further, that the legislation provide that the long tradition of no Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track be maintained."

I support this petition.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Brandt: I beg leave to present two petitions to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of 47 names on the first petition and 1,773 names on the second petition, all of the signatures on these petitions indicating strong opposition to Sunday store openings.

Mr. McLean: I have a petition signed by approximately 70 Ontarians, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, of the Orillia Christian and Missionary Alliance Church oppose the opening of retail stores on Sundays in defiance of the Lord's Day Act. We feel that families need a day of rest to be with each other, and when stores are open, employers demand that their employees work and erode their family privileges. We feel that strong families are an integral part of society."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Windsor;

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the County of Huron.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the City of North Bay.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $8,861,000; commercial standards program, $6,114,200; technical standards program, $8,273,300; public entertainment standards program, $17,810,300; registration program, $35,550,900; and liquor licence program, $5,986,700;

And that supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Public entertainment standards program, $6,785,000; registration program, $2,402,500.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT / LOI DE 1986 SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES INSTITUTIONS FINANCIÈRES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 180, An Act to establish the Ministry of Financial Institutions.

L'hon. M. Kwinter propose la première lecture du projet de loi 180, Loi portant création du ministère des Institutions financières.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Ministry of Financial Institutions Act, Loi de 1986 sur le ministère des Institutions financières.

15:30

The creation of the Ministry of Financial Institutions announced by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on March 26, 1986, recognized the need for a strong centralized authority in Ontario to address new developments in the financial system and to implement a strong and enhanced regulatory environment.

Since then, the ministry has been actively pursuing its multiple mandate to ensure that confidence and trust in a stable financial system are maintained, to provide protection for depositors and investors and to increase Ontario's domestic and international competitiveness in the financial service sector.

The act I am introducing today will provide the legislative framework the ministry requires to meet all its goals and objectives and to function effectively and efficiently within its mandate.

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 181, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to introduce today an amendment to the Courts of Justice Act, which deals with the retirement rules for provincial judges and masters. Under the existing legislation, provincial judges are required to retire at age 65. However, they may continue in office to age 75 if they ask for and receive the annual approval of the Chief Judge or the judicial council.

These discretionary annual extensions have been criticized by the Supreme Court of Canada because of their effect on judicial security of tenure. They have now been challenged under the equality rights provisions in section 15 of the charter.

This bill will eliminate the annual extensions and ensure that all judges have equal security of tenure regardless of their age. However, if we eliminated annual extensions without changing the retirement age, all provincial judges and masters would have to retire at age 65. Since experience suggests that is too young, we propose that all provincial judges be required to retire at age 70. This is, incidentally, also the retirement age for district court judges across Canada.

I hope the House will be able to give early attention to this matter that concerns our judiciary.

WILLIAMS CREEK GOLD QUARTZ MINING CO. LIMITED ACT

Mr. McFadden moved first reading of Bill Pr60, An Act to revive Williams Creek Gold Quartz Mining Co. Limited.

Motion agreed to.

LOI DE 1986 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO / CITY OF TORONTO ACT

M. Offer propose la première lecture du projet de loi d'intérêt privé 57, Loi de 1986 sur la Cité de Toronto.

Mr. Offer moved first reading of Bill Pr57, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

La motion est adoptée.

Motion agreed to.

LIFELINE ACT

Mr. Sargent moved first reading of Bill 182, An Act to provide for a Basic Residential Power Rate Applicable to the Essential Energy Needs of Residential Households in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am tabling the answers to questions 82, 250, 298, 412, 513, 515, 516, 517, 521 in Orders and Notices and the interim answers to questions 451, 455, 495 and 496 [see Hansard for Thursday, December 18].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

ENVIRONMENT ENFORCEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 112, An Act respecting the Enforcement of Statutes related to the Environment.

On section 12:

Mr. Chairman: When we left off yesterday, I believe we were on section 12. You will have to refresh my memory about exactly where we were.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I request that the officials of the legal department of the Ministry of the Environment be permitted to be on the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: I am advised that Mrs. Grier had the floor, although we are in committee. If she wishes to lead off, that is fine.

Mrs. Grier: When we left off yesterday I was about to begin, I hope, to rebut the arguments put forward by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in opposition to the amendment to section 12, which I had moved. That amendment was the same one the committee previously adopted to section 10, which will broaden the right to seek a prohibited injunction when a conviction has been registered.

In answer to the Attorney General's arguments, I would like to point out that there are a number of safeguards to any abuse of this particular right if, as I hope, it is extended to individuals and to the courts themselves. The safeguards are, first, that no such order could be made unless the court actually convicts the person charged with the offence. Second, the court retains the discretion as to whether another order ought to be made and, if so, the terms and conditions. The third safeguard is the right of the accused to argue against the details of that order.

I think we could anticipate that if the accused was not happy with the order or envisaged that it would have the kinds of implications the Attorney General said it might have, the accused would certainly call upon the Minister of the Environment to support his case and to argue about the actual terms and details of the order.

It is important to note that the report on private prosecutions of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, with which I am sure both the minister and the Attorney General are familiar, broadens the rights of citizens to police the environment and recommends that they be given the right to seek remedial action, which is precisely what my amendment intends to do.

In the United States, citizens can bring actions for remedial action under the Clean Air Act, and citizens' suit provisions are being broadened, not narrowed, as the minister intends to do in this legislation.

15:40

It is worth noting that the prosecutions against BEST Plating and Jetco Manufacturing, which resulted in jail terms for their directors, dramatized the concern about the environment and brought to many people's attention the need for jail sentences and strict penalties, such as the minister is envisaging in Bill 11. The provision that had those directors sentenced to jail was the right under the Municipal Act for a prosecutor other than the ministry to seek an action against the directors of those companies.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that the Ontario Labour Relations Board has the jurisdiction to make orders. The suggestion I am making in my amendment is not by any means unique. It exists in other jurisdictions and other pieces of legislation. It will not have the deleterious effects the Attorney General and the minister suggested it might and is well worthy of support. I hope the minister will reconsider his position.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am not attempting to be too informal, but when one puts a pen into one's pocket upside down, it has a devastating effect on a suit. Therefore, you will excuse the attire, which is not as common as it might be in this Legislative Assembly, although the colour is reasonable for Christmas if not for other purposes.

I have listened with interest to the arguments put forward by the two opposition critics. I think they are aware that when I was advancing the argument on behalf of the ministry yesterday, I was attempting, as I have on other occasions when amendments have come forward from the opposition, to explain why we did not include those kinds of amendments in our original bill, because we did get representations for them.

As I have indicated clearly, the reason is that we did feel there was a concern, particularly in section 12, about what might happen, but the opposition is not convinced of this. I am sure we can overcome the problem. We will, as has been suggested, be diligent in keeping an eye on those cases which have an environmental component before the courts to ensure that, if we have any input, we can make that input at the appropriate time.

If we can proceed, the amendment will likely go through.

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with the amendment of the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), which is the same as an amendment of the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), to subsection 146c(1) of the Environmental Protection Act as set out in the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore is withdrawing her amendment of similar wording?

Mrs. Grier: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Fish moves that subsection 146c(3) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 12 of the bill, be amended by striking out "upon the application of counsel or agent for the minister" in the second and third lines and inserting in lieu thereof "upon its own initiative or upon application by counsel for the prosecutor."

This is again the same as an amendment of the member for Lakeshore to the same subsection.

Ms. Fish: The same set of arguments applies. Members will by now recognize and be familiar with the wording of the amendment. Since this has been discussed on two separate occasions, I do not think it is necessary to review the arguments save to say that I am pleased at the similar support from my colleague the member for Lakeshore and hope that the minister in his wisdom will see fit to agree with this motion.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have no further comment on this amendment other than to say it is the will of the House.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The motion of the member for Lakeshore is withdrawn.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

On section 13:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bradley moves that subsection 13(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "$10,000" in the 16th line and inserting in lieu thereof "$15,000."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This amends subsection 147(1) of the act by increasing the maximum penalty for individuals for a subsequent conviction from $10,000 to $15,000. A year in jail remains.

