Journal des débats 1988-juin-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to be able to present later today a petition, signed by 800 residents of Sault Ste. Marie, on the subject of minimum wage. This is a subject of concern to all of us in this Legislature when we see situations of working poor who are unable to support their families with levels of income that are above the poverty line.

I think this is an issue the government has to take a serious look at. I would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) to act on behalf of these concerned citizens of Sault Ste. Marie.

They really have three requests in their petition: (1) that the legislation be revised so that the minimum wage covers all workers in Ontario without exception, which is not the case today in terms of certain exceptions; (2) that the minimum wage be adjusted automatically with inflation, not based on the arbitrary will and occasional generosity of the current government; (3) and most important, that the minimum wage be increased to a level so that all families are able to be supported by a standard of living that is above the poverty line.

I believe this is a very vital issue facing all of us in our society and I ask the government to give serious attention to this issue.

HOME CARE

Mr. Cousens: On this, the first day of Senior Citizens’ Month, I would like to bring to the attention of the House another case of the government not putting its money where its mouth is. This is the case of community-based care.

As we all know, there is a large percentage of seniors who have been placed and continue to be placed in inappropriate beds in hospitals. Not only does this put a strain on the already overtaxed hospital system, but it also causes great hardship for those seniors.

The reason seniors are forced into these unnecessary conditions is that this government continues to ignore its commitment to community-based care. If this government was willing to pay home care providers what they are worth, it could provide better and more humane care for seniors in their own homes. Instead, we have at least 50 per cent turnover rates in home care agencies, in homemaker agencies.

Let me give a specific example of one of the major problems in Ontario for seniors. The Sarnia-Lambton Victorian Order of Nurses administers a nursing program as well as the Ministry of Health’s home care program. The ministry has awarded to the home care professional staff an increase of four per cent more than that awarded to the nursing program.

When a service provider sees a commitment like this, or rather the lack of one for these worthy programs, it is not surprising that he or she withdraws the service. Who is hurt most of all? The seniors.

TOURETTE SYNDROME AWARENESS MONTH

Mr. Neumann: The month of June has been designated as Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month in Canada. “What is Tourette syndrome?” members might ask. Until late last year, I was unaware of Tourette syndrome. A November article in the Toronto Star about a similar awareness program in the United States drew the symptoms of Tourette to my attention. This led to a diagnosis for a member of our family, thus ending the frustration of not knowing what was wrong.

Tourette syndrome, a multiple-tic disorder of neurochemical origin, manifests itself in involuntary behaviour, such as motor tics and vocalizations. Early diagnosis is critical. Misdiagnosis can lead to the wrong treatment and thus to severe psychological problems.

While there is no known cure for this lifelong disorder, drugs are becoming more effective in controlling the symptoms in many cases. Public awareness can help to create tolerance and understanding for the Tourette sufferer. There are many undiagnosed children and adults in our society. Greater awareness can lead to proper diagnoses. Frustrated families and individuals will then understand what they are facing and will learn to cope effectively.

Today we have present with us in the members’ gallery Louise Rosenbloom, national president of the Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada, and David MacLachlan, director and past president. We urge members of this House to become better informed about Tourette syndrome. Help us to achieve improved awareness in all of Ontario’s municipalities.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Section 6 of the Rental Housing Protection Act says that tenants cannot be asked to vacate a building until the municipality has first granted approval for the renovation requiring the vacation and that the certificate of such approval must be attached to the notice.

The landlord of 1 Rannock Street in my riding has flouted Bill 11, much as was the case in the Rafael case, which most people have read about again today in the Toronto Star where, working without work permits, people were put out on the street and now, months after the fact, are trying to get themselves some redress.

The tenants in my riding have been given notice that they are to leave as of the end of this month. They have been told the landlord will not accept any more rent from them, that he is taking their last month’s rent as paid and that they must all leave. He claims he has work permits, which the city of Scarborough tells me have not been issued to him. He has already started the demolition that is involved and he seems to be acting while knowing precisely what the law is, because we have informed him from time to time.

I must ask the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) today to intervene personally in this matter, to indicate to this landlord what the act says and that he must not threaten any more as he has. “If people give a hard time to the landlords, they will never return to this building,” he says.

This is unacceptable practice. The minister for once should intervene before the tenants are evicted and on the streets, instead of waiting for the kind of travesty that we have seen with Mr. Rafael’s apartments.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). The minister’s meddling in the garbage crisis in Simcoe county and throughout the rest of Ontario has resulted in trash being hauled from one municipality to another at high tippage fees and exorbitantly increased taxes. The people are already being taxed enough.

Last year the minister closed the Pauzé landfill site and directed six north Simcoe municipalities to transport their garbage to the Keele Valley landfill site north of Toronto. The taxpayers were disturbed about the increase in their municipal tax bills because the $18-per-tonne tippage fee was to be charged at the Keele Valley landfill site. Then Metro Toronto turned around and raised that tippage fee at its two landfill sites to $50 per tonne from $18 for private haulers, but municipalities were supposed to pay only $13 to $15 per tonne. This rule apparently does not apply to the six north Simcoe municipalities that are still paying the $50 tippage fee.

