Journal des débats 1987-janv-27 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Eves: I would like to take a moment today to remind the Premier and Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) of a long-standing commitment to the people in the Parry Sound riding.

During the time of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) as Premier, a commitment was made to four-laning Highways 69 and 11 north to Sudbury and North Bay respectively. The current highway system simply cannot support the volume of traffic in our area, particularly during the summer months. The current state of these highways also gives rise to safety concerns, both during the summer and winter months. Four-laning these highways would provide the needed measure of safety, ease traffic congestion, increase tourism potential for the entire region and provide a valuable incentive for much-needed industrial development.

While it is true this commitment was made by a Conservative government, the ministers have had ample time to review the details of these projects and to appreciate their obvious necessity. I ask that the ministers set aside partisan politics on this issue and honour the commitments made to the people of Parry Sound riding, especially with the extra $400 million in the Treasury. Now is the time to spend some of that surplus revenue and proceed with the four-laning of Highways 69 and 11.

NORMAN MCLAREN

Mr. Foulds: Today I would like to pay tribute to one of Canada's rare creative geniuses, film maker Norman McLaren, who died yesterday of a heart attack. He has been called the Picasso of modern film and he was that, both in technique and in the profundity of his subject matter. If Norman McLaren were a resident of any other country, his name would have the familiarity of Walt Disney, Charlie Chaplin or Ingmar Bergrnan.

He could be a brooding genius commenting on the profound humanity of the human condition. His work could be abstract, brilliant, profound and often just plain fun. He won more than 200 awards, including the Palme d'Or from Cannes and an Oscar for Neighbours, a 1953 anti-war parable about two men who fight and die over a flower.

As a person who came to my maturity in the 1950s, I cannot help but express the sense of wonder and thanks I had, growing up in small-town Ontario, that this country had a genius of Norman McLaren's ability who actually touched our lives and enlarged our sensibilities.

One is told that he was a great teacher, that he founded the National Film Board's animation department and that he trained a number of NFB's animators; but it is always as a creator that I shall remember him. I miss him personally. It is with a profound sense of loss that we have lost one of our great creative geniuses.

WHITE CANE WEEK

Mr. Callahan: I rise on this occasion to remind the House that February 1 to 7 will be White Cane Week in Ontario. The slogan they have adopted this year is, "There is more than one way to see." The campaign will include special events and demonstrations designed to increase public awareness on blindness and how it affects someone's life.

The thing that triggered this statement was that I watched an excellent program on television last night or the night before about a couple in Chicago, both blind, who were raising a small child. Some of the innovations and some of the ways they dealt with that particular task, which is difficult enough for people who are sighted, were rather amazing. In my law-school career, I knew a gentleman who was blind and who was graduated from Osgoode Hall with higher marks than I had, and it always amazed me how he was able to carry out the functions and necessities of a legal program.

We should recognize that these are very special people who are capable of aspiring to very great heights as long as we recognize the fact that they do have those particular qualities.

ONTARIO TRADE REVIEW

Mr. McFadden: Concern about United States protectionism is not a partisan issue. All parties in the Legislature are committed to maintaining the auto pact and fighting the restricting and closing of markets in the United States to Canadian suppliers.

The final report of the select committee on economic affairs recommended the holding of regular meetings between Canadian and American legislators. If ever there was a need for such meetings, the time is now. In the next two months, the US Congress will begin consideration of highly protectionist trade legislation that could severely hurt Ontario's exports, cost thousands of jobs and damage world trade.

It is evident that the current trip to Washington by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is going nowhere and was, in effect, organized to try to score some public relations points back in Ontario. Therefore, to impress more effectively on American legislators the importance of the Canada-US trading relationship and the dangers that protectionism poses for both countries, I urge that an all-party team of MPPs be established to visit Washington as soon as possible to present strongly Ontario's case to American senators and congressmen.

It must be clear, and it must be made clear, that this concern about the trading relationship between Canada and the United States transcends party lines in this House and is a matter of urgent importance to all Ontarians.

STORM WATER

Mr. Allen: Today it gives me great pleasure to send across the floor to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) a proposal on which my office, the regional engineering department and the regional government generally have been working. It is a proposal that holds immense promise for the storage, control and management of storm-water runoffs in our sewage systems in our major cities.

This proposal, authorized by the regional council, reaches something in the order of $390,000, for which we are urging the Ministry of the Environment to fund the equivalent of $250,000. The proposal, in short, entails using computer-based information about the passage of storms over a region, matching that with the actual fall of rain in a given storm on a computerized basis, and opening and closing valves in such a way as to maximize the storage of the system and the storage capacity of holding facilities.

As a result, the pollution of nearby waterways will be grossly eliminated and it will be possible for us to get a handle on a major problem and to inaugurate an industry in Hamilton and in Ontario in the marketing of this technology around the world.

1340

SENIOR CITIZENS' NEWSPAPER

Mr. McGuigan: It is with great pride and pleasure that I received today the first issue of Ma inly for Seniors, a newspaper conceived by Leader Publications of Dresden. The emergence of this monthly publication, designed to serve the seniors of Kent county, should be commended.

It is with much satisfaction that I have witnessed many positive initiatives in recent months geared towards senior citizens and the issues that concern them. To this end, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne), who also pledged his support to Mainly for Seniors through a letter to the editor.

Our society is recognizing more and more the vital role seniors play in our lives and the many contributions they have made and are making to the community. To quote Seneca, "Let us cherish and love old age; for it is full of pleasures, if one knows how to use it."

The first edition of January 23 covers financial, health and social matters as well as stories devoted to residents. I am sure that not only the local citizens of Dresden but also those in the surrounding areas of Kent county will welcome such features.

I invite the members of the Legislature to join me in heralding the arrival of Mainly for Seniors and in congratulating the editors and publishers at Leader Publications on their first issue. May the newspaper contribute as much and for as long as the respected citizens it is intended to serve.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr. Harris: On February 10, 1986, I raised the issue of the reclassification of conservation officers here in the Legislature with a question to the minister. At that time, I pointed out that they earn $26,500, approximately $10,000 less than some of the environment officers after one day's experience. These are conservation officers who would have 20 years' experience. I also pointed out that they probably earn about half of what one of the executive assistants to the minister earns after one day's experience.

The minister replied that he was going to let it go to arbitration; he was not going to intercede on their behalf. That is what happened. On August 26, the arbitrator ruled the Ontario conservation officers were improperly classified and the minister was to create an appropriate classification.

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

Mr. Harris: He has done nothing in the five months since that ruling.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am rising on the same point the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), speaking on behalf of the government, rose on yesterday. I am rising to voice our objection to the fact that, without seeing affidavits from all parties in the matter involving the service of documents upon the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), the Treasurer and spokesman for the government would see fit to accept it as truth and would reiterate in the House his condemnation of the way in which the member for Brantford handled the matter.

It is incumbent upon the spokesman for the government at least to see all the affidavits and have all the information at his disposal before drawing conclusions.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully and I do not consider it a point of order; it is a point of view.

Statements by the ministry.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I would like to take this opportunity to bring my colleagues up to date with what my ministry is doing to help communities across the province in their efforts --

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I apologize for interrupting the minister and I apologize that I was not here yesterday, but I understood my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) rose on the same point of order that the government House leader rose on yesterday. Yesterday it appeared to be in order, but today it does not appear to be in order. I wonder why that is the case.

Mr. Speaker: I am not here to debate the matter with the honourable member. However, yesterday the matter was raised, and when a matter is first raised, the Speaker has to listen to the point that is made to find whether it is a point of order.

Following the agreement that representatives of all parties had the opportunity to speak, the House extended that courtesy to the member for Brantford when he came in on the same point. The member for Cochrane South got up, saying it was on the same point as yesterday. I tried to inform the member that it was a point of view, not a point of order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LITERACY PROGRAMS

Hon. Ms. Munro: I would like to take this opportunity to bring my colleagues up to date on what my ministry is doing to help communities across Ontario in their efforts to combat illiteracy.

Members will remember I announced the Ontario community literacy program in September 1986. Since that time, tremendous interest has been shown in every corner of the province. In order to ensure that both umbrella provincial groups and smaller local organizations enjoyed equal access to this funding, we extended the deadline for applications from October 15 to December 15.

We have received several messages of support from many Ontarians who are committed to promoting and providing literacy. Response to Ontario community literacy grants has been gratifying. The diversity of innovative programs, services and projects has been significant.

The Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Skills Development and my ministry have strongly encouraged local deliverers to co-operate in ensuring that learners find the program that best suits their needs. Target groups include organizations dealing with native people, sole-support mothers and persons with disabilities. Applications received represent innovative, imaginative and dedicated organizations whose programs will help raise levels of literacy throughout Ontario.

In the near future, I expect to approve approximately $2,748,000 in Ontario community literacy grants as well as $100,000 in community project grants. These grants will go to approximately 110 organizations providing community-based literacy programs and services with the help of thousands of volunteers.

These groups serve more than 60 towns and cities and their surrounding areas, stretching from Moosonee to Leamington and from Cornwall to Red Lake. Many of these projects are partnership ventures, cosponsored with local boards of education, businesses and service clubs.

The grant applications reflect the diverse nature of Ontario. For example, the Red Lake Adult Education Committee will offer the capacity to handle inquiries in English, French, Cree and Ojibway. Parkdale Project Read, East End Literacy, St. Christopher House and the Toronto Alfa Centre also operate programs that serve a multicultural community. La Magie des lettres is running a literacy learning centre which serves the francophone population in Ottawa-Carleton.

In Hamilton, the adult basic education hotline refers adult learners to literacy programs in the community. Other noteworthy deliverers include Frontier College, which operates programs for street kids and people with disabilities. The Thunder Bay Native Friendship Centre will provide a literacy program for native women with a preschool program for their children. As well, literacy councils in smaller communities across Ontario have expressed interest in the program.

Grants are only one component of the Ontario community literacy program. With the co-operation of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Skills Development, certain resource publications are approaching completion. A bilingual brochure, tentatively called Partners in Literacy, will outline government basic literacy programs for adults. A directory of local literacy programs, including those news services made possible by the Ontario community literacy grant, is expected to be completed in the spring. I look forward to sending copies of both publications to all members of the House.

Other plans we will launch include the development of resources and teacher training programs that will support deliverers. A long-term public awareness campaign will be instrumental in delivering information about literacy programs to those who need them most.

Our newly formed literacy unit is staffed with intelligent, competent, dedicated, caring individuals. I am confident their efforts will strengthen and complement my ministry's efforts to raise levels of literacy in Ontario.

An interministerial committee, which will co-ordinate provincial efforts, will also be an integral part of our literacy initiative. I am very happy to announce our first ministry literacy conference, Literacy Alert. The conference is being sponsored by the libraries and community information branch of my ministry and the North York Public Library. It will take place in Toronto on April 10.

We have as keynote speakers some of the world's foremost experts on literacy, for example, Jonathon Kozol and Carmen St. John Hunter. Library personnel and representatives from literacy groups across Ontario will attend the conference. Community college and school board representatives will also be invited to attend. Libraries have traditionally been leaders in the teaching and delivery of literacy. This conference will be of tremendous value in assisting libraries to continue their invaluable efforts for this cause.

1350

I have written to the Honourable David Crombie, Secretary of State, to request a meeting with him prior to his announcement of federal literacy initiatives. It is vital that all levels of government work together on this most important issue.

The scope of this situation must not be understated. In rural and urban settings alike, among the young, the elderly and the middle-aged, illiteracy is a very real problem. In Ontario alone, more than one million adults are function ally illiterate.

I appreciate the interest that members on all sides of the House have shown in this program, and I am very proud that this government can offer such concrete evidence of its commitment to addressing this long-standing concern.

EMPLOYMENT ENTRY REQUIREMENTS
VISIBLE MINORITIES

Hon. Mr. Scott: As chairman of the cabinet committee on race relations, I would like to report on some recent developments arising out of the committee's work.

First, in response to some concerns expressed by ethnic and minority communities over a number of years, I am pleased to announce the first phase of an intensive review of entry requirements to professions and trades. The purpose of this project is to determine to what extent existing certification requirements act as barriers to individuals whose qualifications were obtained abroad.

The first phase of the study will involve working closely with minority groups and the professions and trades to isolate appropriate targets for change among the myriad of profession and trade rules. The consulting firm of Abt Associates will conduct this phase of the review, which is to be completed by March 20, 1987.

After targets for change have been identified, we intend to undertake immediately, in consultation with affected professions and minority groups, the second part of the review process. The goal of part 2 is to change those certification requirements that cannot be justified as necessary to maintain appropriate professional standards.

The overall purpose of this exercise, for which minority groups have been waiting for some time, is to ensure that the rules of entry into professions and trades provide the public with well-qualified practitioners without presenting any unfair disadvantage to those who have received their training or qualifications outside Canada. The study is being funded by 12 ministries and by the Ontario women's directorate out of existing resources.

VISIBLE MINORITIES

Second, in keeping with the Ontario women's directorate's identification of visible minority women as a target group for government programs and services in May 1986, the directorate is planning a series of workshops throughout the province for visible minority women, local government people and groups providing services to visible minority women. The workshops will begin this spring and are intended to facilitate minority women's groups' access to government services and to ensure that these groups have a significant impact on government policies affecting them.

The cabinet committee on race relations is actively working on achieving the goals in the government's race relations policy statement. I and some of my fellow ministers look forward to announcing further developments in the very near future.

RESPONSES

LITERACY PROGRAMS

Mr. Shymko: I would like to respond to the statements by both the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

With regard to the statement on the literacy program, I congratulate the minister on continuing this program and on providing the necessary funding, which is far from adequate, in addressing an issue that not only affects native groups and segments of our francophone community but also addresses in a very important way the close to 40 per cent of the population of Ontario of ethnocultural background, the vast majority of them immigrants who have recently arrived in Canada, who not only have difficulty in literacy in their native languages but also have a major problem with English.

I am frankly surprised that, in the context of the various projects where the minister has invited boards of education, businesses and service clubs to participate in a cosponsorship program, no reference is made to the very important umbrella organizations, some of them dealing with socioeconomic problems of their respective communities. They have not been invited, all of them, to participate at the first conference; at least there is no indication in her statement on the first ministry literacy conference that they have been invited and there is absolutely no reference to the partnership venture.

EMPLOYMENT ENTRY REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Shymko: I am also concerned with the statement of the Attorney General about continued study in the area of race relations and in the area of accreditation. Why is it that the foreign doctors -- many of whom are well qualified, some of them with 25 years of experience, some of them specialists -- have problems getting accreditation to fill the need of medical services in northern Ontario? There have been very strong lobbying efforts in the past months to get the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) even to move in the direction of study, but it is study after study. There is nothing concrete in terms of a move or decision made by this government to allow these certified and experienced doctors to be given an opportunity to help raise the standard of health services in a part of Ontario, namely, northern Ontario. I am concerned that we are simply continuing to study in perpetuity and not addressing these needs in a practical way.

VISIBLE MINORITIES

Mr. Rae: I want to respond to the statement made by the Attorney General. While it is difficult not to welcome any even slight indication of progress, I am a little surprised that the Attorney General made a statement with respect to this issue and did not mention the fact -- since he and his seatmate were two of the key negotiators for the Liberal Party -- that the first item listed in Document Three of the accord, The Program for Action from Common Campaign Proposals, to be Implemented Within a Framework of Fiscal Responsibility, states, "Affirmative action and employment equity for women, minorities and the handicapped and expansion of the role and budget of Human Rights Commission to deal with work place and housing discrimination."

One of the key areas in which we have yet to hear anything specific from the government of Ontario is in this whole area of affirmative action and employment equity. The government has indicated there is going to be a program of identifying precisely the makeup of the public service, but we still do not have a stated policy and program with respect to employment equity in the public sector. As far as the private sector is concerned, we now have fewer laws and weaker policy than is the case with the Mulroney government in Ottawa. I thought this government, particularly given its public commitment in the accord, wanted to do better than the standard being set at the moment in Ottawa.

There is a problem here. The government is truly and genuinely going at a snail's pace when it comes to this question of affirmative action and employment equity as it affects the handicapped, minorities and women. I am surprised -- I put it that clearly; not astounded, but simply surprised -- that the Attorney General, since he was one of the authors of this document, and certainly one of the signatories in terms of moving it along, stated today's series of very minor initiatives with respect to his responsibilities for race relations but chose not to mention a public commitment on the part of the Liberal Party, which it has failed -- once again and for the record -- to live up to in terms of its commitments to the people of this province.

LITERACY PROGRAMS

Mr. Allen: I rise with a certain sense of dismay but not wanting to reject the proposals the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) has laid before us with respect to her activities in the field of literacy and literacy education. I say "dismay" because this party regrets the fact that her ministry is the lead ministry in this matter. Literacy education is properly a matter for the Ministry of Education. Unfortunately, the connotation of placing it in her ministry is that it ghettoizes the issue with respect to the immigrant community. The fact of the matter is that literacy in our province is an offshoot of the inadequacies of our education system. They are failures of our own and not ones that have been brought here by other people. To address the problem, that has to be made crystal clear.