Ms. Fish: We are pleased to support the government amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that subsections 147(2), (3) and (4) of the act, as set out in subsection 13(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) Where a corporation is convicted of an offence referred in subsection (1), the corporation is liable, for each day on which the offence occurs or continues, to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $50,000 on a first conviction and not less than $4,000 and not more than $100,000 on each subsequent conviction, instead of the fine elsewhere provided for the offence.

"(3) Where a natural person is convicted of an offence referred to in subsection (1) that results in any of the effects mentioned in clauses (1)(a) to (h), the person is liable, for each day on which the offence occurs or continues, to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 on a first conviction and not less than $4,000 and not more than $25,000 on each subsequent conviction, instead of the fine elsewhere provided for the offence.

"(4) Where a corporation is convicted of an offence referred to in subsection (1) that results in any of the effects mentioned in clauses (1)(a) to (h), the corporation is liable, for each day on which the offence occurs or continues, to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $100,000 on a first conviction and not less than $4,000 and not more than $250,000 on each subsequent conviction, instead of the fine elsewhere provided for the offence.

"(5) Subsections (1) to (4) do not apply unless the court is satisfied that the defendant was notified before entering a plea that a penalty would be sought under subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4)."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is my understanding that subsection 147(4) may see an even higher level before we are out of the House today. Subsections 147(2) and 147(3) of the act, as re-enacted by subsection 13(2) of the bill, provided for higher penalties for corporations and are replaced by subsections 147(2) to 147(4), inclusive, providing higher penalties for corporations, together with higher penalties for both individuals and corporations, where actual adverse effects result from an offence related to hauled liquid industrial wastes or hazardous wastes.

The changes in the penalties are summarized in the table that follows. I have a table that follows. I think all members are familiar with what that is.

As previously provided in the act and the July 1986 proposals, new subsection 147(5) provides the increased penalties under section 147 cannot be sought unless notice has been given to the defendant prior to a plea being entered.

15:50

Mrs. Grier: I have a further amendment to this section.

Mr. Chairman: Is this an amendment to the minister's amendment?

Mrs. Grier: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that subsection 147(4) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in Mr. Bradley's motion to amend subsection 13(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "$100,000" in the sixth line and inserting in lieu thereof "$250,000" and by striking out "$250,000" in the eighth line and inserting in lieu thereof "$500,000."

Mrs. Grier: As I indicated yesterday in my remarks, my intent is to bring the level of the maximum fines -- and I want to stress that it is a maximum at the discretion of the courts -- up to a level commensurate with the likelihood of what a major industry would have to spend on abatement equipment should it be convicted under this section of the act. It is also more in line with the costs of the cleanup.

As I said yesterday, the cost to the ministry of cleaning up the Dow spill was more than $600,000. It is entirely appropriate that this level of fine be there, especially in view of the recent announcement by the federal Minister of the Environment that his draft legislation is going to include fines of up to $1 million a day. I am suggesting only half of that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: When we began to look at the fine levels that were in effect in the previous legislation, which had been there for some time, we felt it was necessary to increase those fines significantly, to appropriate levels, to send a message to the courts and, more important, to the potential polluters of this province that we were not going to tolerate it and that we were going to ensure it was more costly to be involved in a court case and be convicted than it would be to do the polluting.

Subsequent to our first proposal, there was one for a higher increase. Frankly, we could increase it to whatever figure anybody wants to increase it to. With the level of fine we have provided for, I think the message is clear what we mean about environmental offences.

I do not find offensive the other amendments that have been made by the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), because as she aptly points out, we are talking about maximums and the courts do not have to levy maximums. I am sure they are not going to levy maximums in cases where they are not warranted. On the other hand, it does give them some additional room to move. I think it sends that signal.

I point out that in comparison with the federal bill -- and it is a draft bill, as we all know -- that bill will be passing second reading today when we complete the committee of the whole House and third reading tomorrow, I hope. We will have a bill this Legislature can say we have actually put into effect, one that is supported by all three parties.

A point I should also make about the federal legislation is that they are dealing with the Criminal Code of Canada. When one is dealing with the Criminal Code, penalties normally are significantly higher than when dealing with provincial offences. These are going to be by far the highest penalties for provincial offences. I also think the real deterrent for many people is going to be the potential jail sentence; that is what is really going to do it.

I am getting the time signal from across the floor, so I will be happy to sit down.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We were discussing the main motion of Mr. Bradley. Is there any further discussion? There being none, shall the amendment of Mr. Bradley, as amended by Mrs. Grier, carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"13a. The said act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:

"147a. (1) Every director or officer of a corporation that engages in an activity that may result in the deposit, addition, emission or discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment contrary to this act or the regulations has the duty to take all reasonable care to prevent the corporation from causing or permitting such unlawful deposit, addition, emission or discharge.

"(2) Every person who has a duty under subsection (1) and who fails to carry out that duty is guilty of an offence.

"(3) A director or officer of a corporation is liable to conviction under this section whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This motion adds a new section 13a to the bill, enacting section 147a, imposing a duty on the directors and officers of a corporation that engage in activities that might result in pollution. A director or officer who fails to carry out his duty to take all reasonable care to prevent the corporation from causing or permitting pollution is guilty of an offence whether or not the corporation is prosecuted or convicted. I think that is rather straightforward.

Motion agreed to.

Section 14 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"14a. The said act is amended by adding thereto the following section:

"1a. Effective the 31st day of March 1987, this act binds the crown."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Section 1a of the act provides that the act binds the crown as of March 31, 1987. This provides a three-month transitional period for ministries and crown agencies. Sections 25 and 30 of the bill, amended by subsequent motions, also relate to this amendment.

This is a matter of great interest and discussion on the government side of the House. Naturally, when we make the crown liable to the same rules and responsibilities as others, it means an awful lot; it brings the message home. I believe, as do members of the government, that we should adhere to the same rules and regulations as everyone else. The municipalities must. The private sector must. It places a greater onus on us, but that is as it should be.

Mrs. Grier: I would like to welcome the amendment and say that the addition of this amendment to the original bill, as drafted, indicates the minister's commitment to taking some action to clean up the problems. I will support it.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 15 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.

16:00

On section 25:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that section 24 of the act, as set out in section 25 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(7) Every sewage works constructed, extended or altered by the crown or by the former Ontario Water Resources Commission before the first day of July 1987 or that is under construction, extension or alteration by the crown on the 30th day of June 1987 shall be deemed to be constructed, extended or altered in accordance with an approval under this section."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Subsections 25(1) and (2) of the bill relate to penalties under subsections 24(2) and (5) of the act and are dealt with under the penalties. The new section 1a of the act, section 14a of the bill, makes the Ontario Water Resources Act bind the crown.

The motion amends section 25 of the bill to add a new subsection 24(7) to the act to deem crown sewage works constructed or altered before July 1, 1987, or that are under construction or alteration on June 30, 1987, to be approved works. This gives municipalities that operate crown works and the crown the same protection from legal action for normal discharges as applies with respect to the existing approved municipal works.

Prior to the act binding the crown, crown works were reviewed by approvals personnel and informally approved but did not require legal approval. The date of June 30 is designed to allow a transitional period for works already under construction or alteration.

Motion agreed to.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 26 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 30:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that section 30 of the bill be amended by renumbering subsections (1) and (2) as subsections (2) and (3) and by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(1) Subsection 44(1) of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following clause:

"(u) classifying materials and exempting any class of materials from the application of this act or the regulations or any provision of this act or the regulations when the materials are used for a purpose that is a benefit to the public and that is specified in the regulations, and prescribing conditions to which any such exemption shall be subject."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The motion, as well as renumbering subsections 30(1) and (2) of the bill as subsections 30(2) and (3), adds a new subsection 30(1) adding a clause (u) to subsection 44(1) of the act. This authorizes a regulation legalizing winter road salting by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. A similar regulation exists under the Environmental Protection Act, Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1980, regulation 298. This will be required under the Ontario Water Resources Act as well since the act now will bind the crown.

The motion restricts the regulation-making authority by requiring a specified public benefit to be stated in the regulation. There is no such qualification in the EPA, clause 136(1)(a), "classifying contaminants and sources of contaminant and exempting any classes from the provisions of this act and the regulations."