1340

The minister’s lack of leadership, poor planning and outright meddling have resulted in tonnes of garbage travelling the highways of Ontario, landfill tippage-fee policies that treat some municipalities as private haulers and increase taxes for people who are already staggering from his government’s massive tax grab. The minister’s efforts to solve this province’s growing waste disposal crisis is nothing but garbage, and the people of Ontario will not only want to recycle this government, but they will want to dispose of it.

RAVI VAKIL

Mrs. LeBourdais: I stand in the House today to inform all members of the recent accomplishment of Ravi Vakil, an 18-year-old student at Martingrove Collegiate Institute in my riding of Etobicoke West. Ravi competed with 389,000 other high school students from across Canada and the United States to win the US Mathematical Olympiad.

Ravi is no stranger to awards honouring his abilities in math, but his interests extend to active involvement in many extracurricular activities at Martingrove Collegiate along with his regular studies. Ravi is a fine example of what young people are capable of within the standards of excellence this province has set for our educational institutions.

I would like all members to join with me in wishing Ravi the best of luck as he travels with the Canadian Olympic math team to Australia for the International Mathematical Olympiad, and when he begins his studies at the University of Toronto this fall where he will be studying international relations, economics, computer science, physics and math.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr. Wildman: The intransigence of this government and the failure of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) even to consider the land claim in the Temagami area have produced a potentially very serious situation on the Red Squirrel Road today. As the minister will know, the Bear Island band is occupying the road and is determined to prevent its construction from beginning.

I hope the Minister of Natural Resources will prevail upon his colleague, the minister responsible for native affairs (Mr. Scott), to begin a serious negotiation of the land claim so that it can be settled in a responsible way, rather than leading to an escalating situation which could result in something like Wounded Knee.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Today I am pleased to announce details of an increase in funding to enhance specialized transit services for disabled persons throughout Ontario. My colleagues in cabinet, the ministers without portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) and for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson), were of great assistance in formulating this expanded spending program.

An additional $50 million over five years, including $8.2 million in 1988-89, will be used to increase the quality and extent of existing specialized transit services and to widen the eligibility guidelines for service recipients. With this additional funding assistance, it is estimated that a total of 2.3 million trips will be provided for disabled persons in the 63 participating municipalities across the province.

It will also result in the addition of 125 buses to existing fleets, increased use of microcomputers for greater efficiencies in dispatching and improved availability of trips to adjacent municipalities. These new buses will bring the total of special buses for the disabled, operated directly by participating municipalities, to 525. That is an increase of 30 per cent.

We will be expanding the provincial eligibility guideline beyond the current “unable to board regular transit vehicles” to recognize those persons with other mobility problems which preclude their use of conventional transit.

This initiative is consistent with recommendations in The Freedom to Move is Life Itself report prepared by the Ontario advisory councils on disabled persons and senior citizens.

As well, I would like to emphasize that the finalization of this guideline will be pursued through consultation with municipalities, operators and groups representing persons with disabilities. We will be contacting these groups across the province to request their comment on the proposed eligibility guideline and its implications. The expected deadline is September 1988.

Full implementation of this new guideline is expected by January 1991, which will provide municipalities enough time to adjust their budgets and acquire any additional vehicles without compromising services to existing users. Those municipalities which are ready will be permitted to implement the new guideline as soon as possible.

Recognizing that specialized services will always be required by the more severely disabled, it is essential that we provide adequate service levels.

Another program advancing rapidly is the provision of accessible taxi service for the disabled. The first service has been running in Sudbury for nearly three months now, while Ottawa, Markham, Sault Ste. Marie, Kitchener, Richmond Hill and Pearson International Airport are planning to introduce accessible taxis, subsidized by the Ministry of Transportation.

We are also advancing on a broad range of other transportation initiatives for all disabled and frail elderly persons in Ontario. I hope to announce further details in the near future.

RESPONSES

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Allen: I would like to respond to the announcement by the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) with respect to the additional funding for specialized transit services for the disabled.

The first thing that needs to be said, of course, is that expansion of the specialized services is badly needed. There were over 4,700 instances of trips asked for in the Wheel-Trans system alone last year which the system was not able to meet, and that is certainly true across the province as a whole.

Just the other day I had a complaint in my office from a disabled person whose complaint obviously indicated that the Hamilton system was under some pressure to meet the demands of service there and that the office system of allocating rides was obviously under pressure from lack of funding by virtue of a lack of personnel who could keep the system operational, moving and meeting all the demands placed upon it.

However, I want to say to the minister that when he says this meets the request of the study that was done by the Ontario advisory councils, entitled The Freedom to Move is Life Itself, that is not entirely correct. If I look at some of the key recommendations of that study, it says in the first instance “that the provincial government make a commitment to develop a fully integrated transit system to meet the needs of all Ontario residents by 2010” and further, “that the provision of all provincial funding for transportation be contingent on criteria for a fully integrated transportation system being met.”

The minister has not responded at all to those fundamental requests from The Freedom to Move is Life Itself study, nor has he responded to the disabled community in its attempt to get a memorandum of agreement from him, in which he would provide a staged-in expansion of the specialized services where the municipalities do not now have them and a staged-in integration of specialized and completely fully integrated systems across the province as a whole.

It is quite obvious that the disabled community is not hugely impressed, although it appreciates the specialized service. Its representatives, for example, are prepared to be quoted as follows:

“Many years ago the United States had a system called Separate but Equal, but you cannot be separate and equal at the same time.” The simple fact is there is no guarantee that the municipalities, when they do go into specialized services, will provide a fully accessible integrated service for their disabled people.