1400

Second, the recent pamphlet from the minister's office spoke of a war on illiteracy. It is with some dismay that one hears that language because what we are seeing is little more than a skirmish. The Ministry of Education provides about $1.30 per functionally illiterate person in Ontario in this program. The minister's own program provides in the order of about $4 per functionally illiterate person in Ontario. The Ministry of Skills Development provides about $12 per functionally illiterate person in Ontario. That is not war, that is barely a skirmish and indicates we have barely started.

Problems across the north: there are no networks there to seize hold of. It is difficult to deploy the money the minister has put in the field. I am sure she is aware of this. It is necessary for us to mobilize a much more activist approach to the problem of functionally illiterate people in this province than either that ministry or the other two ministries has yet proposed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REVENUES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The minister will recall that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has admitted that for the first six months of this year alone he has $400 million extra. We have established that he is collecting $500,000 a day extra from the motorists of this province because of the gasoline tax changes. He has tried to rationalize all this by telling us of the great investments he has made in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in particular with all this money he is getting, the $500,000 a day from the motorists. Can the minister share with us how much the budget of his ministry increased from the interim 1985-86 budget to the allocation he got in 1986-87?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: As I announced in the House some time ago, our budget increased in the range of about 7.5 per cent this year. We are more than satisfied with the money we have available for the expenditures we are able to provide and proceed with. With a supplementary question, I will tell him a couple of examples of what we are doing.

Mr. Grossman: We would like to chat about the minister's mathematics before we get to that. I have the Treasurer's budget right here. It indicates that for interim 1985-86 the budget for this ministry was $620 million and that the budget plan for 1986-87 is $625 million, an increase of $5 million or I guess about two and a half days of the excess gasoline tax revenue. Can the minister explain how he might rationalize his comments with the comments of the Treasurer that he is spending his extra $400 million on MTC when the budget went up $5 million this year?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The Leader of the Opposition and former Treasurer is having a very difficult time with arithmetic and mathematics. The most recent budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications was in the range of $1.73 billion, not the $625 million to which he alludes.

Mr. Grossman: I have here in my hand Ontario Finances dated September 30, 1986. It is the second-quarter report issued by the Treasurer of Ontario. It sets out the financial statements and says right at the top that he has an extra $405 million he had not anticipated, yet here in "Expenditure," table 2, it says, "Transportation and Communications, $625 million" under the column headed "Budget Plan."

Out of the $400 million extra, the Treasurer gave the minister $3 million or, in other words, six big days of the excess gasoline tax revenue. Would the minister stand up and tell us whether the Treasurer was wrong in his quarterly statement to say that the minister got $3 million extra during this year and that his budget of $628 million has $3 million extra?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I pointed out what the annual budget of this ministry was last year. I can tell the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick that in the past couple of weeks alone, we have announced the ongoing work for Highway 403 that was previously promised by his government but never funded. Only last Wednesday, we announced the four-laning of Highway 115 into Peterborough. Surely the Treasurer is meeting the needs of the people of Ontario in this ministry.

Mr. Grossman: Abe Schwartz did six times better than the minister did. He also does not blush when we catch him not knowing his information. At least he stands up and admits it.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question of the same minister?

Mr. Grossman: No.

Mr. Speaker: Which minister?

STEEL EXPORTS

Mr. Grossman: I have a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I will not embarrass him by asking what the budget of his ministry is. Instead, I will raise this issue with him. He will recall that on October 21, 1986, we raised a very serious issue surrounding the Heinz bill in the United States. Given the fact that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) indicated he had no idea at the time what the Heinz bill was all about, could the minister tell us what action he has taken in that regard?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The Premier is at present in Washington, as the member knows, and he did have a meeting with Senator Heinz yesterday when those matters were discussed.

Mr. Grossman: That is precisely right. On softwood lumber, neither the minister nor the Premier went to Washington and had any discussions; nor were any civil servants sent to defend our interests on softwood lumber. We ended up having a tariff put on, a tariff to which the minister agreed.

On the issue of steel, the Heinz bill was raised in this House by our party on October 21, 1986. The Premier had no idea what it was all about, no idea that anything was happening on steel. Now, when he goes to Washington, he finally discovers Senator Heinz, who says to the Premier: "I do not care who you are or what you have to say. It is too far down the road. We are going to proceed with the steel bill."

Our party raised this issue in this House three months ago, and we want to know precisely what the minister has done to protect the 46,000 Ontario steelworkers from October until last week.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I mentioned, the Premier was discussing this matter with Senator Heinz yesterday. There have also been ongoing talks by our government, the federal government and the steel industry concerning this problem.

Mr. Grossman: I must accept at face value the minister's answer that he has done something about the steel industry and the Heinz legislation between October 21, 1986, and yesterday's once again unsuccessful visit by the Premier of this province to Senator Heinz, who told the Premier he was going to go ahead and do it to the 46,000 Ontario steelworkers.

Will the minister outline this afternoon, or send over communications to us later this week in detail, specifically what representations he and his staff have made to protect the steelworkers, where they were made, what the content of those submissions were and how they were received? Will the minister share that information with us?

1410

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The Leader of the Opposition is mistaken again. If he read the newspaper reports that came out of Washington, he would have seen that the Premier was very successful in changing some of the attitudes that Senator Heinz had.

Members will notice that when Senator Heinz came out of the meeting with the Premier, he said we were engaged in fair practices in the steel business, we were very competitive and we were not unfair traders. This was in opposition to the press release he had put out. After he met with the Premier, he changed his mind on some of the opinions he had beforehand.

Mr. Grossman: It is better than the Premier's last trip. At least they knew his name.

The point in that ad-and I am not trying to

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members who would like ask questions.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). I was told he would be here, but I will first ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, assuming the Minister of the Environment is going to be here.

The Business Practices Act, for which the minister is --

Mr. Andrewes: The Minister of the Environment is coming in now. He is always late.

Mr. Rowe: Is anything left in his office or is it all under his arm?

Mr. Rae: I will get to him later. I want to deal with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Business Practices Act, for which the minister is responsible, defines an unfair practice as follows: "A false, misleading or deceptive consumer representation, including," among other things, "a representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive." That is the definition in the act for which the minister is responsible.

The minister stood in his place yesterday and said that as far as he was concerned there was a completely free market in terms of representations to be made by anybody with respect to car insurance in this province and he did not intend to get involved. The minister is responsible for the act and for enforcing it.

Mr. Speaker: What is your question?

Mr. Rae: Does the minister think a representation that says, "We want you to know that the cost of your insurance is driven by what it costs to insure you and nothing more" is a fair representation, or does he think it is a false, misleading or deceptive consumer representation as defined in the Business Practices Act?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party has made a statement about an advertisement that appeared on behalf of the insurance industry. To expect and to try to imply that all the citizens of Ontario think the insurance industry is defend it -- is that the cost of insurance is driven by the cost of servicing the people who are insured. Anyone who thinks that is an outrageous statement or one that should be condemned under the Business Practices Act is not being realistic or fair.

Mr. Rae: The minister's relationship to the industry in terms of his spokesmanship and his advocacy in this House is well established. I am asking him to step back from that for a moment and think of his responsibility to consumers. I do not think the consumers of this province are under any illusions about the philanthropic nature of the insurance industry. The only people suffering from that problem are the members of the Liberal Party of Ontario and the government of Ontario with respect to car insurance today. Those are the people with the problem.

Since the minister has failed to answer with respect to one ad, I want to ask him about the other ad. This is an advertisement that sets out how much the insurance industry paid out in claims -- that is to say, $3 billion -- sets out that it spent more than $2 billion for car repairs alone and says that every year the costs keep going up, ending up in the premium.

Does he think it fair that the insurance companies would do that and not mention the amount of money they are taking in in premiums and fail to mention that the amount they are taking in in premiums and the amount they are making in investment income far exceeds the amount they are putting out in their payments to customers? Does he think it fair to omit that fact?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I reject the proposition that the leader of the third party has put forward. I should point out to him that in a market-driven economy, if someone thinks he can go out and provide a service at a cheaper price than someone else can, he will do it. The only time he cannot do that is when there is a monopoly, as there is in Manitoba. In a market economy, which we have here, anybody who wants to do so can go out and compete.

Yesterday we discussed the issue of premiums and claims costs. The leader of the third party has still not been able to justify or prove to me that in Ontario, when it comes to automobile insurance, the number of dollars that are paid in premiums is less than the number of dollars that are paid out in claims. That is not supposition; that is not my impression. Those are the facts. In 1985, for every dollar of premium, $1.31 was paid out. I do not have the exact figure for 1986, I think it is somewhere around $1.11 or $1.12, but there is still a negative cash flow.

We will be happy to look into it and do not have the exact figure for 1986. It is somewhat less than that; for every dollar, I think it is somewhere around $1.11 or $1.12, but there is still a negative cash flow.

I am not saying the insurance companies are not making money. They make money on their investment income, but they are entitled to make money. When the member is talking about profits, let him talk about return on investment.

Mr. Rae: I am delighted that we have television in the House, because these clips are going to be of great use to the people of Ontario when the time comes to make up their minds on this issue of car insurance.

With respect to all the information the minister is providing the House, I have provided Statscan figures. I have documented them. Since the minister does not like the figures I used yesterday, which come from Statistics Canada, perhaps he would care to deposit with the House and tell the House where he is getting his figures, which statements they are coming from, why we have not seen them on this side of the House and why nobody in this House has seen audited figures from later than 1983, because he has not filed reports for later than 1983 from the superintendent of insurance.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the question was asked.

Mr. Rae: By way of final supplementary, very briefly.

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister tell us why he will not direct the director who is named under the Business Practices Act to investigate the advertisements that are being paid for by the car drivers of this province and by car drivers in other provinces that do not have public plans? Why does he refuse to investigate what they are holding out, when it is so patently misrepresentational and, frankly, so patently misleading and when he has a responsibility to protect the consumers and drivers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Under the Business Practices Act, if a citizen lodges a complaint that, in his opinion, an advertisement misrepresents a material fact --

Mr. Wildman: Why do you not lodge a complaint?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Because it is not my role to lodge a complaint; it is the role of citizens. If the member feels this advertisement misrepresents the facts, then I invite him to lodge a formal complaint. We will be happy to look into it and respond to it.

Mr. Rae: I anticipated some of this exchange, and we are going to lodge that kind of complaint.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment is here; so you can direct your question to the minister.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. It follows from the questions I asked him yesterday with respect to the pollution by Occidental Chemical Corp. of the so-called Durez site in North Tonawanda, which is currently the most dioxin-contaminated sewer on the United States side and where his own ministry has documented the highest levels of dioxin in the water ever recorded. Can the minister tell us why he and his ministry have not intervened in the legal action between New York state and Occidental Chemical Corp. to make sure Occidental cleans up the sewers?

Before the minister gets up, he did it with respect to the S area dump site; the Tories did it, too late. He has not even done it with respect to this site. Why not?

1420

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The honourable member would be aware that on three different occasions I have publicly brought to the attention of the Americans and others the situation that exists at Occi-Durez. In my meetings with Henry Williams, the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, I have drawn that to his attention. We now have further information.

Mr. Stevenson: Why are you singing the same tune as Hank Williams?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) would know --

Mr. Grossman: Do not get nervous.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am not. It is nice to see the Leader of the Opposition in the House today. I was looking for him yesterday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The minister has failed to answer my question. The reason he has failed to answer it is that his representations on behalf of Ontario have been even more of a wet noodle than the representations that were made by the nine or 10 environmental ministers for the Tory party who were there. They were just as weak and ineffectual.

Can the minister point to one source of pollution in the Niagara River on the other side that is polluting any less today than it was on May 2, 1985?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There are a number of sources on the other side of the river that continue to be of concern to Ontario and to the people of this country. On every possible occasion -- despite the fact that the member gets up and yells and thinks if he yells loud enough that somehow he makes his point -- I have indicated very clearly to the Americans and to all concerned the position of the province.

The leader of the third party, the member for York South, knows that is why we have not had an accord signed over the Niagara River. It is because I have refused to sign an accord that would not contain in it a specific schedule and a specific percentage reduction of the contaminants going into the river as well as a meaningful reference to the excavation of those sites immediately adjacent to the river.

Where has the member been for the past two years when this government and I have been making known our position, not just in the comfort of the Canadian shores but also on the other side of the border, where we have been subject to criticism for the stand we have taken? I will continue to do that.

As to the member's reference to a potential legal option in this regard, we have that option available --

Mr. Rae: Too late.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No, it is not too late at all. We have that option available and we will intervene if we feel --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary. The member for Lakeshore.

Mrs. Grier: I would like to make it supplementary to the answer if it is possible. The minister has used the phrase yesterday and again today that any accord with the US must contain a "meaningful reference to the excavation of those sites." Last May, when this was raised with him, he said he would be unwilling to sign any agreement that did not contain a provision for excavation.

I want the minister to be very clear in this House. Is he still of the opinion and is he still unwilling to sign any agreement that does not contain specific excavation provisions for the Durez site, the S area site and the High Park site? Is that still his position?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will recall -- I believe it was in Buffalo when I was speaking to the Great Lakes group -- that I indicated in the presence of those who were officials of New York state at that time that it was the view of the province that the best option would be the excavation of those sites that are immediately adjacent to the river and that have been identified as being potentially dangerous to the river not only because of their geographic location but also because of the contaminants contained in them.

We have seen a perceptible change in attitude from a position by our American friends that started out that this should be rejected out of hand as one of the potential options. Instead, we have seen them change to a position where they are talking about excavation as being one of the viable options that should be explored for those sites.

There is a study partially funded by the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario and undertaken through the auspices of Pollution Probe. We provided $25,000 for it and results will be available soon that might well indicate clearly, even to those who have been doubtful --

Mrs. Grier: Are you going to sign?

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Lakeshore and the minister. That completes this question and answer.

STEEL EXPORTS

Mr. Grossman: I have another question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology about the Premier (Mr. Peterson) going to Washington to defend our interests. We know the Premier is not fond of freer trade and we know he was there, as the minister tells us, to do something about the Heinz bill, which the minister had not heard of. We see the Premier's great success. He finds that the United States is seeking the free trade deal he is opposed to and he finds out about steel import cuts.

The report in the Toronto Star says that "before the two men emerged" from the meeting a news release was issued by Senator Heinz saying he was "`disappointed and angry...that export of Canadian steel into the United States has increased substantially in the past few months.

"Heinz declared that he will reintroduce legislation in the Senate this week giving Canada 90 days to voluntarily reduce steel imports or be faced with `tough restrictions.'"

Boy, he sure cut them down on our behalf, did he not?

If the Premier and the minister have been doing such a fine job in defending the interests of steelworkers, how is it that the Premier said following the meeting, "Peterson said he didn't know how many jobs could be put at risk in Ontario if the restrictions are imposed." If the government has done anything in the last while, why did the Premier not know how many steel jobs were at risk?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The Leader of the Opposition should read all the press releases that were released. As I stated one minute ago, that was the press release put out by Senator Heinz before he came out of the meeting. When he came out of the meeting, he had to agree with the Premier that we were indeed fair traders, that we are not subsidizing the steel industry and that we are not dumping in the United States.

Mr. Grossman: After the meeting with Heinz, Heinz said "that he hopes the dispute is resolved" and that we will "voluntarily restrain" our exports, as with softwood. To quote the Premier, "We've still been getting it royally put to us." When the Premier goes to Washington, he sure is treated royally. He gets it put to him and does nothing.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. Grossman: Given the obvious evidence that the Premier did not even know how many jobs were at risk in the steel industry if protection is put on, will the minister undertake to table today specifically all the information with regard to the steps he has taken to protect Ontario steelworkers?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: During the past month or two, the Leader of Opposition has been a crier of doom and gloom in this province. Through the negotiations the Ontario government and the federal government are having with the industry, we hope all the jobs will be maintained.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa Centre would like to ask a question.

1430

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would like to go back to a subject I have raised a series of times in this House, namely, the minister's stubborn insistence that he is going to pursue a policy of giving public money to private day care centres. Yesterday, in response to a question from me about why he would give it to day care centres in the profit-making system, 25 per cent of which, according to the supervisory inspectors, are either poor or very poor in standards, he suggested the problem was they had fewer resources,

The minister knows that is not the case. The same resources are open to profit-making day care centres as to nonprofit day care centres. In fact, in terms of parent fees and government-subsidized spaces, private profit-making centres in 1986 had approximately $142 million in resources available to them; they were just not using that money for quality programs. Can he explain how he can justify giving them more money?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My recollection is that yesterday's question and the reference in today's question are with respect to the report that was released a week ago, wherein the 25 per cent figure was mentioned. My answer yesterday referred also to that report, and I will refer to it again.