Motion agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 31 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 34:

Mr. Chairman: According to my records, the next matter is an amendment by Ms. Fish to section 34, which is twinned with a similar motion by Mrs. Grier to the same section.

Ms. Fish moves that subsection 56(2) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 34 of the bill, be amended by striking out "upon application by counsel or agent for the minister" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "upon its own initiative or upon application by counsel for the prosecutor."

Ms. Fish: This is one of the series of amendments we discussed earlier, removing the necessity for a specific ministerial approval. I hope we will similarly find support for this amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 34, as amended, agreed to.

Section 35 agreed to.

On section 36:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that sections 67 and 68 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 36 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"67(1) Every person convicted of an offence under this act is liable, on conviction for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues, to a fine of not more than $5,000 on each first conviction and not more than $10,000 on each subsequent conviction.

"(2) Where a municipality or other corporation is convicted of an offence under this act the maximum fine that may be imposed for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues is $25,000 on a first conviction and $50,000 on each subsequent conviction and not as provided in subsection (1).

"(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in respect of subsections 44(4) and 46(3).

"68(1) Every person convicted of an offence under this act in respect of subsection 16(1) or clause 19(2)(b) is liable in addition to or in substitution for the penalties set out in section 67 to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year.

"(2) Where a municipality or other corporation is convicted of an offence in respect of subsection 16(1) or clause 19(2)(b), the maximum fine that may be imposed for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues is $50,000 on a first conviction and $100,000 on each subsequent conviction and not as provided in section 67.

"(3) Subsection (1) does not apply unless the court is satisfied that the person was notified before entering his or her plea that a penalty would be sought under subsection (1).

"68a. For the purposes of determining the penalty to which a person or a municipality or other corporation is liable under section 67 or section 68, a conviction for an offence under this act is a subsequent conviction if the person or the municipality or other corporation has previously been convicted of an offence under,

"(a) this act, other than for an offence related to subsection 44(2) or sections 45 to 48, on plumbing;

"(b) the Environmental Protection Act, other than for an offence related to part VII, sewage systems, or part VIII, litter; or

"(c) the Pesticides Act."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This is for exactly the same reasons as previously in the bill. Similar to the other sections, we are simply now under the Ontario Water Resources Act. We are doing the same thing as we have done under other sections. I have no further comments.

The Deputy Chairman: Mrs. Grier has an amendment to the amendment.

Mrs. Grier moves that subsection 67(2) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in Mr. Bradley's motion to amend section 36 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) A municipality or other corporation that is convicted of an offence under this act is liable on conviction to a fine for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues of not less than $2,000 and not more than $25,000 on a first conviction and not less than $4,000 and not more than $50,000 on each subsequent conviction and not as provided in subsection 1."

Mrs. Grier: All this does is add to the Ontario Water Resources Act the same minimum fines as we have done previously in the Environmental Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

16:10

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on Mr. Bradley's amendment?

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Fish moves that subsection 70(1) of the Ontario Resources Act, as set out in section 36 of the bill, be amended by striking out "upon application by counsel or agent for the minister" in the first and second lines and inserting in lieu thereof "upon its own initiative or upon application by counsel for the prosecutor."

Ms. Fish: Again, this is one in a series of amendments previously under discussion.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Fish moves that subsection 70(3) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 36 of the bill, be amended by striking out "upon the application of counsel or agent for the minister" in the second and third lines and inserting in lieu thereof "upon its own initiative or upon application by counsel for the prosecutor."

Motion agreed to.

Section 36, as amended, agreed to.

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

"36a The said act is amended by adding thereto the following section:

"74(1) Every director or officer of a corporation that engages in an activity that may result in the discharge or deposit of any material of any kind with possible impairment of the quality of the water of any well, lake, river, pond, spring, stream, reservoir or other water or watercourse contrary to this act or the regulations has a duty to take all reasonable care to prevent the corporation from causing or permitting such unlawful discharge or deposit.

"(2) Every person who has a duty under subsection (1) and who fails to carry out that duty is guilty of an offence.

"(3) A director or officer of a corporation is liable to conviction under this section whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This is similar to what we have done in the previous section.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 37 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 41:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bradley moves that subsections 34a(2) and (3) of the Pesticides Act, as set out in section 41 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) Where a corporation is convicted of an offence under this act, the maximum fine that may be imposed for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues is $25,000 on a first conviction and $50,000 on each subsequent conviction and not as provided in subsection (1)."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This is again similar. It increases the financial penalties, as we have done in other sections of the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that subsection 34a(2) of the Pesticides Act, as set out in Mr. Bradley's motion to amend section 41 of the bill, be amended (a) by striking out "maximum" in the second line and (b) by striking out "$25,000 on a first conviction and" in the fourth and fifth lines and inserting in lieu thereof "not less than $2,000 and not more than $25,000 on a first conviction and not less than $4,000 and not more than."

Mrs. Grier: It is merely inserting in this piece of legislation the same amendment as we approved for the others.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall Mr. Bradley's amendment, as amended, carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that subsections 34c(2) and 34c(4) of the Pesticides Act, as set out in section 41 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) Where a corporation is convicted of an offence under a section mentioned in subsection 1, the maximum fine that may be imposed for each day or part of a day in which the offence occurs or continues is $50,000 on a first conviction and $100,000 on each subsequent conviction and not as provided in section 34a.

"(4) For the purposes of determining the penalty to which a person is liable under section 34a or under subsections (1) or (2) of this section, a conviction of the person for an offence under this act is a subsequent conviction if the person has previously been convicted of an offence under,

"(a) this act;

"(b) the Environmental Protection Act, other than for an offence related to part VII, Sewage Systems, or part VIII, Litter; or

"(c) the Ontario Water Resources Act, other than for an offence related to subsection 44(2) or sections 45 to 48, Plumbing, of that act.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We are doing the same thing in this section as we have done in previous sections.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Fish moves that subsection 34d(1) of the Pesticides Act, as set out in section 41 of the bill, be amended by striking out "upon application by counsel or agent for the minister" in the first and second lines and inserting in lieu thereof "upon its own initiative or upon application by counsel for the prosecutor."

Ms. Fish: This is again to bring parallelism to the various acts.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Fish moves that subsection 34d(3) of the Pesticides Act, as set out in section 41 of the bill, be amended by striking out "upon the application of counsel or agent for the minister" in the second and third lines and inserting in lieu thereof "upon its own initiative or upon application by counsel for the prosecutor."

Motion agreed to.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Can we pause for a minute in our proceedings while I discuss something? Can we have a moment's silence in our proceedings? It is not an adjournment. I just want to clarify something, if I may.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that we give a few moments to Mr. Bradley?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: One minute.

The Deputy Chairman: Agreed.

16:26

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent to reconsider the amendment to subsections 34c(2) and 34c(4), as set out in section 41 of the bill?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that subsection 34c(2) of the Pesticides Act, as set out in Mr. Bradley's motion to amend section 41 of the bill, be amended,

(a) by striking out "maximum" in the second line; and

(b) by striking out "$25,000 on a first conviction and" in the fourth and fifth lines and inserting in lieu thereof "not less than $2,000 and not more than $25,000 on a first conviction and not less than $4,000 and not more than."

Mrs. Grier: To clarify, the first time I moved the amendment, in error, I moved an amendment to a regulatory section of the bill rather than to a section of the bill that imposes fines for actual polluting offences. The effect of this motion is to ensure that the minimum penalties we have adopted are applied merely for offences of pollution.

Motion agreed to.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

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

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

" 34g (1) Every director or officer of a corporation that engages in an activity that may cause an effect mentioned in subsection (3) contrary to this act or the regulations has a duty to take all reasonable care to prevent the corporation from causing or committing such unlawful effect.

"(2) Every person who has a duty under subsection (1) and who fails to carry out that duty is guilty of an offence.

"(3) The effect referred to in subsection (1) is any one or more of,

"(a) impairment of the quality of the environment for any use that can be made of it;

"(b) injury or damage to property or plant or animal life;

"(c) harm or material discomfort to any person;

"(d) an adverse effect on the health of any person;

"(e) impairment of the safety of any person; or

"(f) directly or indirectly rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use,

"from a pesticide or any substance or thing containing a pesticide to a greater degree than would necessarily result from the proper use or storage of the pesticide.