The communities in question are obviously short of funds. They have to back up on their property taxpayers in order to meet the immense costs of both specialized services and of fully accessible public services.

We were told at the National Access Awareness conference, sponsored by the Speaker -- which you graciously sent some of us to, Mr. Speaker -- by the president of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities that they were not prepared to put money into a fully accessible integrated transit service for the disabled.

1350

I would be impressed if the minister were to stand up and tell us several things: first, that he is prepared to write legislation that will require minimum standards of access to all public transit systems where they are in place across this province; second, that he will provide funding, which he does not provide now, for modifications to provide for full access to transit systems; third, that he would move the subsidy rate from 75 per cent to 90 per cent for the minor modifications which he now does fund, but engage in an active program of making certain that the communities in question actually access that funding.

At the present time, there is very little takeup of that funding that he provides. The problem centrally is that this announcement does not really tell us that across the front and, in particular, with respect to fully accessible public transit in this province, the minister will act, in fact, in a proactive, energetic, aggressive way to provide the disabled community with what it has asked for, for so long.

Mr. Cousens: It is appropriate that we recognize it is important that we are doing more to service the needs of seniors and the disabled. The kind of announcement that the Minister of Transportation has shared with the minister responsible for disabled persons and the minister responsible for senior citizens’ affairs is an important and welcome announcement.

We all know that we want to see full involvement by our seniors and by those who would otherwise not be able to get around, and that they have access to public transportation. They have problems that can be helped and can be aided. It is important that we remember that.

So the commitment that we see the minister presenting today is something that is really a sense of welcome news for those who are seniors. It might give them a chance to use public transit to come down to see what else the Liberal government is doing for them. When they get here, they might not be happy with everything else they see. There are enough other things that I could comment on, but I would rather stay with the subject of seniors and the disabled.

I wonder why it is the government has not done more to help that senior or disabled person who has a car to have a parking spot and to have some way of co-ordinating protection of that through local police forces. That little sticker and that little identification on the licence plate do not mean as much as they should. I think all of us need to have more respect for that.

I wonder what the government is doing about integration of services for seniors and the disabled between the regions of York, Durham and Peel and Metropolitan Toronto, because a person who needs transportation services from York region or from Peel or some other area into the city cannot always get it. Also, the time that it takes to get it is another problem.

But the impossibility of crossing that Berlin Wall between the municipalities and Metro Toronto is something that is still a barrier for many of them. So I would like to see a better degree of integration of those services in the greater Toronto area, which the minister described in the road map which he presented last week.

What about weekends and evenings? Is the minister saying, by this announcement, that those seniors or those disabled people who are going to need Wheel-Trans can obtain that service in nonregular hours? What about the Wheel-Trans people going on strike again? We are just over that one. I notice the minister did not make this announcement when they were out on strike.

Obviously, there is still a problem there and people forget very quickly the problems that were felt by the disabled and those people who use these services just a short time ago, because when they wanted to use them, they just could not get on them.

So let us look at the whole context of providing excellent services for those who are our seniors and those who are our disabled. We have a challenge in this province to help get people around, to help them travel from A to B. It is not happening as easily as this minister would make us believe. We still know there is a great deal to be done. Seniors who live in Peel, York or Durham do not get the benefit of reduced rates in Metropolitan Toronto even though Ontario tax dollars do a great deal to subsidize the Toronto Transit Commission. That is another thing that could be done.

We like to be positive where there is a place to be positive and I am in the sense that there is action being taken. But there is still so much more that needs to be done that will truly understand what is needed for our seniors and the disabled. It does not always take money. It takes a little bit of enforcement of the rules, a little bit of following through and a little co-ordination with the regions in the areas outside.

Mr. McLean: I would like to respond briefly to this announcement by the minister today, because yesterday my constituency office had several phone calls with regard to a program the government has with regard to the disabled and seniors who are in need. They wanted to have ramps built. The minister had a program whereby he would fund this type of help that seniors and the disabled need. We find out now that this fund is out of money.

There are people in wheelchairs in a home in Orillia who wanted to get out to get some sun and warm weather who cannot get out because of the facilities not being there. His government made the announcement that it would provide funding for that. We see now that the funding has run out. I hope this does not happen to the funding the minister has announced today. The Orillia Ability Association is looking for some help in what he has announced. I do hope he follows through and makes the funds available so that they can enjoy life like the rest.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: On a point of order before we get to question period, Mr. Speaker: I am rising under standing order 88(d), really on two aspects. Standing order 88(d) requires an answer to Orders and Notices questions within 14 days. First, there are now 27 questions on the order paper that have been there over 30 days, some from 1987, with no substantive answer. Occasionally, we get some answers on issues that are less sensitive, but clearly --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I think it is pretty obvious, as to getting substantive answers, that there is a strategy in place to delay answers to those questions that will be a political embarrassment for the government. Mr. Speaker, you have always brought those to the attention of the ministers and I would appreciate it if, on the first part of my point of order, you would do that again. It clearly is not living up to the spirit of the standing orders. I do not think there is any room for flexibility.

The second part I want to speak to is that there must be an answer of some sort within 14 days or the government is in violation of the standing orders. Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to intervene with the interim responses and the nonanswers, but technically it appears to me as though this House is now sitting, as I speak, in violation of the standing orders. I refer you to questions 89, 90, 91, 92, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113 and 118, where there has been no answer forthcoming in excess of 14 days, not even an interim answer. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this House can sit in violation of the standing orders and if in fact --

Hon. Mr. Ward: You just want the day off.