Section 5 of the report clearly says: "In their judgement the reason they came to that conclusion was that the commercial centres were not getting the same resources as the nonprofit ones and that the proper response was not to abandon them, but to see to it that, in fact, they did get the equality of resources so that they could perform an equal job." That was the response.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister is answering yesterday's question again, and wrongly again. He knows perfectly well that the private centres in Ontario have exactly the same resources available to them in terms of parent fees and government subsidies for subsidized spaces as the nonprofit centres do, but the quality of program is different.

He has floated a proposal for a direct subsidy of $3 a day for each space. That would mean, in the next year, we would be looking at approximately $28 million going to the private-profit centres. How can he justify doing that in the light of the lack of quality among so many profit-oriented day care centres?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It has to be recognized that the report clearly referred to the Canadian experience, not the Ontario experience. I have read that report. Perhaps the member should read it again, if she has already had a chance to go over it.

In Ontario, our experience indicates that 4.3 per cent of our inspections of all day care centres, more than 2,000 of them, show a difficulty. The difficulties are not confined to the commercial ones. There is roughly an even split in the province. Therefore, if we want to maintain the quality, it does not make sense to us to give additional support to 50 per cent of the sector and not to the other half. If quality is the name of the game, if that is what the member is proposing, then we must provide equal resources to both sides of the system.

LEGAL AID

Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General has a response to a question previously asked by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

Hon. Mr. Scott: Yesterday, the member for Sarnia asked whether any representative of my ministry or of the Ontario legal aid plan had given a directive that the number of certificates issued annually be reduced or that the volume of work undertaken by the plan be otherwise artificially reduced.

I have made inquiries and no such directive was given by my ministry and no directive to that effect was given by any official of the plan. In fact, in the last nine months of 1986, which is the last comparable period, there was an increase of almost eight per cent in the volume of certificates issued.

The member no doubt asked the question because, in Sarnia for the same period, there was a marginal decrease of some five per cent. I am told that is not significant in statistical terms over nine months, even though it occurred in Sarnia.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Treasurer regarding the Exploracom mess of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). Now that the project has been closed down by decision of his government, the 42 employees who were not paid for some weeks prior to this have filed suit against the crown. Very much like the Rod Lewis affair, this is a situation in which the government made a decision on a matter, apparently in the absence of determining the government's liability.

Can the Treasurer inform the House what legal advice was sought by the crown before withdrawing its commitment to this project and to what extent the taxpayers of Ontario are going to be liable for the millions of dollars already expended by the principals of this project?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Presumably, the extent of the liability, if any, will be determined by the courts. I am not sure whether the suit has been entered. I believe it has. If that is the case, then naturally it is in the hands of the courts, and the government will be appropriately represented before the judge under those circumstances.

Mr. Gillies: The Treasurer informed the House last week that the decision by the cabinet to terminate the funding for this project was made on the basis of external reviews. The Premier, on behalf of the government, has refused to table these external reviews. Can the Treasurer not at least table with the House any and all reviews and legal opinions the government received concerning what the taxpayers' potential liability might be? We appreciate that the matter will be determined by the courts. Can the Treasurer not share with the House what advice he had prior to the decision?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will not be surprised that I intend to follow my leader's lead in this regard. I would also say that the nature of the information that was available to the government in this regard had to do with the reasonableness of the contention that once the original payment was made to Exploracom, it would then be self-sufficient. We are particularly sensitive to the government getting into a program whereby, unexpectedly, ever additional funds are required.

The member for Brantford was a part of the last government, and he may recall certain circumstances in which our predecessors got into that very mess and we had to take the decision to set that straight. The decision having to do with Exploracom was not an easy decision for the government to make, but we made it. We regret the fact that a suit has been entered into, but naturally the courts will have a decision to make in this regard.

DOMED STADIUM

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Treasurer and acting Chairman of Management Board. The minister will be aware that, in the next couple of months at the latest, the Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. will be making a decision about whether artificial turf or natural Ontario grass will be used in the stadium.

Is the minister aware that artificial turf has been the major cause of an escalation of accidents among the players in the National Football League? Would he agree that the artificial turf, if it is installed, will have the effect of increasing injuries and shortening the careers of both Blue Jays and Argo players? If so, would the minister inform the stadium corporation of the concern of this government for the health and safety of the players who might be injured should it choose the artificial turf?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member did not give me notice of this question, but before prayers he did indicate he had a zinger for me, and I guess this is it.

Like the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) before me as Treasurer, I am the shareholder for the Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. on behalf of the public interest. I am not sure whether my opinion in this regard would be considered expert in any way. I can tell the member that, having read the controversy in the Toronto Sun, I believe, more than anywhere else, with great respect, it is apparent that the natural turf that might be used is not Brant county turf, in which case I would have no difficulty in making my decision, but is some sort of Kentucky bluegrass or something like that. Whatever they use, I have a feeling it is going to cost us.

Mr. Philip: If the minister had really read the press clippings and the information, he would realize that there are actually five corporations that can produce natural Ontario grass. Is he aware that experience elsewhere shows that natural grass is safer, cheaper, drains better and requires less maintenance? As the principal shareholder in the Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. for the taxpayers of Ontario, will the minister tell the citizens of Ontario on which turf he stands? Does he stand on Canadian natural grass turf or does he stand on plastic, artificial American grass?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: When the honourable member was talking about high-quality Ontario grass, I thought he was talking about Etobicoke gold.

If the decision were mine, all things being equal, I would naturally opt for natural turf. What could be healthier than that?

1440

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr. Davis: I have a question of the Minister of Education. He has announced that his government will make the teaching of acquired immune deficiency syndrome compulsory in the public educational system from grades 7 to 13. Will the teaching of AIDS be compulsory in the Roman Catholic school system?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is not true to say, as the honourable member has stated, that we plan to make the teaching of AIDS compulsory anywhere. I want to make that very clear. What I have said in response to questions in this place and outside yesterday is that we are in the course of reviewing and revising our health and physical education guidelines, and that revision will take into account the requirement that AIDS be dealt with.

As Minister of Education, I feel very strongly that we must ensure that proper, careful and sensitive instruction is provided to the young people of this province so that they, with the assistance of local boards, parents and local communities, can deal with this very important part of contemporary Ontarian and Canadian life.

Mr. Davis: Perhaps the minister did not hear my question; I will ask him again. Will the teaching of AIDS be compulsory, mandated or part of the curriculum in the Roman Catholic school system?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is clear, and the member for Scarborough Centre knows better than most, that within the provisions of the regulations the program set out by the Ontario Ministry of Education must be followed by both the public and separate schools in the province. I will be happy to share with my colleague from the official opposition, who I know would want the government and the school boards to take a leadership role in this area, a media release I received late this morning from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, which is, by and large, quite sympathetic and supportive of the undertakings I have announced in recent days.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Foulds: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, who also happens to be the member for Scarborough East. Is he aware that during 1985, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 100 accidents, including two fatalities, on Highway 401 between Markham Road and Meadowvale Road, which I believe is in his own riding? Is the minister willing to look at improvements that his ministry could make to reduce those accidents and eliminate such fatalities on this stretch of highway?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am happy to tell the member for Port Arthur that some time last spring I announced that this spring in the coming budget we will be resurfacing that entire stretch of Highway 401.

Mr. Foulds: My friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) has referred to the stretch of highway from Lake Nipigon to Shabaqua Corners, which the local residents think should be renamed from the Terry Fox Courage Highway to Fulton's Folly. Why is the minister not willing to look at improvements to what is called the Thunder Bay Expressway, which is almost the same length as that stretch of Highway 401 and has caused as many accidents and more fatalities -- three? Why has his ministry refused to look at resurfacing and upgrading the highway, improving the lighting along the highway, improving the stop-light system and putting in a median? Can the minister justify that?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member is quite inaccurate. As recently as Friday of last week, the minister met with our officials and officials of the city of Thunder Bay to discuss all of those outstanding projects, including the lighting, the median, both the expressways and the grade separation, and we have given a commitment to have an answer early in April.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It has to do with his endorsement of the Building Industry Strategy Board report of December 16 that made some changes to protect new home buyers. Did the minister also endorse the addendum to the agreement of purchase and sale that was released at the same time?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member states that it is an endorsation. It was not quite that. It was a joint program that was worked out with the industry and the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. That was something that was worked out with the industry in consultation with the new home warranty program, but it was an industry-driven initiative and the industry's program.

Mr. Cousens: In the amendment, in section 4 it says, "The vendor may have the right to alter plans and specifications or substitute materials without notice." Would the minister support the builders' rights to alter plans without reviewing the changes with new home buyers? In other words, the home built may not be the same one that the person bought.

In the second part of that amendment, on the substitution of materials, when the term "equal or better" is omitted in the substitution of materials in a new home, one is giving the builder carte blanche to substitute lower-quality materials. Does the minister agree with that too?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not familiar with all the details of what the member has just read, but as a general statement I would like to see some flexibility on the part of the builder so that he is not strapped in such a way that if he says, "I am going to have one kind of fixture and I have put in another one of equal or better value." I do not see that as a problem, but I see a problem if they are substituting something of lesser value or if they are making a material change to a house that will be a negative impact on the house. I would agree with him on that one.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment about a new waste disposal site that Algoma Steel has just started to use for sludge from the company's terminal basin down on the city's waterfront. This site is not located at the company steel plant but rather is located right downtown, across the corner from the exit from the International Bridge for tourists from the United States and across the street from an elementary school. The site was considered by the province as a location for the new Ontario Lottery Corp. building going into the Sault.

Can the minister tell the concerned citizens of Sault Ste. Marie why his ministry is allowing Algoma Steel to use this new site for the disposal of this material, even on a temporary basis, without a certificate of approval and without public hearings on this important matter?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I saw a clipping, I guess from the Sault Star, on that, where some statements were made. I will be happy to look into that for the member. We want to ensure a site that is used even on a temporary basis is one that is acceptable to the citizens who are around and to the people of Sault Ste. Marie as a whole.

1450

Mr. Morin-Strom: I hope the minister will name the date for a public hearing if the site is to be approved or proposed by his ministry.

I want to express, though, some real concerns about the reaction of his own officials in Sault Ste. Marie to this matter. In terms of whether the material should be tested, his district officer for the ministry said, "I do not know why we would want to test it." Then, when asked about th e material in it, he indicated it contained cyanide, ammonia, oil, grease and iron. He said, "There is no problem as far as we can see."

Certainly, the people of Sault Ste. Marie are concerned about this site being right downtown, being prime development property. Will the minister see that action is taken on this issue as quickly as possible?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I had not directly received the report the member brings to my attention, but I suspected he might draw it to my attention in a supplementary question. I will certainly receive, with a good deal of sympathy, the request of the people in the area for that testing. I think what the member refers to is that while it is one thing to test the leachate of the runoff, it is another to test that which is in the pile itself. I want to look carefully at that statement.

I share the member's concern that the fears of the people be alleviated or confirmed, one of the two, and that appropriate action be taken. I will be happy to look into it. I thank the member for drawing it to my attention in the House this afternoon.

VICTORIA COLLEGE

Mr. Sheppard: I have a question for the acting Minister of Government Services, if he will take his seat. I was previously assured by the minister that plans to do something with Victoria College were under way. As the minister is aware, in August 1986, tenders were announced by the minister. I was informed later that the tenders received were rejected for various reasons. I would appreciate hearing from the minister whether he plans to retender the project and, if so, l would like to know exactly when the new tenders will be announced.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to thank my friend from Roseneath for his question and his interest in the ministry. His information is correct. The initial tender was not proceeded with simply because, as I recall -- and this is subject to my checking the dossier -- we did not find that the responses met the requirements we had set out for the project. We are planning to proceed very shortly with a new call. I will communicate the specifics of that to the member for Northumberland within the next day.

Mr. Sheppard: Last August the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) was willing to provide financial incentives through the convert-to-rent program, and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) was also willing to extend support through a forgivable grant for energy-saving measures. Since housing is one of the most urgent problems in Northumberland, can the minister assure me that the financial incentives for each residential unit created will still be available as promised last August, should Victoria College be converted and developed for residential use?

Will the minister consider moving one of his ministries to Cobourg, as he has done in the north, seeing that unemployment is so high in Northumberland?

Hon. Mr. Conway: We have had discussions with the Minister of Housing on this project. The point the member has made about the housing requirements of his area and the possibilities in so far as the project is concerned have been noted. I will get back to the member at an early opportunity.

LIABILITY INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I wonder whether he recalls that his colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) gave assurance many months ago to this House that he would assist groups such as hospitals and municipalities that wanted to set up their own reciprocal liability insurance scheme? He will know that subsequently Metro and the rural municipalities that decided to go this route were unfortunately blocked.

I quote from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of December 18, 1986: "A delay in provincial legislation has stopped the plan in its tracks, an organizer said Wednesday." Chris Sinardo, who is general manager of the group promoting it, is quoted as saying, "We were told before, `Don't worry about the legislation'...The province `really let us down!'"

Can the minister explain the contradiction in those two statements?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I assure the member for Welland-Thorold that the total examination of the "municipal liability insurance report" will be before my ministry in its final form by the end of February 1987.

I will not get involved with the statement because l am not aware of that statement, but I assure the member when I do receive the final report on municipal liability insurance, I will keep him informed. Possibly we can resolve liability insurance for hospitals at that time. At present, the ministry has not received that final report.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize that the Municipal Act has to be changed and that his ministry was asked at least six weeks ago to change that act? The minister must realize this move to reciprocal insurance by school boards, etc., has forced the insurance companies to recognize that their gouging is coming home to roost.

Is the minister, along with the Minister of Financial Institutions, playing the insurance companies' game of stalling the municipal reciprocal scheme, letting private insurance companies get another year, even lower rates and let the reciprocal die on the vine? If that is not true, will the minister give the assurance to this House that he will bring in the necessary change to the Municipal Act so we can pass it before the end of this session and get on with the municipal reciprocal insurance plan?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I just finished telling the member that the final report is not before me. I would be prejudging the final report if I were to tell him today, yes, I will bring in the proper legislation to amend the Municipal Act. I assure him I will act once the final report is before me.

HURON COUNTY COUNCIL

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture in reference to a problem that exists at the moment with the Huron county council. I refer to a letter from the minister to Brian McBurney, warden of Huron county council. That council has made new appointments to its existing library board and has discontinued the appointment of one member who had not fulfilled her full term.

What has the minister done to ensure that this member of the library board is reappointed, reinstated to complete her term of office, pertaining to the concern of the minister in her letter'?

Hon. Ms. Munro: As the member indicated, we have been in touch by letter with Mr. McBurney, and the decision rests with the Huron county council. I presume they are taking under advisement information we have passed on to them.

Mrs. Marland: It seems this whole situation at Huron county council has been somewhat politicized. If is probably not a mere coincidence that the person who was dropped from the library board, a Ms. Bisback, was one of the persons who did not want that library board to become a committee of council. According to the printed schedule of the Huron county council, a person by the name of Isabel Elston was appointed in her place.

Since the minister is taking my question under advisement, will she also confirm for us whether Mrs. Elston is just an addition to the library board or has replaced Ms. Bisback, who was dropped from that library board?

1500

Hon. Ms. Munro: It is my understanding that particular appointee is not currently on the library board. It is also my understanding that the council is taking into account its obligation and the advice of this ministry. However, I stand to be corrected.

HIGH WATER LEVELS

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister has reported to this House and his ministry has made it plain that next year the water levels in Lake Ontario will be higher than they have been for many years. What assurance can the minister give us that there will be preventive action before next summer, before the high water levels are there, to ensure that dump sites, sewage treatment systems and lagoons adjacent to the shores of Lake Ontario will not be affected by high water levels and will not pollute the lake?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The same type of question was asked some time ago by the leader of the third party, who of course took what I said out of context and tried to make an issue to suit his own purpose. I do not propose ever to let him do that, as far as I am concerned. I responded in that way, but I will be a little more careful in my choice of words so that they may not be taken out of context and the water levels built up as being much higher than they really are.

What I said, and I think it is still most appropriate today, was that the high water levels that exist in the Great Lakes system are of a magnitude that would he beyond the ability of any province to deal with the issue. The International Joint Commission has been charged with the responsibility. It is appropriate that it should be there, that the governments of Canada and the United States should deal with the problem and that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) and myself should convince the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that we should put more in money where it is appropriate, helping with loans where we can in the protection of the shorelines.

However, the member must be fair and take into account that the high water levels are a problem of major proportions and that we are going to need the help of the two federal governments. Having said that, we will continue to do what we can to address ourselves to the needs of the people on the shorelines. We are looking at flood-line planning and all those things to try to discourage people from building there so they will not come back later and ask for help.

I see that the clock has run out and that you are getting impatient, Mr. Speaker. I have so much to say that I wish the member would ask me a question next session and I would be happy to go into some detail on this question that is so important to the member and her leader.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I ask you to review the Hansard of what was just said by the Minister of Natural Resources to determine whether he was impugning the motives of my leader.