"(4) A director or officer of a corporation is liable to conviction under this section whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This is similar to other sections of the bill we have already approved. Motion agreed to.

Section 42 agreed to.

16:30

On section 43:

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Fish moves that subsection 37(3) of the Pesticides Act, as set out in section 43 of the bill, be amended by striking out "upon application by counsel or agent for the minister" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "upon its own initiative or upon application by counsel for the prosecutor."

Ms. Fish: This is the last in a series of amendments bringing parallelism to the various acts.

Motion agreed to.

Section 43, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 44 and 45 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

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

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. Bradley, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Nixon, moved resolution 9:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing January 1, 1987, and ending March 31, 1987, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Miss Stephenson: What is the amount?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The amount is $8 billion, and we will gratefully accept any comments and approval at the members' earliest convenience.

Mr. Harris: We want to have considerable discussion on this item. Perhaps if I had an indication --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: I am sorry --

Mr. Harris: I am getting to that. We are prepared to adjourn the debate at this time, if that is the proper way to do it, so we can get to the other orders, whatever they are.

I will yield the floor to the government House leader, who will explain this.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since we have lots of time: I consulted with the two House leaders and indicated that my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) was very anxious to have Bill 158 go forward, since it must be enacted, we hope and trust, before the end of the calendar year. There was this agreement, and I thought that in my absence, after the passage of Bill 112, we might have gone to order 25.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the debate was adjourned.

CANADIAN INSURANCE EXCHANGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 158, An Act to continue the Canadian Insurance Exchange.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This government believes the Canadian Insurance Exchange will result in substantial benefits to Ontario and to Canada as a whole. Foremost of these benefits is the retention in Canada of a large portion of reinsurance premiums that are currently leaving the country.

In addition, the exchange will act as a centralized market facility for general risks of a large nature where an efficient mechanism is needed for spreading risks. It will also provide an opportunity to expand the capacity for the general insurance market in Canada.

This special act enables the operation of the exchange as a market facility for the placing of insurance and reinsurance risks and provides the exchange with powers of self-government. The act retains certain licensing and examination of regulatory powers with the superintendent of insurance. It also provides for the creation of a security fund for the protection of policyholders.

I am urging speedy passage of this bill because I believe it is important to have the Canadian Insurance Exchange established in time to take advantage of the reinsurance treaty renewal period starting January 1, 1987.

The Canadian Insurance Exchange can make a contribution towards relieving some of the difficulties now being experienced in the marketplace and provide a significant addition to Canadian insurance markets in the longer term.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Are there any members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr. Runciman: It is the member for Leeds. I hope you are right about Leeds-Grenville following the next election.

We are supportive of the legislation. As usual, the minister is reluctant to indicate the origins of the initiative behind the Canadian Insurance Exchange. It was an initiative of the previous government. In view of the matters that have transpired, the crisis that developed in the insurance industry in the past year and a half in terms of the ability of Canadian firms to deal with the reinsurance industry, it should be mentioned here today that it indicated great foresight on the part of the previous government.

I want to go on record as complimenting the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations of the day, Robert Elgie, and Robert Hilborn, I believe, the gentleman who has been spearheading this project from the outset.

That is all we have to say on it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

16:40

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 108, An Act to amend the Insurance Act.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This act provides for the framework for Ontario's participation in a national compensation plan for the general insurance industry. This plan, the result of two years of co-operative consultation between the general insurance industry and the superintendents of insurance across Canada, will provide protection to the public in the event of the insolvency of a general insurance company.

In addition to protecting the public through the facilitation of an industry-financed compensation plan, these amendments to the Insurance Act have been developed with a view to reducing the possibility of insurance company failures through the implementation of new standards for insurance companies. These standards include increased capitalization levels and higher regulatory requirements.

We believe this compensation plan, when implemented, will enhance confidence in the general insurance industry and immeasurably benefit consumers. Ultimate implementation of the plan is dependent on federal government amendments to the Winding-up Act currently before Parliament.

I will be introducing motions to amend Bill 108 to reflect the consensus struck by the federal and provincial superintendents of insurance on certain regulatory issues and to be more consistent with recently introduced federal insurance legislation.

Mr. Runciman: I am not the critic in this area, and it has been some time since I have looked at this legislation, but drawing on memory, it seems to me there was some reference in the legislation to requiring that a certain percentage of reinsurance be obtained within Canada or within Ontario. Is that correct? Is that part of the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is correct; it must be retained by licensed insurers.

Mr. Runciman: Can the minister indicate which section of the bill that is?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): This is out of order. Are there other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Runciman: I wish to participate in the debate. I am afraid I am at a bit of a loss here. There are a couple of areas I want to explore.

It has been some months since I have looked at this legislation, but one of the areas of concern was the fact that there was a requirement to obtain a certain percentage of reinsurance within Canada. I have not spoken to members of the industry, but it seems to me that is a rather inappropriate approach in terms of compelling the industry to obtain reinsurance within the boundaries of this country. I can see that some of the motivation behind it is perhaps to ensure the success of the Canadian Insurance Exchange. I do not know whether that is part of the rationale. I would certainly like to hear the minister's comments on that section.

I am also somewhat concerned about increasing the paid-up capital and surplus of property and casualty insurers from $1 million to $3 million. That may or may not present some problems for individuals and companies trying to get into the business. That is a rather significant amount of money. I would like to hear the minister comment on the rationale for going from $1 million to $3 million, what the response has been within the industry and whether he and his staff see it creating some problems in terms of new firms being created.

Those are the only concerns we have at this stage.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: To address the honourable member's first question, the part dealing with the proportion that must be retained is found under clause 98(af) of the act, as set out in subsection 8(1) of the bill on page 6. It prescribes "a maximum proportion of risks that may be reinsured with insurers that are not licensed under this act and such proportion may vary for different classes of insurance." That will be covered under the regulations.

The regulation power is there if needed. It is to follow Quebec and federal regulations. However, no decision has been made yet as to what level of that has been required. The provision is there so we can make sure our regulations comply with other jurisdictions -- the Quebec and federal jurisdictions.

Mr. Runciman: The minister indicated this brings the legislation into compliance with federal and Quebec legislation. I am wondering about that. What happens in terms of the other provinces? He was talking about Quebec and federal legislation. He failed to respond to my inquiry with respect to the increase from $1 million to $3 million and the concerns I expressed.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There is a phase-in period for new capital levels and these new levels are necessary to ensure that companies can meet the cost of claims and awards and to protect the public. That was the reason for raising it from $1 million to $3 million.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 108, An Act to amend the Insurance Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I believe the minister would like to have some of his staff assist him at the table, if that is acceptable on all sides. Perhaps he can move down to a place where that can be done.

Mr. Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent to that?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The motions I am going to bring are to reflect provincial-federal consensus on a more appropriate framework for legislation that will enable a general --

Mr. Chairman: Excuse me; what are the numbers of the sections?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There are four motions: section 3, subsection 24a(3); section 5, section 39a; section 7, section 97a; and section 8, clause 98a(f).

Mr. Runciman: Can I have copies of those amendments? Is that a problem?

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

16:50

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Kwinter moves that subsection 24a(3) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (a) and by adding thereto the following clauses:

"(c) an insurer named in an agreement entered into under section 97a as an insurer to whom subsections 1 and 2 do not apply; or

"(d) a reciprocal or interinsurance exchange."

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The purpose of this motion is to exclude insurers by agreement with the compensation corporation. This provides flexibility and it also excludes reciprocals in the way their business is conducted and is appropriate for inclusion in the compensation plan.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Kwinter moves that section 39a of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"39a(1) Subject to subsection 2, every insurer licensed under this act:

"(a) shall submit with the annual statement required by subsection 81(1) an opinion by an actuary as to the adequacy of provisions made for unearned premiums, unpaid claims and claims adjustment expenses as of the end of the year covered by the annual statement; and

"(b) shall maintain assets exclusive of any investments of the insurer that are not authorized by this act or that were not authorized by law at the time of acquisition in an amount that bears not less than a reasonable relationship to the outstanding liabilities, premiums and loss experience of the insurer, all in accordance with such calculations as may be prescribed by the regulations.