Mr. Harris: Either we respect the standing orders or we do not. Certainly, we know the spirit has been violated many, many times, but now I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether in fact this House can sit right now in violation of the standing orders. If in fact it cannot, then I suggest the House adjourn until the standing orders are being complied with.

Mr. Breaugh: I would just briefly like to address the same point of order. I have had on the Orders and Notices paper for some period of time now question 97, where I asked the Ministry of Government Services to simply list all lands the province owns in and around Metro. I was surprised the government did not know. They did give me an interim answer that said they did not know what it was and that it would take a somewhat longer period of time to put that information together.

1400

I was surprised this morning to read in the Globe and Mail, on page A4, the answer to my question. I believe that if we are to write to the Globe and Mail to get answers to our written questions, we should change the standing orders to say so; but if that is not the case, if there is a written question on the order paper and we take the time to publish that question and to expect the ministries to reply to us, we deserve the courtesy of a reply here first before it is published in the newspapers.

I believe we are currently out of order. I believe there is a matter of some privilege here, and mostly because the practice has now become so widespread that one does not get answers to written questions any more. If one is lucky, one will find it printed in the Toronto Star or in the Globe and Mail before one gets an answer in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would want to say for the benefit of my friends opposite that scarcely a day passes that I do not table in the House answers to the several questions that are routinely put by our friends opposite.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The question is, do they read the answers?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Treasurer properly observes as to whether or not these answers are read at all, but the point I want to make to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), who has returned from Richard III in good health, is to say to my friends opposite that somehow, some of the questions are of very considerable complexity.

The point is well made and we will certainly continue to do all that we can to make sure that full and complete answers, including those to questions that are of very great complexity, are provided as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the point of order raised by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and then the comments by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the government House leader. I believe the matter has certainly been drawn to attention now, which should be done, and I hope that because of the numbers which you placed on the record today, it will be looked after immediately by the government House leader.

As far as the second part of your point of order is concerned, the suggestion that possibly the House is out of order sitting, at the moment I cannot see any reason why the House should not sit because that standing order has not been fulfilled.

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) seems to want to say something.

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

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe I have a point of order which is very, very serious. Last week in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, a group of citizens in this province was badly treated by that chairman, and in an uneven, unfair manner.

The group is called the Alliance for the Future of Young Canadians and represents a national group of about 16,000 individuals, is independently financed and happens to be in favour of the free trade agreement. This group phoned the chairman of the committee, the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), who unfortunately is not here. I would have preferred him to be here. This group was told by the Canadian Importers Association, which was scheduled to appear on May 26, that it could not appear and it asked this particular group if it would not go and make its presentation instead, or offered it to the group, not knowing the system.

This group phoned the chairman. He apparently took it upon himself to deal with this group. I want to quote from Hansard of the standing committee last week and I want to tell you the tenor of this particular response.

This group “apparently was coming out of Ottawa, was prepared to get on a plane, come down here and give a presentation, fresh from having met with Donald Macdonald. Frankly, I do not know who would be supplying their plane tickets, but I smelled a political rat and suggested that we were not particularly interested in hearing from them.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to the point of order.

Mr. Sterling: If you read on in the Hansard, the chairman then went about that evening phoning an individual to try to get somebody to replace that particular slot the next day. He, in fact, was not even able to contact that individual that night and had to make a phone call the very next day.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this group, who first of all phoned the clerk of this committee and complained about these remarks, which they heard about secondhand, should be treated that way regardless of their political view. Quite frankly, I thought this was a political forum in which people came to express political views as well as giving any other kind of opinion that they might give.

I really do believe that the chairman has impugned the privilege of every member of this Legislature and what, in fact, that committee was set forth to do in its duties. I can see no other honourable fashion or honourable path for that chairman but to resign from the chairmanship of that particular committee.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the comments by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and I took particular note that every comment made referred to what took place in a committee set out by this House.

As is the usual custom, all matters dealt with by the committee, at the committee, are resolved by the committee. I would suggest to the member that the appropriate place to take that matter would be back to the committee, and, if the committee so desires, report on that matter to the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I beg your pardon.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, with regard to your ruling --

Mr. Speaker: No, I am sorry. Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In every lawsuit brought before the courts that tries to establish a right to sue, the Workers’ Compensation Board response is always, and indeed in the most recent lawsuit was, that the reason there is no right to sue is a tradeoff which gave workers, and I quote, “a generally more valuable right to guaranteed benefits which are received promptly and without regard to fault.”

That is the so-called covenant that was originally made in 1915 with injured workers across this province, that in giving up their right to sue at common law, workers would have a right, to use these words, “to guaranteed benefits which are received promptly and without regard to fault.”

I want to ask the minister to address a particular problem. Those workers who have been awarded a pension by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal for the sole and simple reason that they are suffering from chronic pain -- all of those workers, and there are now about 15 of them who have been awarded such pensions by the appeal tribunal -- are not receiving their benefits, even though they have been ordered to receive benefits by the appeal tribunal, because the compensation board says it wants to study the issue --

Mr. Speaker: Put your question please.