Mr. Speaker: I thought I had listened carefully.

PETITION

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Bossy: I wish to present this petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of the undersigned constituents of Scarborough North.

The petition reads in part; "We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practice their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I move resolution 11.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether that should be put on the record.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will be glad to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved resolution 11:

That the select committee on the environment established on July 10, 1985, be empowered to review and report its recommendations on bilateral environmental issues as they affect Ontario; that the committee have authority to sit during any adjournment of the House and any recess between sessions subject to approval of the House leaders, and have authority to adjourn from place to place, subject to budgetary approval by the Board of Internal Economy; that the committee have authority to release its reports during any adjournment or recess of the House by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the Assembly and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the chairman of the committee shall bring such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders; and that the committee have power to call for persons, papers and things and to examine witnesses under oath, and the assembly doth command and compel the attendance before the said committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations, for which the Honourable the Speaker may issue his warrant.

Mr. Harris: This matter of the striking of the committee has been discussed by the House leaders. I would like to express our concern with this resolution on a few fronts, not to the extent that we are not going to support it, but we are concerned about how long it has taken to get this resolution before the House. The select committee on the environment has been long promised; it was promised almost two years ago, and it is something we might very well have been at much sooner than today.

Our party has some concerns over what we feel is a fairly restrictive mandate for this select committee. The mandate indicates it is to deal with bilateral environmental issues only. I do not want to diminish the number of very important bilateral environmental issues, particularly the issue of airborne pollutants and acid rain, which I am sure is one of the major ones the government House leader may have in mind in setting the criteria. I presume another is water quality on those boundary waters. In particular, the Niagara River is of some concern.

It would have been better had a little more flexibility been given to the committee. It is a select committee. The indications are that it will be established for some time. What bothers me is that very rarely do we get back to changing the mandates of these select committees. Once they are struck, they appear to be struck. In limiting them, the government may very well limit a number of environmental issues that are important to the people of Ontario today.

A little more flexibility in this motion would still have allowed for a three-party or two-party agreement at the committee level, had the government given the committee a bit of flexibility in the items it has to deal with. Therefore, on behalf of our party, I express disappointment that the government seems to want to limit this. Any of the important environmental issues facing Ontario today or that may come up that are not classified according to the government House leader's interpretation of "bilateral" cannot be examined by the committee.

1510

Mr. Shymko: I join my House leader, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), in expressing the same serious concerns. I cannot imagine a select committee on education that would not take into consideration the scope of such areas as the private member's bill of the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), which deals with heritage languages, and in this particular area, some private bills such as Bill 133, for example, dealing with the environment and the pollution of food that we consume, namely, in the area of liquor where we have requested some changes in the labelling laws.

I am concerned about some aspects of pollution in the working environment. There are some serious problems that go beyond the very restrictive wording "bilateral environmental issues," or only acid rain. Surely if we are to be serious in addressing environmental issues as they affect the health and lives of our citizens, we will allow more flexibility and take a more universal approach in allowing for public input and debate than to restrict it in the fashion we have restricted it here. We will be restricting the concerns and telling witnesses, individuals and organizations that appear with serious concerns that they are out of order because the issue to be discussed is only acid rain or limited topics.

It is to the benefit of the citizens of Ontario, and to the governing party for that matter, to allow greater flexibility in discussing environmental issues that affect the lives and people of Ontario. I appeal to the government House leader to see whether there is any possibility of amending this motion at this stage or at some other stage so we can allow for a more universal approach of tackling this very serious problem.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the comments made by the two honourable members. The delay in establishing the terms of reference is regrettable. Most members of the House will realize that during the past 18 months, our committees have been jam-packed with important matters for their consideration and even some other matters.

The fact that both honourable members have brought forward is also worthy of discussion and consideration. They point out that although the motion itself is rather lengthy, the select committee is asked to deal only with matters of a bilateral nature affecting the environment. Our own view is that the restrictions might be even narrower than those put on it by the honourable members who spoke, dealing with acidulated precipitation and the fact that this effect is circulated by air currents that know no national boundaries. This is certainly something that we have felt should be reviewed by a select committee.

In order to contain the phrase that actually was very properly suggested by the House leader of the official opposition, such as "and any other environmental matters," it would have meant the committee would be out there to deal with the whole ambit. The government is particularly anxious to have a forum in which acid rain not only is discussed, but also where witnesses can be brought forward and the committee can go to other jurisdictions, if that is its decision and is approved by the Board of Internal Economy, to find out about the sources and so on.

The whole field of environmental policy and controversy is one of the largest we face at this time in the development of the province. We felt that to establish a committee dealing with the whole thing without limit is an unreasonable request at this time. We ask for the support of the members of the House with this restricted approach. We can assure members that in the long run, we are quite prepared to establish other committees to deal with other aspects of the environment. I see no reason that the members of the House should not be involved as much as possible.

I might as well be frank and say it is the view of the government that we want this select committee to deal particularly with acid rain. Even this wording can go into interboundary waters and may very well do so. It was mentioned in the House yesterday that the Niagara River was one of the most polluted rivers in North America, and that is something that may very well catch the attention and provide a vehicle for the recommendations of the honourable members.

We would like members to give serious consideration to supporting it as it is, because we think this will put forward a substantial body of important consideration leading to recommendations that we will await before taking any other action in this regard.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON RETAIL STORE HOURS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved resolution 12:

That a select committee on retail store hours be appointed to review and report its recommendations pertaining to Sunday shopping and retail store hours; that the committee have authority to sit during any adjournment of the House and any recess between sessions, subject to approval of the House leaders, and have authority to adjourn from place to place, subject to budgetary approval by the Board of Internal Economy; that the committee have authority to release its reports during any adjournment or recess of the House by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the chairman of the committee shall bring such reports before the House in accordance with standing orders; and that the committee have power to call for persons, papers and things and to examine witnesses under oath, and the assembly doth command and compel the attendance before the said committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations, for which the Honourable the Speaker may issue his warrant.

Mr. Harris: We are in favour of this resolution and we are supportive of the changes to the mandate of this select committee that were accepted by the government House leader. It is a good example of how the mandate for select committees should proceed. I do not know what the government is afraid of in the environment field, but when we get to this select committee, we are certainly in favour of how it is being struck and the mandate that is being given to it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved resolution 13:

That the membership of the select committee on retail store hours be as follows:

Mr. O'Connor, chairman, Messrs. Barlow, Bernier, Ferraro, Guindon, Knight, Philip, Reville, Sargent and Shymko and Ms. E. J. Smith.

Motion agreed to.

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 186, An Act to amend the Election Finances Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The members will know that the sections of this bill were recommended by the Commission on Election Finances, chaired by Donald C. MacDonald, well known as a former member of this House and highly respected. The various sections were established after close consultation among representatives of the three caucuses. I want to extend my thanks and appreciation for the work that resulted in the bill before us. This does not mean the bill is perfect as presented. There were certain inadequacies of the first section, even though the election expenses commission had vetted it These were brought to our attention after the bill had been introduced.

For that reason, assuming the bill will receive second reading, I ask that it be sent to committee of the whole House for amendment of section 1. There is no particular rush about the bill, but we in the government feel that it is quite important that the election finances legislation be brought up to date in case, some time in the future, it has a more immediate application.

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

Mr. McClellan: I did not think we were allowed that on introduction for second reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, this is second reading. Unless the rules have changed within the past 24 hours, I believe there are questions and comments. Does the member for Bellwoods wish questions or comments of the Treasurer?

Mr. McClellan: Debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Debate. Fine.

1520

Mr. McFadden: I rise to echo what the House leader said in terms of all party co-operation in developing the amendments to be made to the Election Finances Act, 1986. These amendments are essentially housekeeping matters raised by the Commission on Election Finances. However, I would like to make special mention of section 1 of Bill 186, which provides for "child care expenses of a candidate" not to be included as a campaign expense.

As the members will recall, the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) introduced a private member's bill last year that was approved by this House and called for an amendment to the election finances legislation to provide precisely for the provision now contained in section 1 of Bill 186. The provision that permits child care expenses not to be included as a campaign expense, in the opinion of our party and I think now in the opinion of the whole House, reflects the importance of child care expenses, particularly for women wanting to enter politics.

It was our strong view that this amendment was important to remove a significant impediment to the ability of women to participate more actively as candidates in the election process. We are very pleased that agreement has been reached on behalf of all parties to include in the legislation this amendment, which mirrors the bill introduced to this House by the member for St. George and approved unanimously some time last year.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I concur with the comment made by the member for Eglinton; I intended to refer to it in my opening remarks. The resolution or bill -- I forget which it was -- put before the House by the member for St. George, having to do with the exemption of day care costs for a candidate in an election campaign, was approved by all members of the House and is included in this legislation by three-party agreement and is certainly worth while.

Mr. McClellan: We are pleased to support the bill before us which is an amendment to the Election Finances Act passed in June or July 1986. I am compelled to remind the House that the idea for imposing campaign spending limits flows from the accord signed in May 1985. For those who are historically minded, it comes from Document 1 of the accord, "Legislative Reform," which calls for, "Election financing reform to cover spending limits and rebates, at both the central and local campaign level."

It came to the attention of members, I think through the vigilance of the election finances commission, that there was a major loophole in the bill passed earlier in 1986, to wit, that campaign expenses were apparently covered only for the period for which the writ was outstanding. Campaign expenses incurred prior to or after the issuance of a writ escaped from the spending ceiling provisions of the Election Finances Act.

Mr. Martel: The Tories would have liked that.

Mr. McClellan: I am not sure the Tories were the only ones who would have liked that. Be that as it may, this error was caught in the most timely fashion and we have before us legislation and amendments that will close that loophole and make sure that all campaign expenses are covered by the spending ceilings, including, for example, the situation in which a candidate leases an election headquarters office prior to the issuance of the writ. Those expenses will be included, as I understand it, within the campaign budget items that are now covered by the provisions of the Election Finances Reform Act.

Prior to this afternoon, a concern had been expressed that such expenses would not have been covered, so that it would have been possible for somebody such as a candidate in St. Andrew-St. Patrick to rent an office with broadloom on the walls as well as on the floor and a staff of 853 people, charge all those expenses in the interim period and run up once again a real campaign expenditure in excess of $100,000, thus escaping the intention of the legislation that was passed.

Alternatively, the member for St. David (Mr. Scott) would once again be able to run one of his lavish campaigns. I guess he has run only one lavish campaign, but he would be able to run another grotesquely expensive campaign by escaping the campaign spending ceilings that this Legislature had intended to bring in. I cannot remember how much the member for St. David actually spent. I think it was $115,000, if memory serves me correctly.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Two days' billing.

Mr. McClellan: Two days' billing. Some day I would like to ask some of my high-spending colleagues how you can spend that much money on an election campaign. Quite frankly, it is a mystery to me. After you exceed a generous election campaign of between $30,000 and $40,000 -- and that in itself is an awful lot of money -- I do not understand for the life of me how a candidate for this assembly can spend in excess of $100,000, yet there are many members who demonstrate that where there is a will, there is a way.

Mr. Callahan: They did it in Brampton.

Mr. McClellan: How much did the member spend?

Mr. Callahan: I spent $21,000, and it was the cheapest of any election; my competitor spent $93,000.

Mr. McClellan: Great. A model of restraint, which, thanks to this legislation, will be universally applied. These shocking overexpenditures really and seriously frustrate the democratic process. It is impossible for the average citizen to contemplate entering political life if the price tag is in excess of $100,000 for a campaign for election to this assembly. We have only to look at what has happened south of the border, where politics has become a rich person's game because of the cost of elections.

This legislation, which we passed earlier in the year and which we are amending here today, does serve to democratize the political process and to say to all of the people of this province that lack of wealth or lack of access to wealth is not a barrier to participation in political life in Ontario; it is something that all men and women, whatever their means, whatever their resources and whatever their access to financial support, can expect and aspire to achieve.

I also want to pay tribute to the member for St. George for her initiative in bringing forward --

Hon Mr. Nixon: I think "recognize" is enough; "tribute" is a bit much.

Mr. McClellan: I think I said "pay tribute." I want to pay tribute to the member for St. George who has brought forward an excellent proposal, that child care expenses be legitimate campaign expenses, to encourage women to come forward as political candidates in this province. I am pleased the government has adopted her very sensible suggestion and that it is incorporated in this amendment.

1530

In short, we were pleased with the bill earlier in the year, proud of that accomplishment, and are pleased to support the initiative the government has taken this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As usual, I find myself in substantial agreement with the comments made by the honourable gentleman, but I find his inconsistency breathtaking, when as a member of the New Democratic Party he pays homage to this idea of a nice, cheap campaign in which he said he spent only $21,000.

Mr. McClellan: No. I spent $36,000.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is more than double what any sensible campaign has to have as its base in any reasonable part of the province where democracy is understood and practiced.

He also is a principal spokesman for the party which even now has an unbelievably expensive television campaign, with all sorts of high-profile personalities -- working for nothing now, admittedly, but with expectations -- being bombarded into the houses of the province. It is this sort of expenditure between elections that in many respects can skew the appropriate understanding of valid politics.

How is the government going to put forward its proper program when, at the same time, the third party is spending uncounted thousands of dollars imposing its particular slant of the issues on the public? We can only have confidence in the good judgement of the public to reject most of that mishmash and keep its attention riveted on the accomplishments of the government of the day.

Mr. McFadden: I find myself standing in my place to defend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). The government House leader has suggested that $36,000 is too much to spend on an election campaign. He implied that an election campaign in a riding should probably cost $20,000 or less. The Nixon family has represented the riding of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, or its previous incarnation, for about 60 years, father and son. I am surprised that even $20,000 has to be spent in that riding.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was $14,000.

Mr. McFadden: It should probably be about $5,000 or $6,000. By now, that name should be a household name in every part of that riding, so I am surprised his spending is as high as $14,000.

One thing I would like to clarify is that the member for Bellwoods implied our party had not been fully supportive of the further amendment to be made to the bill to plug what appeared to be a loophole in the wording of the original act. We were supportive of that.

Mr. McClellan: No, I did not.

Mr. McFadden: Perhaps I misunderstood what was said.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He implied that you liked to spend a lot of money.

Mr. McFadden: No. We want to keep a very careful tiller on all the spending.

An hon. member: Ask Gordon Walker.

Mr. McFadden: That is right. Necessity is the mother of invention, as the government House leader knows.

Finally, I would like to thank the member for Bellwoods for his tribute to the member for St. George. That was very generous of him.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to join in the comments of the member for Bellwoods. They were pertinent and to the point and the tribute was in order. I want to respond briefly to the Treasurer's comments as well.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This is not in order. You do not respond to a response.

The Deputy Speaker: The purpose of the two minutes is to discuss the speech of the member for Bellwoods.

Mr. Breaugh: Right. That is what I would like to do. Since I wrote the rule, I think I understand it.

The Deputy Speaker: That was not according to your statement. You stated you were going to refer to the Treasurer's comments.

Mr. Breaugh: That is legal in case you do not know it.

I anticipate now that since we spent the grand total in 1986 of $90,000 in television advertising, that is the grand announcement of the government's total expenditure in television advertising for all ministries this year and in the foreseeable future. We welcome that kind of restraint.

Mr. McClellan: I say to the government House leader, who inherited his seat, that those of us who did not inherit our seats have to campaign. I know he sits on his front porch drinking buttermilk for 37 days and then comes back to the Legislature. I am amazed he spends any money at all.

The other point I make is that our party has to pay, unlike his party, which is the government of Ontario and uses taxpayers' money through government advertising to put forward its views. I can send him ads from the Ministry of Housing that repeat the nonsense that this recently passed rent control bill is in aid of building more housing. It is straightforward government propaganda paid for by the taxpayers' money.

Our party at least pays for its political advertising out of its own money. I see absolutely no difference in the behaviour of the Liberal Party compared with that of the Conservative Party when it was the government of Ontario. Both have used the people's money to put forward their own propaganda. I have nothing to apologize for on behalf of my party.

Finally, I point out that because of the campaign that has been initiated by the insurance lobby, we are compelled to put forward the real story about driver-owned auto insurance. We will continue to put forward the message that this government and the insurance industry are ripping off the people of this province. We will put that message on television and in newspapers right across this province until the people of this province understand that what they want more than anything else is a driver-owned insurance program.

Mr. Callahan: I will rise and briefly involve myself in this debate, because in the fine city of Brampton the Liberal candidate -- I hate to tout myself -- spent $21,000 and the Conservatives spent $93,000. The reason they spent $93,000 was that in that campaign -- I cannot attribute this to Conservatives all over the province -- we had volunteers, whereas they had paid advocates. They travelled around in a house trailer. I would walk along a street when suddenly in a Kennedyish-style approach a big house trailer would come along. It would be packed with 10 or 12 people eating and enjoying themselves and letting their candidate jump out of the wagon every now and then when they drummed up a crowd.