"(2) This section does not apply to a mutual insurance corporation that is a member of the fire mutuals guarantee fund or to an insurer licensed to transact only,

"(a) the business of life insurance;

"(b) the business of accident and sickness insurance; or

"(c) the business of life insurance and the business of accident and sickness insurance.

"(3) Until the day five years after the day this section comes into force, the superintendent,

"(a) may accept an opinion under clause 1(a) from a person other than an actuary, if the person has comparable experience and training and is approved by the superintendent; and

"(b) may exempt any insurer from any requirement or requirements of subsection 1 or the regulations passed in relation thereto for a period not exceeding one year and such an exemption,

"(i) may be subject to such conditions as the superintendent may impose, and

"(ii) may be made retroactive to such date as the superintendent may specify."

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The purpose of these amendments is to provide the addition of premiums and loss experience in clause 39a(1)(b), which gives greater flexibility in regulation tests; the deletion of clauses in subsection 39a(1) makes the regulatory approach more consistent with federal regulatory tests for insurers, and subsection 39a(2) clarifies what life insurance is for the purpose of the exemption. Subsection 39a(3) is the old subsection 39a(4), and old subsection 39a(3) is deleted.

Mr. Runciman: What prompted this amendment? Was it input from the industry, or what occurred?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It was as a result of the passage of the federal Bill C-9. This is to make it conform to that bill.

Motion agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Kwinter moves that 97a of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by inserting after "policyholders" in the last line "and eligible claimants."

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The purpose of this motion is to clarify that the compensation corporation can pay claimants directly and not only through policyholders.

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Kwinter moves that clause 98(af) of the act, as set out in subsection 8(1) of the bill, be relettered as clause (ag) and that subsection 8(1) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following, as a clause of section 98 of the act:

"(af) exempting any insurer or class of insurer from any regulation made under clause (ae) subject to such terms and conditions as may be set out in the regulations."

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The purpose of this motion is to permit reasonable exemptions by regulation.

Mr. Runciman: Are we confined to discussing the amendment, or can we talk about the section?

Mr. Chairman: Both, because we are on the amendment, but the amendment may affect the section itself.

Mr. Runciman: It is (af) I wish to discuss, and I made the comments in my earlier remarks. I am still not quite clear in respect to prescribing a maximum proportion of risk that may be reinsured. Insurers are not licensed under this act. I would like to hear the minister explain the rationale behind this whole approach. I know he mentioned the federal and Quebec acts and coming into compliance, but aside from that, what is the theory behind having this kind of requirement in the legislation?

17:00

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The purpose of this motion is to make sure the policyholders and consumers in Ontario are protected. Sometimes a company doing business in the province may not have enough assets because it has most of its assets in some other jurisdiction. We had a perfect example of that with United Canada Insurance and the resultant problems that affected many of the people in the transportation and trucking industry. That company's parent was in the United States and got into trouble there, which had an effect on what happened here. We want to make sure we protect the policyholders in Ontario and control the proportion of risk that is in some other jurisdiction.

Mr. Runciman: What does the minister consider to be an appropriate proportion? He is talking about doing that through regulation, but he must have some idea of where he wants to go with this.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As is stated in the section, it will vary, depending on the different classes of insurance. We are still in consultation with the superintendents of insurance in other jurisdictions, as well as with the federal superintendent of insurance, to establish what those levels will be, depending on the type of insurance coverage with which we are dealing. The classes of insurance will affect what the proportion will be. That will be done in consultation with the other jurisdictions that will be affected, so we can have some harmonization across the country.

Motion agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 9 and 10 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.

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of resolution 9.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not have any particular opening statement other than what I said 20 minutes ago, that interim supply covers the period for the remainder of this fiscal year. Although interim supply covers a period of time rather than a number of dollars, it is estimated that the expenditure during that period will be about $7.9 billion. I welcome the questions and comments of the honourable members and also their ready acquiescence.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any comments or questions of the Treasurer?

Mrs. Marland: It is not a comment or a question.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any comments or questions of the Treasurer? There being none, debate.

Mrs. Marland: I am rising today, December 17, with great pleasure to support the payment of the salaries of the civil servants, having had the enjoyment at lunchtime today of attending the presentation by the Civil Service Choir in the St. Lawrence Lounge in the Macdonald Block. This was a first-time experience for me to hear this choir, which is made up of a broad section of employees of the province.

The Civil Service Choir is now in its 32nd year. It is conducted by John Cozens, who has been the conductor throughout all those 32 years. I feel all members of this House would want to recognize the commitment of the 100 or so members of this choir who, for the past two months, have donated their lunch periods twice a week to share with and for the benefit of all of us four very special performances this week.

Yesterday the choir was performing in the Legislative Building at Queen's Park. It performs three days in the Macdonald Block, with Thursday and Friday still left. Each day is a very extensive, complete program of beautiful musical works. Obviously, to present a program this comprehensive takes great dedication on the part of our civil servants. It also speaks to their individual talents and personal gift of music.

Along with Mr. Cozens as the conductor, they have Howard Baer at the organ and the brass quintet directed by Gordon Adnams. The solos have been presented by Mary-Lou Lonergan Dryden, soprano, and Norman F. Cuthbert, tenor.

It makes me as an individual member of this Legislature, and I am sure every other member, very proud of our civil servants. They are just as busy as the rest of us at this time of year; yet they choose to express their appreciation for the blessings of this season by sharing with us their gift of music.

In giving them good wishes this afternoon on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I was able to extend our very real appreciation for their commitment, for their service as employees of Ontario and for their joy and pleasure in this gift to all of us at Christmas. I know we will share in our expression of appreciation to them that the feeling of goodwill -- that being the message of Christmas, through peace and love -- will continue not only at Christmastime but throughout all the months ahead and throughout the year of 1987 as well.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to join with the honourable member in congratulating and thanking the Civil Service Choir. John Cozens was our director of protocol here for many years. When he was succeeded in that job, he continued to assist with the choir and has done a marvellous job.

Mary-Lou Lonergan Dryden is a good friend of mine. She is a Liberal by marriage. I am not sure whether that means anything, but she used to sing the national anthem at Conservative conventions; now she does it at Liberal conventions. She is a marvellous singer. I am looking forward to hearing the Toronto Mendelssohn Choir this week. She is one of its leading sopranos.

I want to join with the member in thanking the Civil Service Choir and Mr. Cozens for the work they are doing this year and have done in the past. We look forward to listening to their beautiful music for many years in the future.

17:10

Mr. Philip: On behalf of the New Democratic caucus, I would like to join with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in his melodious sentiments. This is a chamber that often lacks harmony and therefore it is a pleasure that we sing from the same hymnbook, at least at this time of the year, in thanking this excellent choir.

I know the pride I have felt in having certain award-winning choirs from my own riding sing in the Legislature, but the one consistent treat we have on a regular, yearly basis is to listen to this choir. A lot of work goes into it and a lot of practice time, and they are to be congratulated. It is something about which we can all join together at this time of year in some harmony and in a nonpartisan way and say, "Thank you very much and merry Christmas."

Mrs. Marland: I appreciate the support of the Treasurer and of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) in sharing my expression of appreciation to this choir. I have only one regret. I have named some of the main participants in the program that is printed. Unfortunately, it does not name the members of the choir, and I hope that perhaps next year the program will contain the names of the members of the choir so we can also personally recognize them by entering their names into Hansard. None the less, their contribution is very much appreciated and well received.

Mr. McCague: I am not sure what that exchange had to do with interim supply, but the discussion usually is freewheeling and I am glad it was accepted by the chair, because that allows me to talk about everything and anything, even though I agree with the comments made by the three members.

The Deputy Speaker: Within some reason.

Mr. McCague: Within some reason, then. Woodstock? Would that be appropriate?

The Treasurer has asked us for the funds to carry on until the end of the fiscal year. Again I have to remind the Treasurer of his remarks and of his own personal stubbornness over a number of years. When interim supply was asked for, he could find every reason it should not go as long as the end of the fiscal year if the House was going to be sitting during that interval.