Mr. B. Rae: -- and is studying the issue and is studying the issue. Why should that study prevent these workers from getting the benefits they deserve?

1410

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am delighted the Leader of the Opposition has referred back to that initial pact which goes right back to 1915, when the workers’ compensation system was introduced in this province. I think it is important, as we approach reform in the workers’ compensation system, to remember the words he has quoted. That was a historic tradeoff and we have to keep that in mind.

The Leader of the Opposition raises the issue of those claimants who are claiming on the basis of chronic pain. He knows the real issue right there, which was before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, deals with the issue of retroactivity. On the one hand, as he knows, the board had enunciated a clear and rather specific policy on the issue of retroactivity. When these cases came before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, and as a result of hearing a number of cases collectively, the appeals tribunal developed another view of retroactivity and the date back to which a claimant should be able to refer in order to mount a valid claim.

I do not think the Leader of the Opposition should think it is unusual that the board would want to look further at the matter, given the fact that the board itself, the corporate board of the workers’ compensation system, had done an analysis and developed one view of retroactivity, and now the appeals tribunal has another.

Mr. B. Rae: What we have is an appeals structure that cannot work on behalf of workers if, every time the board receives a decision it does not like, it says, “We’re not going to recognize that decision, we’re going to overrule that decision and we’re going to stick it to that decision and stick it to the workers who’ve won that battle,” after, in many cases, applying for pensions for several years. Some of those workers have been waiting for a pension for years and years and years. They win at the appeals tribunal and then they still do not get the money. That is the kind of injustice these workers are facing in the province.

Specifically, in a supplementary to the minister, I wonder if he can tell us why he is still so wedded to the idea of turning the compensation system into more of a means-tested welfare system, as was suggested by Professor Weiler, when he knows full well that approach has been rejected by every single injured workers’ group in this province.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would like to deal with the first part of the question of the Leader of the Opposition and agree wholeheartedly with him that if we had a system that had every single decision of the appeals tribunal overturned by the board, we would have a system that would be in complete chaos, but we do not have that kind of system. We have a system where the appeals tribunal deals with hundreds and hundreds of cases. By and large those cases are dealt with expeditiously and resolved, and a determination is made as to whether or not benefits are going to be paid.

There are some areas, a few areas, where very large issues of policy arise. I acknowledge to my friend the Leader of the Opposition that in the case of retroactivity in the area of chronic-pain claims there is a very large issue of retroactivity. The appeals tribunal and the board have studied these matters extensively and have come to different conclusions. That matter is going to have to be resolved.

Mr. B. Rae: In favour of the board.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: No, not in favour.

As to the second part of the question, the board has said it will look at that issue.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister chose not to answer my question. He chose not to answer the question I asked him, which is why he is still married to a concept which was rejected when the Tories tried to foist it on injured workers in 1983. The minister is reviving it in the name of so-called reform.

There are widespread rumours now, very widespread in the injured-worker community, that it is the minister’s intention to force a tradeoff on workers, saying, “We are going to insist that you accept Weiler,” which means turning compensation into a welfare means-tested system, “but we are going to give you a little bit of something on reinstatement and rehabilitation.”

Why is the minister putting injured workers into this position, where they are going to have to come to terms with a proposal on means testing and on income testing and on turning it into a welfare system, which they cannot accept, in exchange for something they have been asking for in terms of simple justice for a long time, that is, the right to reinstatement and rehabilitation. Why not let reinstatement and rehabilitation stand on their own?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not base the initiatives I take on widespread rumour, nor do I pay much attention to widespread rumour.

Mr. B. Rae: I have nothing else to go on. I do my best.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member does pretty well.

I just tell my friend the Leader of the Opposition that in attempting to bring about significant reforms to the workers’ compensation system, I do not think it is appropriate simply to say what that community wants, what another community wants and what a third community wants, because if we take that approach, we can never really undertake reforms that will make the system a better system.

I do not think my friend has any premium on a concern for injured workers. We all have to be concerned to give injured workers a better system. In the reform package that I propose to present to this Legislature in the future, I expect the system we are proposing will be a better system for all the players in the system, including the injured-worker community.

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

Mr. B. Rae: My question is for the Deputy Premier in his role as the midwife of the Massey-Ferguson creation of the Massey Combines Corp. and the Varity Corp.

Along with my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), I attended a demonstration this morning outside the annual meeting of the Varity Corp., attended by 300 or 400 people, many of whom I am sure are constituents of the Treasurer, as they are of the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann). Both those members were sorely missed and were asked about by many of the workers there.

I would like to ask the Treasurer if he can tell us, at the time the Massey Combines Corp. was formed with the approval and participation of the government of Ontario, why the government of Ontario did not ensure that those workers who were retired or who were about to be retired were guaranteed that the benefits they had negotiated over the last 30 years would be protected regardless of what happened to Massey Combines Corp.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I hope the Leader of the Opposition had the presence of mind to remind my constituents that I was attending cabinet this morning and doing my duties as I felt I should do them. Knowing the Leader of the Opposition as well as I do, I feel sure he was prepared to do that.

The question about the restructuring of the old Massey firm into Varity and Massey Combines was a very difficult one at the time, because the alternative was that the whole operation would go into receivership and be lost to the economy of the country and the province, and particularly the city of Brantford. There is no doubt that at the time the review of the reformation of the endeavour was examined very carefully by the officials of government and we felt all the appropriate protections were in place.