What the Liberal Party has always stood for is that our people are committed to campaigning for their candidates. For that reason, we have been able to spend many fewer dollars than the Conservatives. I have never had the pleasure of checking how the New Democratic Party does it, but I can say the Conservatives pay their workers and that is the reason the bill was $93,000. I recall talking to a member of the Conservative Party in Brampton riding. He told me there had been expenditures, which were called "unaccounted expenditures," of $30,000.

I herald and applaud the introduction of the election finances legislation for the same reasons, I suppose, that the parties opposite do. It will allow individuals of any means, but of quality, to run for the Legislature. We will get out of this aspect of bringing people on stream simply because they are going to be paid or reimbursed.

The Liberal Party does not need strengthening, because our people are committed and are volunteers. However, this will perhaps assist the opposition in garnering people who will not only get out and work for them during the election campaign because they are receiving compensation, but also will perhaps allow them to back up the policies of the Conservative Party. Perhaps the members will not be there for any longer than 42 years

Mr. McFadden: First, I would like to deal with a misconception that the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) obviously is trying to spread through Ontario. I assume it is because he is ill-informed or is not aware of the facts, but the fact is that in virtually every riding I am aware of no workers for our party were ever paid. In the typical situation, candidates might pay somebody to run the committee room.

1540

The member for Brampton implies that canvassers, poll chairmen and people putting up signs on a uniform basis are being paid. That is absolutely not correct. In many campaigns, it was the typical pattern within our party to pay somebody to run a committee room and perhaps somebody else to answer the telephone; but very few, if any, people were ever paid and where they were, it was often just an honorarium. While there are probably examples over the years that could be pointed to, it is unfair and inaccurate for the member to imply that the payment of workers was a uniform practice by our party across this province. It is simply not the truth.

I ask the member to tell the House how much the Liberal campaigns were in the ridings of London South, St. David and York North. He will find the Liberal campaign expenditures in each of those ridings were in excess of the campaign of the Progressive Conservative Party in Brampton. While I am not standing here to justify that particular spending level, I ask the member to tell me what the spending was in those three ridings.

Mr. Foulds: I very seldom find myself in agreement with the member for Brampton, with anything he says, his style or his contention. However, contrary to the sincere and well-meaning member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), I do know that the Progressive Conservative canvassers in a number of campaigns in Port Arthur riding, particularly in the 1981 election, were promised remuneration. I do not know whether they were actually paid at the end of the campaign, but I know they were told they were going to be paid. They canvassed vigorously on that basis.

I am in two minds about this. The practice of paying canvassers and people one assumes are volunteers is not particularly useful, productive or necessary. However, if the campaign had promised to pay these people, I hope the former president of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party would see fit to make sure that commitment of payment was made.

Mr. McCague: Not to add a whole lot to the debate, but to remind the member for Brampton, who likes to talk about nothing most of the time, while his Conservative opposition might have had a motorhome driving around, the Liberals had it my riding too. He might be interested in knowing that.

Mr. Gillies: I listened with rapt attention -- l do not know why -- to the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) as he made some of his remarks. I wonder whether he would care to comment on the phenomenon we have long observed in Brantford of paid organizers coming into the riding to act as campaign managers, their salaries rarely, if ever, showing on the election expenses.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Do they come from Windsor and Detroit?

Mr. Gillies: The Treasurer asks where they come from. In the past, the executive assistant to the Premier of Manitoba in a previous election, and various assistants to various senior New Democrats, always seemed to find a friendly place to be at election time in Brantford. I wonder what the member for Brampton thinks about that and whether he agrees with me that the salaries of such people should be reflected in the election expenses for that riding association.

Mr. McClellan: I say to my friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) that the nature of the bill we supported in June and are supporting again today is to require all such voluntary contributions to be recorded as campaign expenditures. If he does not understand that, which apparently he does not, he does not understand the nature of the exercise.

Not only will the assistant to the Premier of Manitoba or an official on loan from a trade union be assessed as a campaign expense, but so will the vice-president of the insurance company or the loan and trust company, who will be working in the campaign of my friend the member for Brantford. All the salaries of the corporate executives who are on loan to candidates for the Liberal Party will be included in the campaign, and they will be listed for everybody to see.

It is going to be wonderful to be able to see all the executives of all the vested, financial and corporate interests who are campaigning for the Conservative Party and, simultaneously, campaigning equally hard for the Liberal Party. It is going to be wonderful to see that, as we have been able to see their simultaneous financial contributions to the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, who are, after all, the Bobbsey twins of Bay Street.

Mr. Callahan: Quickly, by way of reply, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, because in the next election we will see whether the Tory candidates in Brampton and other ridings will be able to contain themselves and remain within the limits that are prescribed by this act. If they cannot, the proof will be there for my good friend the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) that this is what went on in the past. The workers were not garnered for their voluntary support of a political commitment, but were offered compensation. I do not necessarily say they were paid greatly, but there has to be some explanation for $93,000 being spent in an election that was lost in Brampton vis-à-vis $21,000 when we won.

Mr. Cousens: I realize we are bringing up a bill that has been debated before important amendments have been agreed upon and are generally accepted by many members of this House.

I would be very interested in having some changes to Bill 103 that could accommodate the needs of a community that does not average out to the size that has been approximated by the Commission on Election Finances.

When this act was designed, it was generally thought that the tidings would consist of about 70,000 people. If they had 70,000 people and 70 per cent of those were electors, there would be 49,000 electors. For the kind of money that would be paid for each elector, it meant there would be $2 for the first 15,000 electors and $1 for the next 10,000 electors, giving a base of $40,000. For each elector in excess of those 25,000, 25 cents would be available for the member to spend appropriately in his riding.

What happened was that when one takes the number that was worked out for the average riding in the province -- and we know there is no real average, because the north has its problems and there are city ridings that are different -- 70,000 was one of the magic numbers. That merely means the person who has 70,000 people and approximately 49,000 electors in his riding will get in addition to the $40,000 guaranteed, an extra $6,000 because of the extra 24,000 people.

1550

I have a problem in that the riding of York Centre, after it is changed and becomes the riding of Markham, assuming I am fortunate enough to become the elected member for that new riding, goes from being the second-largest riding in the province to being the largest. The town of Markham currently has about 120,000 people, which will be the number for the riding I will represent. I currently have close to 180,000 people.

This is a problem I would like to have resolved by an amendment that could be put forward. l am putting this forward in a way in which the government will be able to take credit for it at another time, so that I do not destroy something of the consensus that has developed among our three House leaders.

I plan to run and I hope I will be back here with some of the other members so we can continue to do battle with the opposite side of the House. I will have 84,000 electors. Under the present guidelines in the bill, I would have $40,000 as the base amount for the first 25,000 people plus, for the remaining 59,000 electors, a total of $14,750. That is a difference of $8,750 from a person who has a riding with 70,000 people.

What has happened is that in running an election in a riding with largely new residents who have come in, with new homes and new sections, you are not going to get away with spending less money in trying to present yourself. No party is going to be able to get away with 25 cents per person with those numbers. What does it cost to mail a letter today? You just will not be able to present your case adequately as a political party.

Under section 15 of the Charter of Rights, all people are "equal before and under the law." Why can we not modify one section of this bill to begin to give some fairness and equity to all the people in this province? In 39, campaign expenses would then have some equality. This is my suggestion, which I would like to see the House consider at another time, but this is my opportunity to present same. I realize the government House leader has other things that are more important but I assume he will have a chance to read Hansard. I know he has a lot of chance because he is most interested in this problem.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think your contribution is out of order, but who am I?

Mr. Cousens: I would like to see moved -- these are the words that would be part of that amendment - "That the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"5a. Subsection 39(2) of the said act is amended by striking out `$2 for each of the first 15,000 of the number of electors' in the sixth and seventh lines and inserting in lieu thereof `$35,000 as a base amount and $1 for each of the number of electors in excess of 35,000,' and by striking out `and $1 for each of the number of such electors in excess of 15,000 but not exceeding 25,000, and $0.25 for each of the number of such electors in excess of 25,000' in the ninth, 10th, 11th and 12th lines."

I beseech the government to review the amendment, consider it seriously and allow all members of this House to consider it at a future time. The amendment would enable there to be some equity across the province for ridings that continue to grow. We are dealing with a province where great change is going on. It is going on in the south York region. I am sure the member for York North (Mr. Sorbara), whose riding also will be growing a great deal, would benefit from a change in the formula of paying for an elector in the election campaign contributions act.

I therefore humbly beseech the House to consider the dilemma I have. l believe the people in the riding I now have and in the future riding of Markham and in other such ridings that are growing significantly are not being treated equally or fairly, as they should be. Even under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there are grounds that those people are being discriminated against by not having an equivalent amount of money spent on their behalf for their benefit in an election campaign in Ontario. The difference between 25 cents and $1 is significant and I can assure this House that it becomes an unfair disadvantage for ridings that have grown to such a size.

There is no way we should expect the province to go through redistribution every couple of years or after every election, but we are going to have ridings that grow and continue to expand. Why can there not be, at the same time, some flexibility within this act to allow them to receive a proportionate amount of reimbursement for those electors? I believe not to do so is to discriminate against them and to put them in an unfair disadvantage against those other ridings that are not growing. We are talking about equity and fairness.

I think the bill covers an important concept in our parliamentary democracy, and I support the intent of the bill. However, why can the bill not also take into consideration this very important distinction that is represented by the people whom I happen to represent right now?

Rather than taking it further and having a formal amendment moved when we go to committee, I have tabled this for the second time with a way in which the government could get around it even before a forthcoming election. If the parliament were to go the full term -- and that is something the government should be thinking of -- I do not think there should be a rush to get all kinds of changes through. When one is elected for a term of office, there is a job to be fulfilled. I hope the government will consider trying to make a few decisions on its own once the accord has expired and we will see how it goes. Maybe it would be good to see the government --

Mr. McClellan: It would be paralysed with indecision and confusion.

Mr. Cousens: Who knows what will happen?

Once the government reaches that point when the accord has expired, maybe it will expire at the same time. However, maybe it will not, and it can use that opportunity to come up with some of its own plans and its own future. Then at the return of the House, who knows what happens in a minority government. If it is defeated, it will be something that it will be honoured and pleased to go to the people about to receive their statement on whether they do or do not support it.

Let us not rush through it. Let this bill be developed as is being done today. Let the amendments that the government has brought forward be considered. But may it also consider in due course -- and I hope before this House goes into another general election -- the type of fair play I am asking for, for a riding such as the riding of Markham or the riding of York North, where there will be a considerable increase in the number of people. They too should be treated fairly and equally, and they are not under the present law. If the present section 33 is changed, then I know that under section 39, they will begin to have the kind of equality that is their right.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments of the member for York Centre?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure that if you had thought the honourable member's contribution to the debate was out of order, you would have called him to order, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to spend time arguing about that other than to say the matter the honourable member discusses -- that is, the size of the election expenses permitted under the law in a constituency -- was settled by the House in previous legislation. If I were in the honourable member's shoes, I would say it would be quite in order to bring an amendment forward to raise it, but it has been settled. It is not our intention on this side to go forward with an amendment or to support an amendment that will change that allocation.

I think the honourable member is correct when he says he represents one of the fastest-growing parts of Ontario, probably of North America The development there may have some difficulties for anyone representing a political party, but the member would be aware that the difficulties are the same for all candidates. I believe the limit in his riding or wherever he may run in that area, which is probably at the top end of the scale of size, would be something in excess of $50,000 an amount that probably would be an advantage to a candidate such as the member -- full of energy, high-profile, well known, probably able to get door-to-door faster than the rest of us who are rapidly losing that ability.

I think it will work out all right. Although I do not wish the member ill, I do not wish him well. We all take our chances in these things, but when we come to the term, we all respond to the exigencies of campaign requirements. Some reference has been made to the pocket borough I have the honour to represent. It is a very large area, and even then the population is fairly large. We all have these difficulties. I do not think fairness and equity are being interfered with by maintaining the bill as it is.

1600

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. In explanation, the chair allowed the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) to carry on because section 1 of this bill deals with the definition of "campaign expense" and his comments related to campaign expenses.

Mr. Cousens: I appreciate that the honourable House leader has deigned to give a response. The fact that he wishes me anything is a starting point, and I hope we can build on that. I know where I am going and I hope he makes it there too. He has to start with something. I want to make sure we have enough in the pot to meet the needs of our constituents and potential constituents.

I think the honourable House leader is wrong. There is a difference. There is a huge difference between a riding that is largely all new residents who do not have a sense of community and a sense of awareness of the history of that riding. It will take a considerable amount to get to them with signs, literature and advertising. All these are extra costs, and one certainly cannot do it for 25 cents for each of those people. That is why I would like to see this whole matter reconsidered, and there is a chance to do it. If it is not going to be today, I want to go on notice that I will continue to plug for those fast-growing ridings of our province.

Mr. McLean: I have a couple of questions to the Treasurer for definition and clarification. He is probably well aware there are many of us who have signs stored away. In my case, they are in the drive shed and at my son's farm. What I want to know is, if the minister wanted to rent them to me for $1 apiece, is that what he calls the definition of an election expense? Do the signs have to be valued at what it would cost to replace them? I want his interpretation of how these signs would be utilized and come in under the election expenses part of it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If I may respond under these particular rules, the commission will prepare guidelines on this matter. I too have "Re-elect Bob Nixon" signs, without a date on them, sitting in our drive shed. I have always done this, thinking, "Oh, this is going to be great," but when I dig them out at election time, they do not look very good. Has the member noticed? They are dirty, rather bent and the nails have come out of the stakes. It just does not work very well. I advise him to forget it and start fresh. That is just a little advice. If he wants to keep them, wash them off and use them again, that is good.

As far as the charges are concerned, it would not be out of pocket, but it would be a reportable expense. The guidelines to the amount of the expense will be made available in good time.

Mr. Sheppard: I have some signs in my own and other people's drive sheds and some smaller signs in my house. I am sorry to say they have no nail holes in them. I have never used them. Why could I not use those signs or rent them from my neighbour or whoever has them in storage? I have a few of them we have never used. There are no nail holes in them, and they look just as fresh as the day they were made. They say, "Re-elect Howard Sheppard," and I would like to use them again. I can only spend $44,470 in my riding.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How can you possibly spend that much in Northumberland?

Mr. Sheppa: I think that is what the Election Finances Act has said I am allowed to spend. I did not spend that much the last time, but according to the figures --

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: So what is your problem?

Mr. Sheppard: I do not want to spend any more than I have to. I want to be able to use those signs.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: You do not have to. Use them.

Mr. Sheppard: The Treasurer just said that I should not use them. He was telling the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) that I should not use them because they might be faded. I keep them in the dark where they do not fade. I see no reason I cannot use them. I would like to hear his comments.

Mr. McLean: I would like to have seen some definitions and guidelines that we could have used other than those to be set by the commission for which we will have no input.

My signs are only 1981s and 1985s. The Treasurer's are probably a lot older and should be done away with. Mine are very fresh and easy to clean up.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have been glad to comment on each speech. I have nothing further to say other than to ask the members for their support for this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 186, An Act to amend the Election Finances Act.

On section 1:

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I believe that your desk and the representatives of all three parties have been provided with an amendment that has been recommended by the Commission on Election Finances.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Nixon moves that section I of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"1. The definition of `campaign expense' in subsection 1(1) of the Election Finances Act, 1986, being chapter 33, is amended,

"(a) by inserting after `incurred' in the first line `for goods or services' and by inserting after `act' in the third line `for use in whole or in part';

"(b) by striking out `and' at the end of clause (i), by adding `and' at the end of clause (j) and by adding thereto the following clause:

"(k) child care expenses of a candidate and other expenses not of partisan value that are set out in guidelines provided by the commission under clause 4(1)(j); and

"(c) by striking out `but shall be deemed to include the value of any goods held in inventory for any candidate for use during a campaign period' in the 23rd, 24th and 25th lines and inserting in lieu thereof `but shall be deemed to include the value of any goods held in inventory or any fees or expenses for services for any candidate or political party, and any contribution of goods and services to the political party, constituency association or candidate registered under this act, for use in whole or in part during the period commencing with the issue of the writ for an election and terminating on polling day." 1610

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I bring to the attention of the House that the amendment was proposed by the Commission on Election Finances and discussed by representatives of all three parties. The election finances commission has representatives from all three parties and we believe this strengthens the amendments put forward considerably and is essential. I trust honourable members have reviewed the amendment and understand it even as well as I and that we can improve the bill with this substitution.

Mr. McFadden: With regard to clause (c) of the amendment, the intention of counsel and the members of the Commission on Election Finances was to plug what appeared to be a wide loophole that was not intended when Bill 103 was passed some months ago.

The concern I have -- it should be flagged, and I hope it does not become a problem -- is in the ambit of what will be defined as "for use in whole or in part during the period commencing with the issue of the writ." For example, if somebody were to donate a dozen red ties to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) today, which he uses during the sittings in this House and elsewhere and also uses during the campaign period, would they then have to be shown as a campaign expense?