I understand the House may be sitting in two different sessions between now and the end of the year, and while he may have agreement with all House leaders that he should have the funds to go until the end of the year, it may well be unnecessary. We could talk about this after Christmas. However, we will be supporting the motion.

Now that the nice things have been said, we probably should be talking about the opinion of the London Free Press, for instance, which talks about "Nixon's Spending Splurge." No doubt the Treasurer has seen this article. It is too bad we are being asked to endorse his spending splurge, which will give him the funds to go to the end of the year. The article makes such comments as the following:

"Regrettably, the opportunity to slash a big chunk out of the deficit was missed this week. Instead of using the $405-million windfall in revenues created by a buoyant economy to help bring the deficit under control, Treasurer Robert Nixon went on a spending binge."

I am sure the Treasurer does not agree with that sentiment, but there are a lot of his constituents who do. It points out a lot of other things. As I said, no doubt the Treasurer has seen it and probably disagrees with it, but I think it is a well-written article.

On the issue of the tax burden, the Treasurer will recall that he increased taxes considerably for 1985-86 and considerably again for 1986-87; at least he increased his tax take. He will know that a lot of people who pay income tax are not as familiar with the portion of their salary that goes in taxes, because it is deducted at source, as they are of sales tax, property tax and so on. Of these amounts, I guess income taxes are about half of all the taxes that are raised.

In the light of the buoyant economy, I would like to know why the Treasurer chose to raise taxes rather than let the taxpayers share in the good fortune he has this year in the form of revenues.

Yesterday, when considering a bill on assessments, we talked a little about some of the things the Treasurer said in years past. I apologize to the Treasurer for insinuating that every year he raised the issue of why we brought this bill in time and time again and of why we did not get our house in order. Of all the people in this House, it is the Treasurer to whom it is most interesting to read back his comments. They were always freewheeling and sometimes off the subject but were always nicely critical of the government of the day.

I raise the assessment question because the Treasurer has said the province will reassess every property in Metropolitan Toronto. I would like to know from the Treasurer what the cost of this reassessment is going to be and what he is going to do if Metro and he cannot agree. As I understand it, the motion that came from Metro asking for an impact study had about 10 conditions, some of which the Treasurer will have some difficulty accepting. I would like to know what he is going to do and what the reassessment will cost.

In years past, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has mentioned, as he did yesterday in answer to a question I raised, the high regard he has for Darcy McKeough, as we have on this side. He mentioned: "It was not working too badly before Darcy started fiddling with it." It is a classic example of the rule that "if there is nothing the matter with it, do not fix it."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Did I say that?

Mr. McCague: The minister said that. "I am quite concerned that the minister has shown none of his well-known ingenuity in moving towards the kind of solutions to the assessment problem the country is crying out for."

I acknowledge that yesterday the Treasurer did bring in a long-awaited amendment that will affect condominiums, a suggestion raised the year before by the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor), but now that the Treasurer has had two years to correct the problems he brought up back when the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) was the minister, I am surprised he has not been able in 18 months to correct what he mentioned.

The Treasurer also went on at some length about the farm tax rebate:

"As far as I am concerned, I do not mind receiving the cheques. I have been involved in a number of elections and I usually find these tax assistance cheques arrive a few days before the election. The time they are mailed out seems to be variable.

"I have a feeling the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory) was sort of prepared to speed them up in case there was an election on November 22, which is what we expected; that would be two days from now."

17:20

The Treasurer may or may not know the applications for the farm tax rebate cheques are very late this year. It may well be that a lot of the farmers will not have their cheques until after Christmas. He went on to say:

"Frankly, I am rather upset the cheques have not arrived in my post office yet. The minister has probably decided that instead of having the money arrive at our farm -- by the way, the address is RR 1, St. George, Ontario -- just before the election, he is undoubtedly going to have them arrive just before Christmas."

I would suggest the farmers would much prefer to have them before Christmas and not just before an election, which is what appears is going to happen.

In responding to various Treasury items over the past few months, I have raised with the Treasurer my hope that in the funds we are allocating to him, he will fund some of the projects needed in Dufferin-Simcoe. I have raised with him before the problems of the Dufferin Area Hospital in Orangeville and the problems of the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital, where 14 beds needed to be licensed.

I know the Treasurer to be an honourable man. I am glad he saw fit to fund 14 more beds in the Collingwood hospital. He also agreed to put up about $50,000 in capital for the building.

I am a little upset that even though I raised it with the Treasurer on several occasions and with the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) on many occasions, this government decided to send the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health to Collingwood to make the announcement. Instead of inviting the member for that area to the announcement, the governing party saw fit to invite the last Liberal candidate for that party to the announcement.

I know the Treasurer is a man of honour; I know he would not do that kind of trick. I know also he has enough clout in that party and hope this would not be the norm but just an oversight on the part of the minister or the Ministry of Health.

It may be that the questions we have in Orders and Notices are too expensive to answer, but I hope that because we will grant this money to the Treasurer until the end of the fiscal year, he will find enough money in his budget to be able to answer questions in less time than 12 months, for instance.

I am not sure which answers were tabled today by the Treasurer. We still have one question from December 9, 1985, which as of this morning was unanswered. We have one from October 27, 1986, when we requested a list of individuals employed in the office of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet as of October 24; that is still unanswered. On October 22, information was requested concerning the number of copies, the production and mailing costs and distribution lists of annual reports printed since June 26, 1985; that is still unanswered. I hope there is enough to do that.

On June 3, the member for Etobicoke asked a question regarding Management Board and Canada Consulting Group Inc., which was unanswered as of this morning. There are also various questions regarding the census of the Ontario public service. I believe I have the answer to those; the Chairman of Management Board responded by saying members requested a copy of the survey and asked why such action had not been carried out sooner.

All these things indicate the Treasurer does not have sufficient money to have the staff to answer these questions in a prompt way. I know what he is going to tell me. He is going to tell me we put too many questions in Orders and Notices. Unfortunately, that is the only way we can hope to get information, and in many cases we have not been able to get it even through that process.

It will be interesting to follow pension reform in the province. I hope there is sufficient money in there to fund all the requests that have been made by various groups, in particular the teachers, about whom I have spoken to the Treasurer before. We still have a rather wishy-washy answer from him in that regard.

The Provincial Auditor is asking for more money, because he wants to give more reports on government waste. I would like to know whether the Treasurer has agreed to fund the auditor to report to us two or three times per year.

I would also like to know the Treasurer's current opinion on the amalgamation of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the University of Toronto, or whatever he intends to do. I understand from the report from OISE that one of the problems both groups seem to have is funding.

I hope the Treasurer will have this matter settled by June 1987 at least, so it will be clear what his course of action will be and there will be ample opportunity for one or the other to have degree-granting powers. U of T has that power now, but the way it has been left at this point, the whole question is still up in the air and the Treasurer has not come to the position I think two of his colleagues have, and that is the continuance of OISE.

He found out to his chagrin that OISE was a lot more popular than he thought it was in the first place. As I have accused him before, the only reason he was tampering with OISE was that he had made so many negative comments about it over a long period of years that he felt it was only fair to live up to the commitment he had made and decided he was going to disrupt the whole system.

I will be happy to have the Treasurer's answers to the points raised. As I said, we will be supporting the motion.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to use my two minutes to respond and at the end there may be some more general responses.

The member was somewhat critical that we have not used more of our resources to decrease the deficit. I want to recall for him and the other honourable members that in the so-called windfall, largely attributed to extra revenues from personal income tax, which is projected by our own officials in Treasury but which is based on projections from the officials of the Department of National Revenue in Ottawa, most of our extra revenue came from that source, and $100 billion of that was used to reduce the expected cash requirement or deficit.

It is at the relatively low level of $1.4 billion. I wish it were a lot lower, but $1.4 billion still keeps us as the only province in Canada with a triple-A credit rating.

17:30

Miss Stephenson: By whom?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Moody's.

Miss Stephenson: But not Standard and Poor's.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Well, one out of two ain't bad. Actually, it is two out of three. We have been repositioned by the Canadian Bond Rating Service, which I know my immediate predecessor discounts rather readily, but I will be glad to read its views about Ontario's position in the Canadian economy to the honourable member if I have a chance later on.