Certainly, as Minister of Financial Institutions, it has been my duty to examine the insufficiencies as carefully as I possibly can, and I must say there are some involving hospital payments for people who felt they were properly protected by insurance coverage which turned out to be no coverage at all. That is just one instance which has given us a great deal of difficulty.

It is certainly our intention to see that the surviving portion of the old Massey-Ferguson corporation will bear and assume all the financial responsibilities that are its under the law. My aim in that regard may take some time to be fulfilled, but I understand the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have entered into a suit in this regard, and that may be helpful.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer is going to be on the other side of the lawsuit, so I do not know how helpful he is going to find it. The feeling among the workers involved is that he was at the table and he was the midwife in this abysmal proposition. There is a great feeling among the workers of that part of the world that he shares a responsibility for the fact that they have lost their benefits.

I would like to ask the Treasurer why the government condoned the deal, when the King Street property which, as the Treasurer will know, is worth about $40 million -- and there was another swap with Brantford city with respect to the downtown site for Massey House which was $900,000 plus in cash -- went to Varity Corp., which stayed alive, which was the phoenix that rose from the ashes. All the liabilities, the rights of the employees who had worked for Massey, who had never worked for Varity in their lives and never worked for Massey Combines Corp. in their lives, went to a company which Varity and the government knew full well was shaky from the very beginning.

1420

The question I have for the Treasurer is, why not at least make Varity, which is still there, with Victor Rice making his $300,000 or $400,000 a year and the directors doing just fine, responsible for the retirees rather than a company which everybody knew was shaky from the very time it was set up?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member surely has a short memory. In the days when this restructuring occurred, there were people like myself who were optimistic enough about the farm economy to think that prices would resurge and that Massey Combines might very well have been a continuing and productive aspect of the economy of the province, not only maintaining employment but improving it.

Unfortunately, that was not the case and the farm economy has remained in dismal circumstances. The sales of combines went down year by year to disastrous levels. For a number of reasons, not the least of which was the cost of production at the Brantford plant, it was not possible for it to get other manufacturing processes. The net result was, as the honourable member knows, that the functioning of Massey Combines came to an end and we are in the difficulties he has described.

In reference to this lawsuit, perhaps I was a bit more facetious than I should have been in referring to that, knowing the political proclivities of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: I have no idea what my proclivities have to do with it.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You were playing politics with an important matter.

Mr. B. Rae: I tell the Treasurer exactly what I am doing. I take my politics very seriously. When workers get shafted the way they have been shafted by the company involved and when the government has been there and sat back and let all the liabilities go to a company which was in trouble from the very beginning and let all the rich assets go to Varity Corp., which just took off and then went into all the other fields, and the workers end up having to take their loved ones out of a nursing home because they can no longer afford it, something is screwy.

The question I have for the Treasurer is, why would those employees of Massey-Ferguson in this city and in Brantford not be associated with a company which was going to be successful when they retired rather than with a company that was in trouble from the very beginning? Why not at least ensure that they get the benefits and they get those guarantees for as long as they live, and not as long as it is convenient for the government of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked, twice.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Unfortunately, the clairvoyance that the Leader of the Opposition claims for himself was not available to us at the time that the arrangement was made. The alternative was that the whole shebang would go into receivership and down the drain. This was an approach taken in a joint agreement by the government of Canada and the government of Ontario, which was a valiant attempt to keep the jobs and the prosperity not only of Brantford but of Ontario and to keep one of the major farm-machinery production companies of the world operating and productive.

It is a great regret for me -- members may believe it or not, even more for me than for the Leader of the Opposition, who has lately come to this important matter -- that the company went into bankruptcy and we have had to face the difficulties that he has described at the top of his lungs.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier and it relates to a matter in the Premier’s home riding. I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether, in his opinion, the administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital in London is -- and I ask for only his opinion -- a good or a bad administrator.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Everybody in London is absolutely wonderful at everything.

Mr. Brandt: The member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), with the tremendous support she received very recently, would concur with that statement. I appreciate the Premier’s mentioning that.

The reason I raised the question --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: The reason I raised the question, if I might shout over the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who is interjecting without reason at this point, is to ask the Premier whether he concurs with the statement that was made by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) -- who is not here today or I would have addressed the question to her -- that if you have a surplus in a hospital budget, you are by definition a good administrator, the inference being, and the minister did not say this, that if you have a deficit, by definition you have to be a bad administrator.

I would like to put before the Premier the proposition that the hospital in London I have referred to, namely, St. Joe’s, is operating in a deficit, and I wonder if he would like to dissociate himself from the inferences made by the Minister of Health in this regard.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In political life, one has to handle a lot of issues and a lot of people react in strange ways. They draw their own inferences from things that are done here. I cannot account for the inferences the member draws from the minister’s statements, or from mine for that matter. I cannot account for the weird explanations he draws from these things. I say to my friend I can only judge normal behaviour; I cannot judge these abnormal inferences he draws.

Mr. Brandt: There is nothing abnormal about an inference for which I will quote directly from Hansard as it relates to the statement made by the Premier’s appointee to that particular ministry, namely, the Minister of Health. She said very clearly, “I am hearing ... from the good managers who bring in balanced budgets.” That is very clear. I think it is very simple. It is not stretching the logic to assume, therefore, that if you bring in a deficit, you are a bad manager.