As you read this, you can take a very broad interpretation and say yes, those ties are going to be used at least in part, if not in whole, during the campaign. You could apply that to all kinds of things, such as research that might be undertaken. You might have run copies of things that could have been used before the writ for the ordinary operation of the constituency association, perhaps relating to instructions for people, videotapes or whatever it might be or anything else you might think of. If they were then used during the campaign period, would they have to be added in in whole or in part?

I do not think there is an easy answer to that. We are trying to deal with broad abuse situations where people have donated things prior to the writ being issued. Then it all gets used during the writ period, and they say: "Too bad. The wording of the act is so broad as to allow that."

I point out to the House the potential problems and the need for the commission to be sensitive to that and to be reasonable. While I am not advocating that we go crazy with spending, at the same time we have to be very sensitive to the fact that campaigns for all parties are run by people who are amateurs. They are not paid for the job they do. They do it out of conviction and commitment to the candidate they work for. I do not want to see a bunch of innocent, well-meaning party workers finding themselves having to spend a lot of time after the campaign is over explaining to the commission what they were doing and possibly finding themselves dragged before the courts of the province.

I raise with the Treasurer the concern I have. It is not easily solvable, given the restraints of the English language and the restraints we have in legislation. I would like to point out to the commission through this debate a concern that must be there. When the commission is developing its guidelines, I hope it will be sensitive to this concern.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The intention of the amendment is that only the part of the service or good used during the writ period is reportable. It has been suggested, for example, that a campaign headquarters might even be owned by the candidate. That is unlikely, but it is possible. However, the proper rental value during the writ period would have to be reported. I do not think that is too difficult.

The honourable member's reference to red ties certainly gives me pause. In instances such as that and in maybe even more esoteric instances, I can rely only on the commission itself, which is made up of representatives of all parties. With remarkable goodwill for the public good and for the service of democracy in a fair and equitable way and based on the intent of the bill, the commission will have to make certain judgements in areas where there might be some lack of clarity in the definition.

We have done our best for clarity to be pursued and put in the bill. When it comes down to it, it is the Commission on Election Finances to which complaints can be directed. On its own behalf, the commission might also very well bring to the attention of members certain inadequacies in the commission's understanding of the intent of the legislation.

I hope and trust that there will be no serious difficulties in this regard and that no innocent person, particularly the kind of innocent person who would be taking part in a campaign, would find himself or herself dragged before the courts to use the honourable member's words -- particularly if his or her intent and motives were pure.

Mr. McClellan: Again, we are pleased to support the amendment. The most important part of the amendment the government House leader has moved has to do with an amendment of the definition of "campaign expense" in subsection 1(1). As the bill is written, and as it was passed in July, a campaign expense is defined as "any expense incurred...during the period commencing with the issue of a writ...and terminating on polling day."

That means campaign expenditures which took place before the issuance of the writ -- for example, if somebody were to open a committee room six months before the issuance of the writ or if the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) had wall-to-wall broadloom again in his committee room, as he apparently has a penchant for having -- none of those expenses would be captured by the spending ceilings of the Election Finances Act. We certainly would not want him or the member for St. David (Mr. Scott) running up once again these bills in excess of $100,000 for a simple little provincial general election.

We are pleased to see this amendment changes "during" to, in effect, "in respect of." In other words, all campaign expenditures before the writ and after polling day will be captured, as was the original intention of the assembly with Bill 103 by the expenditure ceilings. We are pleased that loophole has been closed and we are pleased to support these amendments.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. McFadden: Briefly, section 2 relates to an additional subsection to be added to section 4 of the act. It states, "(4) The commission shall publish in the Ontario Gazette all guidelines provided by the commission under clause 1(j). "

If we look back at clause 4(1)(j), we find it relates to the guidelines passed under the act which the commission deems "necessary for the guidance of auditors, political parties, constituency associations, candidates and leadership contestants and any of the officers thereof."

I have a general problem. I hoisted this once before in the House. It is the utility of the Ontario Gazette as a way to spread information on a matter of considerable public importance. The regulations and guidelines passed by the commission will have an effect on literally thousands of people participating in the political process across the province. Very few people ever look at the Ontario Gazette, let alone receive it. I think it is safe to say that almost no lawyers normally read the Ontario Gazette. I wonder how many members of this House, if any, ever look at the Ontario Gazette.

1620

I simply raise with the Treasurer and the Commission on Election Finances perhaps for future review -- l am not bringing it as an amendment now -- the requirement that guidelines be published in a newspaper of general circulation within Ontario. While there is obviously an obligation on the part of political parties to make sure their constituency associations and other people are aware of all these changes, that is often not always possible, perhaps not with any haste.

In particular, if guidelines were suddenly to be promulgated just before a writ came in, there might be some difficulties created in ridings throughout the province. They might not be aware of the changes and would not be reading the Ontario Gazette, which, as I say, probably no riding president of any party in Ontario reads.

I simply raise with the Treasurer the fact that obligations are created under this act, not only for the central parties but also for constituency associations. As a vehicle for promulgating publishing or making the guidelines known, the Ontario Gazette is of very little importance.

The commission relies on the mails and sends out all kinds of things, but I do not see the sense of making an amendment to an act requiring publishing, which is obviously intended to add something to what is now going on, if all we are adding is the Ontario Gazette. It is essentially a marginal, if not useless, form of communication for the general public.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The utility of using the Gazette is that it is the official way in which regulations are made public. I do not read it very often, although I provide a copy for the table near the stove at Earl's Shell service station. It is amazing how these regulations are perused by the gentlemen who are able to spend a few hours in there from time to time. Therefore, it is not right to say it is not read; it is perhaps not read by lawyers, but it is read by the real people.

In my view, the suggestion to publish these guidelines in a paper of local circulation is not practical in that the guidelines may be quite lengthy. It might be like publishing the manifesto of the Progressive Conservative Party, if it can ever get one. That might be a good thing to do. I find that even all that fine print, however compelling in meaning, still does not command the attention of the general newspaper readership. There is no doubt the information would be generally available and I expect it would be mailed to all candidates, presidents, official agents and so on by the Commission on Election Finances.

My own view is that ample funding will be provided. I believe there will be ample initiative in the staff and leadership of the commission so that no one who should know about these things will be ignorant of them. I am quite convinced the dissemination of these facts will be sufficient.

Mr. McFadden: I know the customers of Earl's Shell are people of great legal erudition and are very prone to reading the Ontario Gazette. They probably also read the police gazette and other gazettes that might be there.

The point I would make on what the Treasurer has raised this afternoon is that there are many matters that are made available to the public, redistribution materials and so on of a fairly complex type, that have been published in the newspaper. They are fairly technical, but publishing them informs the public of what is going on, at least those people who are concerned and have an immediate interest.

The province publishes all kinds of legal notices across the province -- government tenders, advertisements for job positions, notices of committee hearings and so on -- that are sent out to inform the public. I know some of the guidelines are involved, but I would still suggest that in the future some consideration should be given to the dissemination of these guidelines through newspapers of general circulation, perhaps by way of an insert in the Saturday edition, a full page or whatever.

I am not suggesting it be done monthly or anything, but surely, given the fact that this is going to have an impact throughout the province on a lot of people who are volunteers and who will find themselves under this act liable in the legal sense for their actions, and who could find themselves in a position where they might be prosecuted in a court of law -- it is not likely, but they might be prosecuted -- I think every effort should be made to inform people across the province in an easily readable and recognized way. While the mails are fine, I suggest it would be advisable for the government to consider using the general mass media as well.

In addition to that, while I focused my comments on the party people, the people who need to know in the course of carrying on their functions, I suggest to the government House leader that perhaps there is some benefit in the general public also having a chance to see what the regulations are that the parties are being forced to follow. They are certainly not going to get those mailings from the commission, and the general public, outside of Earl's Shell, will not likely be reading the Ontario Gazette. Therefore, there would be some benefit as well in terms of public education to publish these guidelines in the newspapers of general circulation.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. McClellan: Very briefly, since I assume the commission will be reading the debates of this particular afternoon, a couple of changes have been made, adding constituency association and political party to the list of references that have to be named on political advertising, handbills, placards, posters, broadcasting and advertisements. I hope the commission will exercise the kind of common sense that the chairman of the commission is famous for and not require, for example, for election signs that may say "Re-elect Robert Nixon, Liberal," his volunteers then to have to turn the signs over and stamp them individually by hand, "Authorized by the Brant-Oxford-Norfolk constituency association. "

One would expect that the printing of the party affiliation on the front of the sign would be sufficient identification to conform to subsection 23(5) of the act. Again, I red-flag this more for the benefit of the commission as it develops its regulations and guidelines than for any other reason, so that we not be encumbered with busy work, which can occupy thousands of hours of volunteer workers' time during an election campaign, as is felt to be required under the federal legislation, where people have to sit there stamping documents, pamphlets and posters by hand, indicating that they are personally authorized by the political party.

The only other point I would make is that, having been the beneficiary of unsigned hate literature -- I guess that is the only thing one could call it -- from the Campaign Life Toronto organization during recent election campaigns, I am pleased that there is a requirement that groups distributing literature during election campaigns be identified. I hope the kind of scurrilous hate literature that has come to characterize election campaigns in Metropolitan Toronto will be stopped by the necessity of identifying oneself if one wants to make accusations that particular candidates are murderers or whatever epithets people may feel appropriate to bring out during election campaigns when they are able to hide behind the cloak of anonymity. I expect this section of the act means that those days of cowardly anonymity will be put to an end.

1630

Mr. McFadden: I wanted to echo what the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has said. The federal regulations require -- at least they Seem to require -- on the bottom of everything, from pamphlets to signs to anything that comes out, to be authorized for publication by Joe Blow, the official agent of such-and-such a candidate. When one looks at it one wonders who is being promoted. They put the name of the official agent as well as the official agent's official position in the campaign organization. I do not think that adds an awful lot to the public's understanding of what is going on.

I assume -- and I am not sure; I would have to look at the federal guidelines -- that the federal guidelines at least require that the official agents' names appear on the pamphlets and so on to show what their position is in the campaign organization.

It struck me as a completely useless waste of time to have to add that in. The voter is left with some confusion. I have noticed in some material with all this added print that it confuses the message it is trying to get to the voter. I assume that is not our objective here.

I hope that whatever guideline is specifically developed here does not contain a requirement that the official agent's name and official title in the campaign has to be on everything. Provided the party's designation is on there, that should be adequate for the purposes of designating that it was authorized by the party. If there is some later problem, that could be dealt with by the party or by people making complaints. l do not think it adds a lot to have a lot of excess printing on promotional materials.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6 and 7, inclusive, 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 a certain amendment.

INFLATION RESTRAINT AND PUBLIC SECTOR PRICES AND COMPENSATION REVIEW REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 163, An Act to repeal the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982, and the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The repeal of these acts is proposed because the periods of wage and price control covered by the acts have expired. Changes in group compensation plans implemented without following the filing procedures required under the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act, 1983, are validated. The Inflation Restraint Board established under the Inflation Restraint Act, 1982, is, notwithstanding the repeal of the act, continued in existence for the limited purpose of implementing the decision or order of a court or a proceeding commenced before the day this repealing act comes into force.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to know the names of the members of the Inflation Restraint Board, whether they will continue to get a salary during this wind-down period and what that salary will be.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I should be able to give the member the names.

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Before that, do we have any other comments and questions? There being none, reply.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I should be able to name them. They are in fact officials of the Treasury who act on a pro forma basis only and receive no additional emolument.

Mr. Foulds: I rise with a certain amount of sense of irony and considerable satisfaction. It is a good day to see the repeal of these acts. As the parliament will know, if not the people of Ontario, it was the New Democratic Party and the New Democratic Party alone that opposed these acts back in 1981-82. We opposed them with vigour and I think with considerable justification.

The inflation restraint acts, as they were passed at both the federal and provincial levels, were nothing more than an attempt to restrain wages. They did very little to restrain undue price gouging, either in the area of insurance that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) is so well aware of or in other areas.

After the act was passed, when we brought to the attention of the various Conservative ministers these injustices and increases in the price of goods and services, we were told they had jurisdiction over only the public sector. It is true they brought this in only in terms of the public sector in Ontario, in those boards, agencies and commissions and the public sector employees they could affect by their transfer of payments. But I point out that those public sector employees still had to buy goods and services such as mortgages, homes, food and clothing in the market and that market often jumped far more than the restraint under which these employees were held.

The act, as it was officially passed and supported by both the Conservative and Liberal parties, was basically an unfair act; an unfair act against a group of employees and an act that retroactively ripped up contracts that had been agreed to. Therefore, it is with a good deal of satisfaction that I see this act finally and officially repeals the previous act. I hope, though, as I take some satisfaction in approving and supporting this act, this parliament passes legislation like the Inflation Restraint Act never again in the future. I know the sentence is convoluted, but I hope my meaning is clear.

I would hope that never again would this parliament pass a piece of discriminatory legislation against one group of employees. When we pass a piece of legislation, I hope we observe the principle that it be fair and that it be fair in terms of our total society. I do not know a time in provincial legislation when I have seen what was in fact a labour relations bill, passed under the aegis of the Treasury, that did so much to harm labour relations negotiations in the public sector and so much to develop a feeling of being victimized. That is another principle of law that we should pay attention to. An act must not only be fair; it must also be seen to be fair. On that basis, the original act fails altogether.

1640

It was a very sad day for this Legislature when the original act was passed. It was passed in a majority-government situation, but it did have the support of the official opposition. Until a government in this country has the guts actually to bring in legislation that talks about price controls -- goods and services controls -- it should not bring in a piece of legislation that overrides the Labour Relations Act and brings in wage controls.

I say very strongly to the Treasurer that it is a very grave disservice to the collective bargaining process and a very grave disservice to our society as it has developed in terms of fairness. I say to my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, who are now in the official opposition and not in government, that it was shameful for them to bring in the act in the first place, and I am very pleased and delighted to see it being repealed finally and officially today. Frankly, I wish the repeal of the act had happened about five years ago.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought it appropriate to say just a word. I unfortunately missed some of the body of the honourable member's speech, but I know its tenor.

I was a member of the official opposition when this legislation was brought forward and I well remember the debates, the votes and the action around here when the legislation was established. I am glad to have it repealed.

On the other hand, I have to tell members of the House that the buoyancy of the economy now makes it a little easier for us to pay our bills and to contemplate expanding programs. It also makes it easier for the official opposition to call for a reduction in taxes at the same time as they call for the four-laning of Highway 69, Highway 11 and Highway 17. Those are factual matters.

I am very thankful as Treasurer that I have the responsibility of this office at a time when there is a buoyancy to the revenues; there is no doubt about that. I am not taking credit and I am not assigning blame. I am just stating a fact. However, we all know, having lived through Ontario's economy now for many years, whether matters are cyclical. I know that the difficulties the province experienced in 1982 where serious ones indeed. I agree; I am glad the bill will now be repealed and I am glad the state of the economy permits that to occur as well.

Mr. Foulds: Does the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) wish to comment or question?

I want to respond to the Treasurer. I know that in the current international situation, and because we as a province do not have absolute control over our own economy, there will continue to be cycles in the Ontario economy. Frankly, I worry that the experience of northern Ontario in the past two years will be an experience that the province as a whole may very well find itself faced with, starting perhaps as early as next fall. I would therefore also very strongly suggest to the Treasurer in response at this time that it may be necessary for him to find additional sources of revenue.

However, I hope he will not bring in a piece of legislation such as was brought in by the previous administration. In fact, I urge him strongly never to bring in a piece of legislation that victimizes one sector of society in an effort by the government to try to meet its fiscal and financial obligations.

I could not agree with the Treasurer more: I think it is hypocritical for the official opposition to be talking about cutting back taxes, cutting back on provincial revenues and advocating an expansionary expenditure program. However, I hope he finds it possible in the future, if it is necessary to increase revenues, to have the courage to do that through a fairer system rather than artificially restraining the wages of one sector of our economy, namely, the employees in the public sector who have to buy on a market that is subject to inflationary pressures.

Mr. McCague: Nobody is surprised by the comments of the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). I remember them well when this bill was before the House. As the Treasurer has said, part of the good fortune he enjoys today as Treasurer is the buoyant economy. It is probably related to this type of a mood that was made at the proper time. The member for Port Arthur uses words like "victimized." I do not recall anybody being victimized by this act, unless it was the members of this House.

He will recall that we had to sing to the same tune as the public service at the time. The settlements awarded to the civil servants were appropriate and in line with what was going on in the private sector. It was a good signal that this government, along with this House, sent out. It was not with the support of the New Democratic Party, but it was with that of the other two parties. That was a good signal that went out to the public sector at that time, and I think it served us well. It would be nice to be the Chairman of Management Board or the Treasurer in such a buoyant economy.

The Treasurer was talking about roads, and I want to take a minute to get some information from him. There was a discussion today between our leader and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton). Our leader correctly pointed out that there were a certain number of dollars in the budget of the MTC. Where the argument broke down a little bit is that the Treasurer has chosen to put capital expenditures in a different grouping.