The member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) also asked about the cost of the impact study for Metropolitan Toronto. As he will know, we are upgrading the impact values to 1984 values. It may well be that before the reassessment occurs, we will also be able to have an impact study of 1986 values, but that would have to be at least a year or perhaps 18 months from now. I will speak further on this later.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to rise and comment briefly on one aspect of the comments made by the member for Dufferin-Simcoe -- I had better get to it or I will run out of time -- particularly with a view to this horrendous $1.4-billion deficit that the Treasurer just referred to as wonderful. I understand the Treasurer. It is late in the day and it is the government's position to try to minimize the size of this deficit, but it is exactly that attitude that is the problem: people who intentionally try to slough off $1.4 billion as a small problem. It is a massive problem.

I would like to quote something that reinforces what the member for Dufferin-Simcoe said. For the life of me, it bothers me. I know no media people will ever see this or hear this; none is even present during this particular debate. This is a little article that appeared in the press, buried on some page beside a whole bunch of other things. It says:

"Borrowings by federal, provincial and local governments during the third quarter totalled $5.53 billion, a drop of 39 per cent from a year earlier, mostly because of the reduced federal deficit, Statistics Canada says. Borrowing by individuals, however, increased sharply to finance major purchases of consumer goods."

This reinforces my belief, and I believe that of the member for Dufferin-Simcoe when he calls it a horrendous deficit. In this case, it is the federal government that has reduced it. How times have changed in the past two years. Now the federal government is reducing it and the province is going the other way. I will comment on this further when I get an opportunity.

Mr. Philip: I will just pick up on one of the comments the member for Dufferin-Simcoe made, and that is with regard to the legislation the minister introduced yesterday or the day before on condominium taxation, which was passed. The member for Dufferin-Simcoe seems to think that somehow the member for Mississauga East, as minister, was gracious to condominium owners in bringing in legislation that would cause some equity in their taxation as compared to that of private home owners.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservative government and that particular former minister refused any action despite overwhelming evidence and research, which we tabled in the House, showing the inequities, and despite the fact that the minister himself had to admit at the time that the research was valid. It was only after a successful court case that the minister finally came dragging his feet and brought in any kind of legislation.

The same has been true of the present government. This time last year I pointed out to the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue that it made absolutely no sense in a hot market to have condominiums reassessed every year. He finally agreed to make that one small change, but the inequities between assessments on condominiums and ordinary homes still exist. The minister has not dealt with that problem. While the legislation that came in yesterday or the day before at least may have solved the problem of taxes going up very quickly in a hot market for condominium owners, it did not solve the overall problem. I am sure the member for Dufferin-Simcoe will agree with that.

Mr. McCague: I heard the honourable member bring up the condominium subject. All I said when I made my remarks was that it was an amendment suggested last year by the member for Oakville. He cannot refute that, but he can certainly add to it, as he has done.

The Treasurer cannot get away with his triple-A rating when the agency whose rating has always been taken in this province still has Ontario at double-A plus. He should not try to sell that to us or the electorate. I asked why the farm tax rebates were so late and he did not answer. I asked what the cost of the impact study was and we did not get a figure on it. I asked whether he was going to agree to fund the auditor's reporting to this Legislature two or three times a year and he did not answer that. There are many others, but I would like to have the answers to those ones.

Mr. Philip: I was not planning on speaking today --

Mr. McCague: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understand that a member can speak only once.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Have you spoken before? Have you debated?

Mr. Philip: I have not spoken before in this debate.

The Acting Speaker: He spoke on questions and comments as a result of your debate.

Mr. McCague: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is it not true that three members of this House spoke at the beginning, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: She spoke and we had comments. Then you spoke.

The Acting Speaker: And now it is the time for the member for Etobicoke to debate.

Mr. Philip: Once he has been around here for another few years, the member may learn the new House rules. If he had paid attention when the new rules came in, perhaps he would understand what the rules are. I have a perfect right to give a two-minute comment on his speech. If he listens very closely to what I am going to say --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have already given the explanation.

Mr. Philip: If the member listens very closely to what I have to say, he will have two minutes to speak again in response to my speech, and some time later in response to any other member's speech. Now that the member understands this, I am sure I can get on with the comments I want to make.

I was particularly concerned at the obvious waste and mismanagement by this government as shown in the Provincial Auditor's report. As our party's critic on government spending, I have been dealing with numerous incidents of government waste and mismanagement. I am pleased the Provincial Auditor's report, which was just tabled, deals with some of the very issues I raised earlier in the year and documents much of the waste and mismanagement I and other members of the committee have been concerned about.

Mr. Callahan: Does it deal with your trips? Does it cover your trips?

Mr. Philip: My trips are open to a lot better scrutiny that some of the trips on that side of the House. If the member wants us to look at some of them, I think he will find his House leader will be less than open to that kind of investigation.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. l remind the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) that we will have a period for questions and comments. He can do so at that time.

17:40

Mr. Philip: There were a number of items contained in the Provincial Auditor's report that no doubt were disturbing to the Treasurer. It showed there were inadequate inspection controls in the industrial health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour, that these result in high-risk employers escaping inspection, companies not being inspected within the regular cyclical term, and low-risk work places being inspected while high-risk sites go unsurveyed.

That is a matter we in the New Democratic Party have been documenting for years. More particularly, we have been bringing it to the attention of the minister responsible for the swamp, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), particularly during the past year, having held public hearings throughout the province on the matter of health and safety.

It was also apparent from the evidence heard by members of the standing committee on public accounts when we looked into the inadequate systems developed by the industrial health and safety organizations in this province. The Provincial Auditor, as a result of a motion I moved in the public accounts committee, did an investigation of the Industrial Accident Prevention Association. His condemnation of the management or mismanagement of the IAPA had to be accepted even by the Liberal members on that committee.

The result has been a 20-point motion, which will be debated in the House when that specific report of the public accounts committee is debated. It is a special report that had the support of at least the Conservative members and, for the most part, on most of its parts, even the Liberal members.

The auditor's report also showed inadequate inspection procedures within the Ministry of Community and Social Services for homes for the aged. As the report notes, the frequency and scope of the inspections were not specified. Actual inspections were infrequent, and the results were very poorly followed up and very poorly documented.

In particular, the auditor's report noted that many program supervisors stated they did not consider themselves inspectors, but rather liaison persons between the homes and the ministry. They were satisfied that, because of the good rapport that had been nourished between homes and themselves, all serious matters that occurred would be brought to the attention of the homes' administrators.

My colleague, our party's Health critic, has demonstrated over and over again in this House that this is not happening. The auditor has now shown without doubt in his independent inspection that we have been right on this issue. The report concludes that systematic and regular reviews by consultants in the homes for the aged are needed to ensure that appropriate standards of care are maintained. In spite of the overwhelming evidence presented by the Provincial Auditor, we have had disclaimers from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and apologetics from the government.

Another issue that should concern the Treasurer is the inadequate funding and monitoring of the public health programs by the Ministry of Health. Once again, these have been documented by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke). The auditor supports our contentions when he points out there is an uneven pattern of public health spending across the province and the current arrangements result in inadequate delivery of some mandatory health programs and continuing unevenness, particularly in northern Ontario. He points out that there is only minimal monitoring of the local activities that go on, and this combination of the lack of funding and the lack of monitoring results in shortchanging the public with regard to important health care concerns.

He goes on to say that there are poor administrative controls resulting in inadequate delivery of human services, and that has been a major concern of this party. The most striking example is the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which, on average, requires more than nine to 12 months to resolve a complaint.

To his credit, the Ombudsman of Ontario, when he first took over, noted that the same kind of problem existed in the Ombudsman's office. By bringing in a top administrator, Eleanor Meslin, and by developing an adequate computerized system to monitor constantly what was going on in a case, he showed there were ways of cutting down on the length of time in resolving a complaint. Mr. Acting Speaker, I know that you as a member of that committee are impressed by some of the progress that has been made over the last year and half in resolving complaints in the Ombudsman's office.

I say to the Treasurer that this same kind of strategy can be adopted in other services in this province. It is unreasonable that someone should have to wait for very long periods of time in order to get any kind of result.