I want the Premier to know that we in this party want to dissociate ourselves from that kind of an extreme position on the part of the minister, where if you are able to bring in a surplus in a hospital budget, that makes you a good administrator, and if you bring in a deficit, you are a bad administrator.

Will the Premier indicate that he will review, along with the Treasurer and with the Minister of Health, the very good administrators who, through no fault of their own, are showing up with a deficit? About half the hospitals in this province, I might add, are showing up with a deficit. Will he review those deficits to see if the government can fund some of the needed programs to assure the people of Ontario that hospital beds will not be shut down? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable minister has said in this House on many occasions that she is determined to maintain a level of quality service across this province. The member recognizes the problem, as I do, of hospital deficits. They are being reviewed right across the province and we are putting a premium on good management. Regularly, the member castigates this government for bad management and then he presumes to say that others who are running deficits have good management.

I draw no inference one way or the other in a particular case except to say that there has to be a discipline in the system and it has to be co-ordinated in conjunction with the institutions that exist, be it the district health councils or whatever. We are getting the best advice we can and we are working closely with the hospitals to make sure we guarantee a high level of service across this province, and we are going to do it in a responsible way.

Mr. Brandt: It is difficult to get an answer about whether or not beds will be closed and shut down.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASE STANDARDS PANEL

Mr. Brandt: I will ask my second question of the Minister of Labour. Today, during the injured workers’ rally that was held on the front steps of the Legislature, the minister made some comment with respect to the Industrial Disease Standards Panel and the work that panel is undertaking. With respect to that, is it not a reality that this panel has not met for the past five months, since December 1987?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: During that rally, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), was there, and the leader of the third party, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), was there and I was there, and the crowd was at various stages of receptiveness as each of us spoke.

Part of the reality of being the Minister of Labour is that all the frailties within the system are put upon my shoulders, and I accept that responsibility and the challenges it presents for us as a government. I simply tell my friend from Sarnia that I did not mention the Industrial Disease Standards Panel during my remarks, not because I did not want to but because there was no time and I did not think it was an appropriate context to discuss that.

What I did say at the rally was that workers’ compensation is one side of the issue and occupational disease is another very important part of the issue. I said we have to be doing far more within the government and within the board to understand the nature of occupational disease, so that 30 years down the road we are not being called upon to compensate the workers who are working in our industries today, in 1988.

1430

He raises the question of the meeting schedule of the Industrial Disease Standards Panel. I simply tell him that we are in the process of appointing a new chairman to that panel. The current chairman, Dr. Ham, has now seen fit to retire and we are in the process of doing that. That group is going to come together very soon and will have a very important part to play in resolving these sorts of issues.

Mr. Brandt: The matter that was raised by the minister at the rally today certainly surrounded the issue of industrial diseases. If I went on to say that he talked about the panel, perhaps I was in error, but certainly he did raise the question of the work being done by the ministry with respect to industrial disease and the concern he had in that respect.

We are also aware that he will be appointing Dr. Stefan Dupré tomorrow to fill the position of Dr. Ham with respect to the chairmanship.

I would ask the minister this question in regard to the concerns that we have about the work being undertaken by this panel: Why would it take him fully six months to find an appointment for that very, very important position; namely, the chairmanship of the Industrial Disease Standards Panel?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I really do not understand the point that the member for Sarnia is trying to get to in asking that question. Why did it take six months? Simply because six months passed between the time in which we realized that Dr. Ham was really insisting that, for a number of circumstances, he wanted to retire and finding and setting in place the terms and conditions under which his successor is going to take office. I do not think that is unreasonable under the circumstances.

Mr. Brandt: We on this side of the House think it is unreasonable, and the circumstances we think are unreasonable are that it would take six months to appoint a chairman to that particular panel -- recognizing the very important work that is being undertaken by that panel with respect to the identification and the recognition of certain industrial diseases that I recognize are very complicated and very difficult from the standpoint of his ministry and the Workers’ Compensation Board and the work they are undertaking to make sure that workers are in fact fairly dealt with by the system in this province.

Can the minister give us the assurance that as a result of these delays of some five to six months that have occurred from the time the last chairman left that position and the new chairman has been appointed -- and the fact that no meetings have been held -- workers will be fairly treated, fairly compensated and looked after in every sense of the word in spite of the delays that have occurred on that particular panel?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If you analyse the lead-in to the final supplementary of the member for Sarnia, you find, of course, the answer to his first supplementary, which was, “Why did it take six months?” In the lead-up to his second supplementary, he described -- and I agree with him completely -- how complex the issues are, how challenging the issues are and how important the issues are for the working people of this province. We live in a highly technological society where very sophisticated substances are used in the workplace.

The reason, of course, and he answers the question himself as to why it takes six months, is that it is very challenging stuff and you just cannot find someone overnight to take on that kind of responsibility. I think the fact we have found not only a successor to Dr. Ham but also a very eminent successor to Dr. Ham answers the final supplementary that he asked, and that is whether we are going to continue our commitment to workers of this province in the area of industrial disease. Of course we are.

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

Mr. Mackenzie: Back to the Deputy Premier, if I can.