Referring to this document of November 1986, the Treasurer has capital expenditures of $2.4 billion. Could he provide us with a list of what is entailed in that $2.4 billion? He might agree to do that or he might not. I know why he did it this way; so we could not find out. However, with his open government, he might now agree to let us in on what the breakdown of that $2.4 billion is, so that my leader and his Minister of Transportation and Communications do not get into any further arguments.

I am happy to see the repeal of this bill, as is everybody else. No one likes these kinds of things, but there are occasions when governments have to take leadership. I believe that is what we did in this case, backed by the Liberals and opposed by the New Democratic Party. That should be no surprise to anybody. We know where they are coming from, they know where we are coming from and we should not fight about it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot provide the information wanted by the member, but I will see to it that an appropriate list of capital expenditures is provided. I do not have it here and it has nothing to do with this bill, although it follows from question period.

I want to comment for a minute on what the member has said about what has to be done in tough times. Just as surely as we are in buoyant times now, the other kind will return, in spite of the marvellous management the economy is going to receive in the province-perhaps in spite of that.

1650

Where new and innovative programs are brought forward by a farsighted government such as ours, we see they include year-by-year costs that naturally grow as the uptake of the program increases. The honourable members who have had these responsibilities will know how almost frightening it is when a small program is projected over four or five years, not just with inflation, but with general uptake. It is fine when one can see the buoyant revenues supporting that, but in the long run, the time will come when there is nothing to do but to borrow more money, raise taxes or cut programs. Cutting those programs has to be in an orderly, understood way which is presented to the Legislature and either approved or rejected by it.

We are completing an historic cycle. From my experience, as one cycle finishes, the next begins, with all that it holds and with everything that is unpredictable.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

FARM LOANS AND FARM LOANS ADJUSTMENT REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 164, An Act to repeal the Farm Loans Act and the Farm Loans Adjustment Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The repeal of these acts is proposed because the procedures contemplated by the acts are no longer used. Investigation does not disclose any existing farm loan associations. However, the bill provides a mechanism for dissolving any farm loan associations that may subsequently be found to exist. Although there are no outstanding loans under the Farm Loans Act, past experience indicates that some mortgages may not have been formally discharged when the loans were repaid. Therefore, the bill provides a mechanism to discharge such mortgages.

Mr. Stevenson: I would like to make a few comments on this bill. By the way, we will be supporting the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Moran): Order. Are you questioning or making a comment?

Mr. Stevenson: No.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any questions or comments for the minister? If not, debate.

Mr. Stevenson: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I got a bit ahead of the procedure there. We will be supporting the bill to repeal the Farm Loans Act and the Farms Loans Adjustment Act. As the Treasurer said, these are both acts that have been on the books for some time and that have not been in use for some 20 years.

It is symbolic of the lack of concern this government has shown far the very distressed position food producers in Ontario are in right now. It is somewhat of a symbolic slap in the face to the New Democratic Party. For some time that party has had in its platform some of the items that are in place in the Farm Loans Adjustment Act. I am very aware that the items in this act are of a much narrower scope than the NDP has had in its platform.

It is interesting to note that the Farm Loans Act, which I believe was passed in 1921, was set up to allow local associations -- one could almost call co-ops -- to go together, raise money by selling shares and then lend that money out to local farmers.

The Farm Loans Adjustment Act was passed some years later because the farmers ran into difficulty in paying back these loans, which is precisely the position that about one third of the farmers in Ontario find themselves in right now. They are in a relatively desperate financial condition and unable to repay the loans they have taken out in recent years.

The Farm Loans Adjustment Act, interestingly enough, allowed a person who was liable for payment of one of these loans under the old Farm Loans Act to go to the commissioner of loans and have the loan reviewed by a judge for the purpose of obtaining relief to meet the following requirements: a reduction in the amount of principal outstanding, a reduction in the arrears of interest and an extension of time for payment of the loan. Those concepts have been talked about for some time in more recent years. There is some view that those exact things are needed today to deal with some of the financial problems farmers are facing.

Again, it is somewhat symbolic of this government's approach, just when the corn producers announce in the paper that they are turning their guns on the Ontario government because the government clearly has not lived up to its duty to assist the farmers of this province relative to what other governments have done, specifically the federal government, Alberta and Saskatchewan and, in particular, the government of the United States.

With this government coming very short on its share of the funding and at a time when farmers are very much aware of this, here we are repealing an old act. It is strictly symbolic, but it is rather interesting that the government has chosen this particular time to bring forward the repeal of these old acts.

This very day, members of the Wheat Producers' Marketing Board were in to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) to ask for substantial additional funding for the farmers of Ontario. The basis of their request was to get the government of Ontario to match the federal government's share under the special Canadian grains program.

Some other situations are worthy of note because of the timing of this and the symbolism that is behind the withdrawal of this bill. The current minister has done a real song and dance on farm debt review boards over the past few years and has come down solidly on both sides of the issue. There are calls for putting more legislative teeth into farm debt review boards and that would do exactly what the Farm Loans Adjustment Act did and exactly what I read out just a few moments ago.

1700

Mr. McGulgan: Is the member in favour of that?

Mr. Stevenson: No. I am just commenting on what is going on. It is not a matter of what the view of this party is; we are talking about government actions here today and that is what I am going to speak to.

We now have a farm debt review board in place federally and the members of that board are extremely busy at the moment going around the province reviewing the desperate financial shape many of our producers find themselves in and, indeed, doing precisely what this Farm Loans Adjustment Act calls for, but not going quite as far because it does not have the mandate to write down debt or write down interest.

However, in the review of the individual farm situations, they are acting as an intermediary and at least in some cases are successful in getting agreement between the lender and the borrower to make some changes in that debt in the hope of saving the operation, putting the debt in somewhat different form so that the farmer or farm family can afford to carry on under some different terms and afford to pay off that debt over a period.

It is passing strange that this act comes forward just at a time when that board is getting under way.

I mentioned earlier the situation with the corn producers and the winter wheat marketing board. The call for more funding from the provincial government to help under the current situation will without a doubt become more active in the next few months.

It is interesting that at the farm meetings that are going on around the countryside right now, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is handing out a fairly extensive document, called An Aid for Crop Budgeting, which gives the approximate cost of production for most of our major grain crops in Ontario. If one gets that out, one can very easily see that for corn in particular and some other grains it is virtually, if not totally, impossible to sit down and pencil out a profit for any of those commodities.

At the same time, the corn growers just across our international border here are getting in excess of $4.28 a bushel for the same sort of corn and in some cases the same varieties as we grow right here in Ontario. It is clearly a very unfair situation and a situation that cannot possibly be addressed in the marketplace. The only way for it to be handled is for the governments in this country at least to keep our farmers approximately abreast of those of other nations, particularly the United States and Europe.

It is interesting, too, that in the US, where there has been a major change in philosophy since December 1985, a good chunk of the money goes to the farmers up front before the crop even goes in the ground, while here in Canada we wait for many months after the crop is harvested, in many cases after the stuff is sold and used, before the funding comes forward.

Clearly, the federal government has moved and in general the payments under the special Canadian grain program have been relatively favourably received. Now it is up to the province to come up with its share in helping producers in

Ontario attempt to compete in a marketplace that is being highly distorted by funding to producers in other nations and leaving us in a very unfair position in Ontario, not even in as good a position as many producers in other parts of Canada.

On another issue, we are trying to help farmers on the revenue side and get help out to them. We are dealing with these bills to cut out the old Farm Loans Act when we have something in place that will help them -- for example, the farm tax rebate, which is operative now. The money is usually out in September; this year the forms arrived to many farmers in December and January. Not only are we dealing with cancelling some old acts, but the government cannot seem to handle properly the ones that are on the books.

At a time when the pocketbook of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is growing in government revenues at an unprecedented rate, revenue to farmers is going up ever so slightly and, in many cases, decreasing. Farmers need every bit of help they can get to compete with those in other jurisdictions. It is ironic that we bring this legislation forward at a time when farmers really need the help.

Mr. McGuigan: I would like to comment on the Farm Loans Adjustment Act and the fact that it is being repealed. At the time of that act, and I do not know the exact date, but I assume it was some time after the crash in 1929 or maybe the early 1930s --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. This is the time for questions and comments on the comments made by the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson). You must not talk about the bill.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Rather than wait until the end of the debate, I would like to make a comment. I think the member for Durham-York is well aware that these two acts were not that successful and the associations envisaged under the Farm Loans Adjustment Act no longer exist.

It is interesting to note that while the idea was an interesting and innovative one for its time, it involved even the ability of the local municipality to buy shares in the loan association itself, so that the local municipal government could contribute money that would then be available to lend to farmers. No one can say it was not innovative. The only problem was that it did not seem to work as well or with as much acceptance of the innovation as the government of the day had probably hoped and expected. While we did a careful search, none of these associations exists, although the repeal bill has within it a structure that if there are some with undischarged responsibilities, they are still officially and legally looked after.

The second bill, which is the Farm Loans Adjustment Act, does not deal with farm loans on a broad basis that would normally be from the Farm Credit Corp. Canada, the Bank of Montreal or something like that, but only loans that were made under the Farm Loans Adjustment Act, which is itself largely functus. We are now administering the coup de grâce.

The whole concept in these two bills was an extremely imaginative one. One of the alternatives would have been to look at this and breathe life back into it. Instead of that, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has a spectrum of new programs. I agree with the critic for Agriculture and Food in the official opposition that they should be richer, and they have been substantially enriched both in numbers and in funding.

1710

Mr. Stevenson: I am aware, of course, of the nature of these two acts and I am aware that the Farm Loans Adjustment Act has a very narrow scope. I was speaking largely to the symbolism of what we are doing here today. I would also agree with the Treasurer about the last three budgets in Ontario. If my numbers are correct, the last budget by our leader had a 16 per cent increase for agriculture. I believe this Treasurer's first budget was 21 per cent, the last one was 13 per cent and there has been some topping up since then.

Under any normal situation, those three budgets, with that size of increase, would have adequately addressed the needs of the agriculture industry in this province. Since December 1985, unfortunately, we have found ourselves in a very different world of support for agriculture around the world really, particularly in the United States with its massive impact on all the other producing nations. Unfortunately, even though there have been substantial increases to agriculture, we now find ourselves in the position that we are losing the race at a very rapid rate and are falling further behind all the time.

We must renew our commitment to increase funding to agriculture. The fact that our producer groups are coming in even at a time when budgets have been going up clearly indicates we are not meeting their needs and that farmers in other jurisdictions are doing substantially better than our people as far as government support is concerned.

Mr. Swart: I rise to speak on this quite briefly. I do so with some enthusiasm, partly because I have not had the opportunity to take part in any agriculture debates or to ask questions, as I had when I was the Agriculture and Food critic. Therefore, I am glad today to be able to take the place of the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes), who is not feeling very well and is not able to be with us.

The first thing I would like to say on this, and it is not really very important, is that I am a little puzzled about why the bill was brought in by the Treasurer, although I realize it deals with financial matters. However, it really is a matter of concern to agriculture, and I would have thought perhaps it would have been brought in by the Minister of Agriculture and Food and he would have been here today to hear the debate. As I say, that is probably not terribly important.

In fact, I have to admit in rising to speak on this bill that I did not know this legislation existed before the bill was brought in to repeal it. I guess that is because, certainly since I have been in this House and a long time before that, it has not been in use. Even while I was involved in municipal government in a rural community, I did not know it existed either; it was never brought to our attention there and it was never used.

I suspect, because I heard nothing about it, that it was not used in the Niagara Peninsula at all. Perhaps one reason it was not used is that it did put some moral obligation, at least, on the municipality to provide some assistance in these loans, actually to buy shares in these companies, and too many municipalities were not anxious to do that, especially after the second bill was passed in 1947, which provided for payments on loans to be written off or postponed.

What this bill shows me is the existence of these two acts and that there certainly is legislative power in Ontario to provide for legislation which will postpone or write off payments of farm loans. I realize that these farm loans may come under federal jurisdiction. That may in fact not be the case. However, the legislation which was passed in 1921 was, at least to some extent, the basis for legislation which was passed in 1933 or 1934 in the depth of the Depression when the province took responsibility for postponing or writing down the payment on loans and the amount of the capital. This demonstrates, as that bill did, that this Legislature does have such power.

I recall raising this a number of times with the previous government on that side when I was agricultural critic. The answer always was, "We do not have the power to do it." They may not have had the power in several applications, but they did have it with regard to provincial applications, and that was just an excuse.

The thing that bothers me a bit about repealing these acts is that nothing is being put in their place. Admittedly, the government does have other farm loan programs at present, but as the member for Durham-York pointed out, they are not adequate to deal with the situation we have in Ontario. They do not compare to the adequacy of the systems that we have in many other agricultural provinces in this nation or to the policies in the United States, with regard both to loans and to other forms of assistance to the farmers.

Maybe, as the member for Durham-York said there is a symbolism that at this point we are withdrawing an act that provides loans to farmers that could have been adapted -- extensively, agreed, but it could have been adapted -- to be used at present. I am not sure we could not have worked out something whereby there could have been funds made available to municipalities that could have been used for the farmers in those municipalities in the case of real need. It might have been a way to localize the decision-making process back to the local municipalities. They might have been able to adapt this to have something that was useful and workable.

Instead of that, it is being abolished and in no other place on the books of Ontario will there be to the best of my knowledge and I think to anybody's knowledge, any authority in place to write down or postpone the payments on loans that farmers have acquired from financial institutions.

The member for Durham-York mentioned the inadequacy of the government programs. I just want to emphasize as well the difficulty the farm debt review boards are having in dealing with the numbers of applications and the seriousness of the applications that are being brought before them at present. There is no question that far more farmers will go into liquidation, if prices stay as they are now for many of the crops, than in any year since the Depression.

It is a little depressing to be dealing with a bill that removes something that is there in this field, even though it is not being used, instead of initiating something to provide some remedy to a serious situation that we now have in the agricultural community.

1720

Having said that, because in their present condition these bills cannot and are not being used and serve no useful purpose even though they could have been adapted, I and my party will be supporting Bill 164, which repeals the two other unused acts relating to loans to farmers.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It might be appropriate for me to answer one question the honourable member put forward, that is, why the Treasurer is dealing with this. It is because one of the important aspects of the bill was that once a farm loan association was established, the Treasurer had a responsibility to buy shares in it. That is very interesting indeed. The application to the Treasurer from the farm loan association made up a large proportion of the capital that could then be lent out.

It is an interesting discussion. I am quite engrossed in what the members are saying, but we should be aware that the limit to any loan from this was $2,000 and it was to be spent only for things such as the purchase of seed, feed, fertilizer, implements, cattle and so on. That $2,000 would not go very far now. As well, we have a program which applies itself directly to the provision of an operating line of credit to farmers who successfully apply under our program. The assistance comes through the banks, but the payment of assistance comes directly from the government to the farmer concerned.

We should not get the impression that somehow we are losing something other than an extremely interesting antique. The concepts in it and the fact that the government had the power to do this with respect to loans over which its own legislation originally had direct enforcement are quite interesting. Who knows when it may be applied?

Mr. Stevenson: I have a brief comment in line with what the member and the Treasurer have just said. Possibly the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) would know what farms were selling for in those times. Two thousand dollars sounds like a very limited amount of money today. Quite frankly, it is of relatively little use in today's agricultural economy. It is almost petty cash when one sees the bills coming in on farms, but I suspect in the 1940s there were lots of 100-acre farms selling in the $5,000-to-$15,000 range in Ontario. When we relate this back to the 1920s when the first act was brought in, I suspect $2,000 would not be out of line for buying a farm.

With regard to the operating credit that is described in one bill, $2,000 would probably have provided most of the operating capital, the money for liquid assets, that those operators would have needed at that time. Although it may seem like a petty-cash issue today, in those days it would have been a very significant loan. If anybody took out a $2,000-loan, he probably had himself relatively highly levered. After they went through the Depression, I can understand why some of them may well have required the Farm Loans Adjustment Act to help get them through a very tough situation.

Mr. Swart: Very briefly, I should admit I knew the limit was $2,000. As the member for Durham-York has said, in that day that was a fairly substantial amount of money for the purposes in the act. All of us realize it is totally irrelevant in today's society.

It was my suggestion that we might have been able to adapt it, to have made amendments to it and to have made it a useful piece of legislation. I realize it is an antique to some extent and perhaps it is better to bring in new legislation. I will be quite satisfied if the Treasurer will get up and say the government is going to bring in new legislation will be a program o additional leant to farmers and with a provision for write-off or postponement.

Mr. McGuigan: I must confess that, like the member for Welland-Thorold, I was not aware of the existence of this act. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that it has no relevance today. Back in those times, a good deal of farm debt was held by private individuals, whereas today the debt is held largely by banks and by the government of Canada.