A couple of examples of the kinds of complaints I have been bringing to the attention of various ministers is the length of time it takes to get any kind of result in the Workers' Compensation Board. Indeed, during the hearings of the standing committee on the Ombudsman, I was able to document excessive delays, and to his credit, Dr. Elgie, the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, did a full investigation. Things seem to be improving under his direction.

We also have just absolutely unreasonable delays in the processing of applications to Ontario Housing. For a person who applies for housing who is in desperate need, it is not uncommon to have wait six or eight weeks for a home visit. It is hard enough that there are more than 18,000 families on the waiting list and that these people know that after they have at least been seen, interviewed and rated according to the points system, they are going to have very long delays, but it is absolutely unconscionable that people in need of housing should have to wait eight weeks even to have an interview, a home visit, from someone who will at least tell them (1) whether they are eligible to apply; and (2) how long it is likely to take in the process on the basis of their financial needs and other circumstances that are being evaluated.

The most important thing in any of the human services is to ensure that there is a quick intake. People can sometimes accept a wait if they at least have been seen by someone and know their claim or their application, as the case may be, is being processed; but for someone who has applied for housing to wait eight or 10 weeks even to have a home visit is simply not acceptable.

The auditor's report also talks about the poor management practices resulting in the waste of public funds by the Ontario Development Corp. Since this government took power, in the year 1985-86 alone, ODC loan losses totalled $11.8 million. Considering the size of the portfolio, that is a very large loss. That is not counting, of course, the latest dramatic turn of events, in which Wyda has been taken into receivership and some of our worst fears seem to be materializing with the $3.7 million or $3.5 million that appears to have gone down the drain.

17:50

I find it absolutely inexcusable that, considering the circumstances around Wyda, considering the fact that the standing committee on public accounts has not been able to get the documents it requires, considering the fact that the matter is not only of a possible criminal nature but also of a political nature -- and the police cannot make political evaluations -- in the light of the circumstances, in the light of the allegations, in the light of the fact there are three possible problems at which the police are looking -- one of possible income tax and revenue evasion, one of fraud and one of violations to the Corporations Act -- and in the light of the fact there is a major political problem that should be investigated, the Premier will not say, "I am willing to be squeaky clean and have a judicial inquiry into this."

Surely it makes no sense, in the light of the experience of the public accounts committee in trying to deal with this matter, to have a committee that has politicians, including members on the government side, investigating a matter of this complexity and with these kinds of serious allegations going on. It makes more sense to take it out of the political realm and to appoint a judge, who will do an absolutely independent public inquiry. One has to ask, if there is no smoke, why is the Premier afraid to let a judge examine it?

We have had what I consider a most disturbing practice of some of the ministers -- not the Treasurer -- being fairly loose cannons when it comes to talking about certain economic and spending matters. I have no doubt that the Treasurer is embarrassed by some of the statements of some of his colleagues.

In particular, the most irresponsible statement I can think of was the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) that when this government went cap in hand and gave in to the excessive demands of Mr. Lewis it was because he would somehow be able to sue and get up to about $10 million. When we challenged the minister in the public accounts committee about the figure of $10 million, he said, "I never said it." Of course, on the radio the next morning, he was reminded by having the tape replayed of his exact statement; he had said it. Thank heavens for the CBC keeping its tapes of interviews with cabinet ministers.

It was fairly clear to us from the inquiry, which will now cease -- much to the relief, I am sure, of the Treasurer, because he was the next witness, as I recall --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was a witness.

Mr. Philip: He was being recalled as a witness.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was the last witness, not the next witness.

Mr. Philip: One can tell the Treasurer had a major impact on the committee since members of the committee could not remember that he appeared there. We remembered the Minister of Colleges and Universities but we did not remember the Treasurer.

It was fairly clear from the evidence we had that the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities was completely unsubstantiated. In fact, under examination, when we brought before us David Harris, a barrister and solicitor, who had tremendous experience --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I never heard of him.

Mr. Philip: Perhaps if the Treasurer had read Mr. Harris's books he would have heard of him. Perhaps if the Treasurer had consulted Mr. Harris before deciding to give away the shop to Mr. Lewis, the Treasurer would have got some good legal advice and not have settled for that exorbitant amount.

The fact is, as the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) stated, it was questionable whether a crown employee could sue for wrongful dismissal. He stated that had the government introduced a motion indicating that Mr. Lewis was being dismissed for just cause, such a motion would hardly be challenged by a court, nor would a court rule differently from the Legislature. Last, concerning the so-called lifelong contract, according to the Master and Servant Act, no contract is longer than nine and a half years. Thus Mr. Lewis, having started in 1954 and having continued right up until 1986, had served more than what would be considered a lifelong contract.

I hope the Treasurer will tell us why he made decisions such as that with such poor legal advice. Surely when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money in such large amounts he could at least have had decent legal opinion. What happened was that when under public pressure, under pressure from the standing committee on public accounts and under pressure from the overwhelming legal evidence that the justification did not stand up, the government went back, renegotiated and found out that it could reach a reasonable agreement. If the original agreement the Treasurer and the Minister of Colleges and Universities wanted to pass off on us had stood, we would have been giving Mr. Lewis more in one month than the average pensioner in Ontario receives in one year.

Those are a few of the comments I wanted to make to the Treasurer, and I look forward to his response. For once I will not bring up the Province of Ontario Savings Office; however, it did occur to me today that these wonderful offices were started by the Treasurer's father. A public servant mentioned to me today, "Boy, if we had a bank in the Legislative Building." We have barber shops and all other kinds of services. You can buy cigarettes if you smoke, you can buy candies, you can buy a number of things, but you cannot bank here.

It might well be worth while for the Treasurer to consider opening an Ontario savings office branch in the Legislative Building or in one of the nearby public service buildings so that public servants and members of this Legislature would be encouraged to use the services of the Ontario savings offices. It would be a fitting memory to the Treasurer's father; not as fitting a memory, of course, as expanding the jurisdiction of the offices the way his father had originally intended, but none the less, a fitting tribute to open up a branch here.

With those comments, I am sure the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) will want to ask me some questions, since he was interjecting all along. I will sit down and give him his two minutes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member, as usual, has referred to the Province of Ontario Savings Office. I welcome his references because I do not think enough members are sufficiently interested in the Province of Ontario Savings Office.

He will be glad to know that just a few years ago, when I first came into the Legislature, the Province of Ontario Savings Office branch at Queen's Park was located in this building on the first floor in the west end. I think it was the pressure from the New Democratic Party for larger and more extensive office space that drove it out of here. If those people would just pull in their horns a little bit and stop acquiring so many new computers and so much new staff, then we could bring the bank back and I would undertake to consider that seriously.

The honourable member referred to a number of matters in the auditor's report. We have referred to them previously in the debates, particularly the Industrial Accident Prevention Association management issue. The report the honourable member refers to from public accounts will be an interesting and useful one, and I hope that situation can be improved.

The length of time required to get a decision from the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a matter of concern, but the human rights commission gives very careful attention to all the matters that are brought before it. Now that Bill 7 has had third reading and will soon receive royal assent over several dead bodies, it will no doubt have even more to do.

I am not going to respond to his reference to Wyda. That issue is discussed in the Legislature every day. The comments about Mr. Lewis seem to me a sort of echoing roll of thunder from a person who has had a bad meal. That matter is straightened up and behind us, and some time we can argue how effectively it was dealt with. I think it was rather effectively dealt with.

Mr. Philip: In the Light of the time, I am sure I will have an opportunity to reply to the Treasurer at another time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member has a minute or two.

The Acting Speaker: Does the member want to finish?

Mr. Philip: The matters I have raised, particularly Wyda, have not been dealt with adequately. We have had no indication from the government that it is dealing seriously with the auditor's report. A number of those ministries will be called before the standing committee on public accounts, and we will be looking into it in more detail.

As for the Treasurer's comments on the Province of Ontario Savings Office, it is great rhetoric but we do not see any action. I am sure we will be pleased if the Treasurer, who has a slightly larger office than I have, might consider giving up some of the government space to an Ontario savings office. That might encourage cabinet ministers, who are better paid than we are, to deposit more money in the Ontario savings offices.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

17 décembre 1986