As a matter of interest, I remember that when I was a youngster there was a neighbour who had a lot of traffic in and out of his yard. He was a bachelor who lived with his sister on a very good farm. I asked my father one day what all the traffic was about. He told me it was people going there to pay off their mortgages or to make payments on their mortgages. This gentleman and his sister, because they had no family or children, had very few expenses and acted as a local banker. That was the type of financing a lot of farmers had in those days. Today there is not that type of farming except for transfer of land where one family is handing it down from one generation to the other. Most of the debts today are with the federal government.

Mention was made of the possibility of adjusting debts. That was done in 1934 by the federal government, which brought in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Under that act, settlements were often knocked down. In fact, on average they were knocked down by 35 per cent on the land and by 45 per cent on the machinery. It made a good deal of sense. You could give a moral plus to the system because they were in an age of deflation.

The money that remained even after the debts were knocked down had greater purchasing power than the money that was lent in the 1920s. In effect, you were not doing any harm to the people to whom the money was owed. They had as much or more purchasing power when they finished after the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act that changed their debt than they had before.

This is the great dilemma that faces governments today, whether federal or provincial. We are not in a period of deflation except in agriculture. Admittedly, we are in a period of deflation in agriculture, but we are not in a period of deflation in general currency. Any government that re-enacted the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act under present conditions -- I am not saying it will not be necessary at some time -- would immediately arouse the ire of one puts these arrangements in place, it is a disincentive to lend money. Those farmers who are still operating and wish to borrow money would say, "Do not go ahead and do that because you will spoil my chances."

As a matter of fact, going back to the 1934 act, it was not until the 1950s -- 1952 would probably be the watershed because of the Korean War and the increases in prices brought about by it -- that the banks got back into active lending of money to farmers.

We support the removal of these two antique acts. We just point out that it is not the easiest thing in the world to bring back the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act because the farmers themselves are very much divided as to whether they want that act.

1730

Mr. Villeneuve: I also want to participate in this debate for a short period of time. As a former employee of the Farm Credit Corp., I believe I have lived at first hand some of the inflationary times in agriculture and some of the deflationary times in agriculture that we are experiencing right now.

I realize the vast majority of credit currently in use on Ontario farms does come from credit unions, banks and whatever and not from private individuals, as was the case many years ago. Certainly, Bill 164, An Act to repeal the Farm Loans Act and the Farm Loans Adjustment Act, is something our party will support.

However, I wish to express some degree of apprehension about the timing of the repeal. We have situations in agriculture, particularly in those areas that are not supply managed, where there are very difficult problems, as I am sure the Treasurer and the Minister of Agriculture and Food know.

The application for tax rebates has been a fairly major problem in the riding I represent. There are several municipalities that have expressed concern to me about why they have not received their applications for rebates. Many of them have still not received their applications for tax rebates. I touch on this simply because it is the largest farm assistance program this government provides to Ontario agriculture. The farm tax rebate exceeds $100 million.

The US Food Security Act is a fact of life. It came into being in late 1985, a phenomenon that we in Ontario, and indeed in Canada, had never experienced. It is one that I believe will have some very dire consequences for Ontario agriculture. Agriculture provides employment for 20 per cent or more of the population and yet employs in the production of food something less than three per cent. Thus, it is a very important sector of our economy. The message being sent by this government with this timing is somewhat worrisome.

Nous avons, au niveau fédéral, la Loi sur l'examen de l'endettement agricole. L'historique de cette situation est que le budget fédéral du mois de février de l'année dernière annonce qu'un projet de loi visant à mettre sur pied un réseau de bureaux d'examen de l'endettement agricole serait présenté.

La Loi sur l'examen de l'endettement agricole est maintenant en vigueur. Le fonctionnement du réseau des bureaux d'examen de l'endettement agricole est comme suit: il va exister, dans chaque province, un bureau d'examen de l'endettement agricole dirigé par un président et ayant l'entière responsabilité de l`application de la Loi sur l'examen de l'endettement agricole.

Je me pose la question suivante: en ce moment, le gouvernement fédéral appuie et est même en train d'initier une loi sur l'examen de l'endettement agricole, tandis que le gouvernement provincial envoie le message qu'il est en train d'éliminer un projet de loi qui existe de longue date; projet de loi qui, entre autres, alloue (1) la réduction du montant du principal qu'un cultivateur doit à son créancier, (2) une réduction du montant des arrérages d'intérêts et (3) une extension du temps de remboursement du prêt.

C'est effectivement la situation que nous sommes en train d'enrayer avec le projet de loi qui est en Chambre en ce moment. Le message semble alors contredire ce que nos collègues fédéraux sont en train de mettre sur pied pour essayer d'aider et d'améliorer la situation financière agricole dans l'agriculture ontarienne et dans l'agriculture canadienne.

Deuxièmement, le personnel travaillant au bureau d'examen de l'endettement agricole a à sa tête un gestionnaire général chargé de l'administration du bureau.

Troisièmement, le bureau possède une liste d'un certain nombre de personnel qualifiées disposées à faire partie des comités d'examen du financement agricole. Pour chaque examen de l'endettement agricole, un comité distinct de trois membres sera constitué par le président du bureau d'examen de l'endettement agricole.

It follows that the Farm Debt Review Act, which has been initiated by our colleagues at the federal level, seems to be almost in total contradiction to the message that is being sent currently by the government of Ontario. I appreciate that the law we are repealing today applied to only some $2,000 of loans, which in the 1920s was a fairly large amount of money. In today's world, it is a relatively insignificant amount.

My concern is with the message this legislation sends out at this time. I assure members that we will be supporting this. However, I question the timing in relation to what is happening at the federal level under the Farm Debt Review Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have nothing further to say, other than that I appreciate the comments made by the honourable members, particularly their assurances of somewhat guarded support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moves second reading of Bill 156, An Act to amend the Securities Act.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to present the Securities Amendment Act for second reading. The purpose of the bill is: (1 ) to increase the maximum number of Ontario Securities Commission members from nine to 11 and provide for the designation of a second vice-chairman; (2) to provide a framework for the recognition of clearing agencies by the commission, and (3) to replace existing provisions governing takeover bids and issuer bids.

As the first two matters addressed by the bill are largely housekeeping concerns, I will not expand upon them at this time. That section of Bill 156 dealing with takeover bids and issuer bids is the result of the first comprehensive review of this area since 1965.

One major target for change is the follow-up offer obligation. This provision of the act now affects anyone who has acquired control of a public corporation by exempt private agreement at a significant premium above market price. It requires that a follow-up offer of similar value be made within 180 days to all shareholders of the public corporation with the same class of shares.

Because of a variety of significant practical and legal difficulties with this statute, the follow-up offer obligation has been replaced in the bill by increased restrictions on the use of the private agreement exemption. Under Bill 156, private agreements constituting takeover bids will be permitted only in deals involving no more than five security holders, and prices cannot exceed market rates by more than 15 per cent. Thus, instead of triggering corrective action once an inequity has occurred, the new regulations would help avoid unfair trades from the start, and this will better serve the purpose of existing provisions, ensuring that all shareholders of a class are treated equally.

The bill will also establish a system giving market participants early warning of possible takeover bids. Anti-avoidance provisions with respect to purchases before and after a bid are included. The takeover bid scheme is made applicable to nonvoting shares, and the restrictions on conditions to takeover bids are removed.

In addition to ensuring equality of treatment for shareholders, a major intention of Bill 156 is to help establish uniformity of regulation within national securities markets. A degree of standardization within securities legislation has become increasingly important with the development of electronic technology that enables investors to participate in the capital markets of jurisdictions other than those in which they live.

Bill 156 embodies a consensus among the securities administrators of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia that was reached in 1984. It is expected that similar legislation will be in place in Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta early this year, effectively establishing uniformity in takeover bid and issuer bid legislation across Canada. I believe the bill before the Legislature represents a significant improvement in the legislation relating to take-over bids and issuer bids and will encourage a healthy and fair takeover bid climate in Ontario.

1740

At this time, I would like to state my intention to move amendments to Bill 156 during committee of the whole House to deal with illegal trading on inside information. These amendments will provide for an increase in penalties for insider trading and a broader definition of who can be prosecuted for such activities.

Specifically, the amendments would make it an offence to buy or sell securities based on information received from an insider. Under current legislation, only the insider can be prosecuted, but the person receiving the tip, the tippee, cannot be held accountable.

New maximum penalties for offences under the Securities Act, including jail terms of up to two years and fines of up to $1 million are also prescribed in the amendments. Fines for improper insider trading can be as high as three times the profit if we take into account the huge illegal profits that can be made through such activities.

Just as the provisions of Bill 156 protect shareholders' rights to equal treatment, these amendments will help uphold the right of equal trading system in the Ontario securities industry.

Mr. Sterling: I indicate to the minister our hearty support for Bill 156. As the minister knows, this legislation is very similar to other legislation that has been before this House. As early as 1982, Bill 176 was introduced, which proposed to increase the commission by two part-time commissioners and an additional vice-chairman. That is included in today's bill; we take the number of commissioners from nine to 11.

In December 1984, we had Bill 159, which was introduced by the former Progressive Conservative government, before the House. It included all but the increase in penalties proposed by the minister today. Bill 156, which was introduced by the minister in November 1986 was virtually a copy of Bill 68. As the minister indicated, in December he said to this Legislature he was going to amend his own legislation and put greater penalties on those who were found guilty of insider trading and expand the list of those who could be attacked for insider trading.

The Securities Act deals with the governing of the commerce of trading stocks and shares of different companies in Ontario. This is a very complex and complicated area of law and regulation. The public expects the Legislature to protect them if they go into the market and buy a share, and they expect that those who have a better knowledge of what is going on in the market will not be at unfair advantage to them.

In some way, this bill improves the existing situation with regard to a number of areas where the public was at a disadvantage to those who had a better knowledge and were involved in this on a day-to-day basis or had a very large holding in a particular company.

The increase from nine to 11 commissioners on the Ontario Securities Commission is a welcome move. Because of the complex nature of this legislation, there are many subcommittees of the commission and it is necessary for them to have more commissioners to do that business.

I am told by the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey), who could not be with us, that the commission needs another lawyer. I know all members of the Legislature will be gratified to hear that lawyers are needed in some areas. I see the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) agreeing with me on that point.

The second significant part of the legislation deals with protection for all shareholders when a large shareholder or large interest tries to take over a company. This legislation provides greater protection for the person in Ontario who wants to invest a small amount of his savings in the stock market. He will be treated the same as someone who has a great deal of money and is trying to take over a company. He will be offered the same deal as the large shareholder who has a controlling interest in the company. We support that very much. I am told that at present the practice of the commission is to enforce this kind of regulation that is in place at this time. I am told Quebec has this regulation already in place.

The last point the minister introduced and will introduce as an amendment deals with insider trading. The penalties for people who are caught dealing wrongly with information in relation to the price of a stock now are dealt with too lightly in the securities legislation. I believe the penalties are something like $25,000 for a director and $2,000 for other officers involved in insider trading.

Insider trading means that someone who is involved in a company takes advantage of his inside knowledge of what is going to happen in the future. He can predict that the price of a stock is going to go up or go down and he goes out and buys or sells stock in advance of the public having the knowledge he has.

The minister, I think to his credit, has attempted to expand the number of people who could be attacked for using inside information to gain undue profit at the expense of the general public. In his statement of December 11, 1986, when he indicated to this House he was going to introduce this amendment, he indicated that people such as the offerer's lawyer and accountant, fiscal agent or printer who got advance knowledge of some activity of the company that would indicate the price of the stock was going to go up and took advantage of it would also be subject to prosecution under the Ontario Securities Commission and would be subject to pretty stiff penalties.

One of the questions I have for the minister, to which I ask him to reply when he sums up on second reading, is, how does he foresee the enforcement of this provision? For instance, if the president of a company indicates casually to a friend when he meets him in a social manner that there is a bid to take over his company or if somebody overhears a conversation with somebody else, how is the person who receives that information and makes an undue profit ever going to be prosecuted?

While the intent is laudable, we do not know exactly how it is going to be put in place and how it is going to be enforced. I guess we would prefer that we pass laws and support amendments only when we are comforted that those laws are going to be enforceable in a real manner.

1750

In summing up my remarks, I would say that the last major review of the Securities Act, the securities commission, the whole ambit of the rules relating to stocks and stock trading, the protection of the public, was done in the Kimber report in 1965.

A number of incidents have recently been widely reported in the financial papers and in the daily papers that draw our attention to the fact that it is perhaps time again for a major look at the security laws. We have to refer only to the recent Canadian Tire case where the whole issue of the two classes of common shares was brought to the fore.

I believe we should look very strongly at the whole idea of two types of common shares. I believe a common share is a common share. Each one should attract one vote and should have equality in terms of controlling a company. However, suffice it to say that I do not know all the implications of making such a move in legislation. I think we should start down the road towards looking at those very fundamental questions. I suggest that the minister discuss with his cabinet colleagues the formation of a select committee of this Legislature to look into the major revisions in the Securities Act.

Such a process was undertaken by a select committee on company law to deal with the insurance industry, as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations would well know. I believe the work of that committee, although it took some time to complete, was well worth it. I believe that such a thrust by this minister would be appreciated, not only by the members of this Legislature and the financial community but also by the public of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: To comment very briefly, as we are going along, I want to thank the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) for his support of the bill and his comments and to tell him I welcome his remarks. I want to answer his question on how we are going to deal with this tippee-tipper situation.

The problem has been not so much how we identify it, but having the mechanism to deal with it. What is happening is that when one has insider information, it is only insider information until it becomes public. The minute it becomes public, everybody can trade. What we have to do -- it takes some effort but it can be done -- is that if there is any untoward activity in a security before this information becomes public, then one is able to follow the trail and see whether there is any activity that happened as a result of information before it became public.

The problem we have had in the past is that we have not had the legislative ability to do something about it. What we now have is a situation where we can follow the trail, if someone is a printer or wherever he gets this inside information. As the member knows, they go from being a tippee to a tipper and then they change roles as they go down. We can follow that trail.

With this amendment, we will now be able to do something about it. The penalties will be very severe. As the member knows, it will be $1 million or three times the profit plus a very onerous jail sentence. I think that part will work. Once we get the legislative ability to impose those penalties, it will work.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to thank the minister for his remarks. In order to clarify it, in case people are reading or watching this particular debate, I believe the legislation calls for a maximum of a $1-million fine. If someone is found guilty of insider trading, that is the maximum fine; it is not $1 million for each offence.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the clock and I know I am going to take more than five minutes. I suggest you might see six o'clock, but I am prepared to commence if that is your wish.

The Deputy Speaker: Why not start? We do have five minutes.

Mr. Swart: Very well.

I want to say immediately that I and my party are going to support Bill 156. Most of us recognize it is something of a complex bill on the matter of dealing with securities, at least to the uninitiated, and I presume that is the majority of people in the House. I extend our thanks to the minister for his provision of people in his office to explain not only the details of this bill but also some of the other intricate matters associated with dealing in securities.

This bill is supportable in every way. We see it as doing four things. The compendium lists three of those things and the minister has referred to the fourth item, which is about the prevention of inside trading. We know this bill is going to provide for an increase of two additional persons on the Ontario Securities Commission and the designation of an additional vice-chairman.

For reasons I will go into at some greater depth later, I doubt very much whether that is going to be enough. Given the fact that the government is proposing to open up the securities field to all the other financial institutions and to foreign investors, I suspect the amount of trading and the number of takeovers will increase quite dramatically and that two additional people on the Ontario Securities Commission may well be insufficient by a large margin to deal with the increase in the trading that will take place.

The second purpose of the act is to provide the regulatory framework with respect to the recognition of clearing agencies by the Ontario Securities Commission. We recognize the need for this. I am slightly confused about whether it is anticipated there will be only one, which seems to be the situation at the present time, or whether there will be a number of co-operative clearing agencies.

The minister speaks of clearing agencies in the comments in the compendium; yet my understanding is that for practical purposes it probably will be something such as one stock exchange and only one clearing agency. Perhaps the minister, either in his reply to my remarks or when he replies in his windup on this bill, will make some comments and clarification with regard to that. However, with today's new technology, I agree there is need for a clearing agency to a greater degree than there ever has been before, and I would certainly be supportive of that section.

The third section is the complex one and is the basis of the whole bill we have before us. After having rather lengthy discussions with researchers in our party and with the information which came from the director of the Ontario Securities Commission, my understanding of it is that section 3, the bulk of this bill, does three things.

First, it brings the principle of takeover out into the open much sooner, so they cannot be surprised.

The Deputy Speaker: I notice you are starting on a new area. Perhaps, viewing the clock, you would like to move adjournment.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, before you adjourn the House, I would like to announce to the members that rather than continue with today's order, by agreement, we are going to move to the bills of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) tomorrow, beginning with Bill 161, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, and then Bill 154, An Act to provide for Pay Equity in the Broader Public Sector and in the Private Sector.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

27 janvier 1987