The literally hundreds -- and there were more than 200 or 300 -- retirees and their wives who demonstrated at the Downtown Holiday Inn this morning are some of our finest, hardworking and caring citizens. They have made their contribution to this country. They worked for Massey all their lives and then, through corporate sleight of hand set up by the Blacks and the Rices and with the Deputy Premier’s approval, they are told by Varity -- a company they have never worked for in their lives -- that their health plans, drug plans, nursing home coverage and in some cases their pensions are no longer theirs after a lifetime working for this company. They have been treated like dirt. They do not deserve it.

Why is the Deputy Premier playing the role of a political apologist or handmaiden to these corporate bloodsuckers and why does he not do something about this situation?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Obviously, it is a matter that the honourable members opposite consider extremely important, as I do. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), being a spokesman for organized labour, must surely be aware that the Canadian Auto Workers, the union, made an agreement and signed an agreement with Massey Combines after the division, on which they were consulted --

Mr. B. Rae: What choice did they have?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: All right. They signed the agreement at that time and turned over the future of their pensions to Massey Combines. All right? I would just say to the members --

Mr. B. Rae: What choice did they have? Just blame the unions, that is your knee-jerk reaction every time.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The Leader of the Opposition, order.

Treasurer, any further comment?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I will not respond to the knee-jerk reaction from the Leader of the Opposition, other than to say that in my view the Canadian Auto Workers, like the government of Ontario and like the government of Canada, were making the best of a very difficult situation.

The fact was that all of these jobs and all of this investment would have been lost, along with all of the money that was put in there by the government of Canada -- $ 125 million -- and the money put in by the government of Ontario -- about $75 million. It was put in this investment with the idea that it was worth while, that we had confidence it was going to go forward. Unfortunately, we were wrong.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition, in his intemperate outburst, may feel that I am blaming the CAW when in fact it was simply making the best, as he pointed out, of a difficult situation, the same as the government in our attempt to keep those jobs in Brantford and Toronto and to keep the manufacturing capability of this well-respected firm going permanently.

Unfortunately, we and they were not successful, but certainly, when they made an agreement with Massey Combines, part of that agreement was to put the responsibility for the pensions and the other ancillary benefits with the company that employed them.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Rice and the members of the board who were up in that boardroom at that corporate board meeting today at the Holiday Inn were not suffering one bit. Not one single member of top management in those companies has suffered one bit or lost one cent as a result of this.

These workers have lost their very livelihoods, their pension plans, their health plans and their nursing home coverage. They have been to the Deputy Premier and they have been to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and they are not happy with the answers.

From talking to them, the best that I can see they got out of the Deputy Premier was that if people get a bill for a nursing home that is no longer covered and they thought it was, at least he will see that they do not get thrown out of the nursing home. They now have to do a census of all of their people to see if this is happening. Surely he knows that what has happened to these workers is wrong, that it is not right, that it is unfair and that he does have a role to play. What is he going to do about it in this particular case?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would like to say to the honourable member that the Ministry of Financial Institutions is examining carefully, under the pension guarantee plan and other responsibilities which we have, what we can do to see that whatever financing, whatever money is around that might legally accrue to the benefit of the people who have been dispossessed, is made available to them.

I am not answering to Mr. Rice or Conrad Black. I used to use their names in a similar vein, under other circumstances, and, as far as I am concerned, that is really an irrelevancy.

Mr. Wildman: Conrad Black considers you an irrelevancy.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: All right, but as far as we are concerned, the government is seeing that the laws are lived up to the very best that can possibly be put forward. The pension guarantees have already been established, as the honourable member would know.

TRUST COMPANY SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. It is his day.

There was a survey recently by Coopers and Lybrand Consulting Group that looked at service charges in the trust companies and found them generally in line with those of banks.

Given the current consumer concern over bank service charges, what is the minister doing, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), to address that concern in respect to trust companies operating in this province?

1440

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We have followed the issue as it has been presented in the House of Commons over the last few months, and we understand that the government of Canada is taking an initiative, perhaps divided between two ministries in that government as well, and that the matter is under review, but there is no comment or statement I can make at this time about it.

Mr. Runciman: It is somewhat passing strange, given the minister’s responsibilities for trust companies under his jurisdiction. It seems to me that is a role that he should be playing, a proactive role rather than a reactive role. The minister happens to be a nice guy most of the time, but I have to say that he has not been doing his job in respect of this portfolio -- and I have been saying that on a number of occasions -- based on the responses he gives to my questions.

Is he prepared to take an active role, sit down with the trust companies and do what is in the best interests of the consumers of this province?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Unfortunately, I cannot return the compliment to the honourable member, but I can say that the matter is and will be under review and we will see what is forthcoming.

GRAIN HANDLING AT THUNDER BAY

Mr. Kozyra: I have a question for the Premier. While the grain shipping industry is booming in Vancouver, many Thunder Bay grain handlers in Canada’s third-largest port are facing another summer of layoffs. Recent reports indicate that Vancouver is already running a million tons of grain ahead of last year’s record-setting pace. Firm commitments from the Canadian Wheat Board ensure sustained large volumes to the western port.

Since eastern grain shipments are vital to the Thunder Bay economy and have a major impact on the entire St. Lawrence Seaway operation, I would like to know what action the government is taking to increase shipments through Thunder Bay and to avert the layoff of more than 100 grain handlers.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member asks a question that has been quite troublesome to this government for some time, and I can assure him that I have corresponded personally with the Prime Minister on this matter. The Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) has been meeting regularly on the matter.

Our concern is that there is some suggestion that Thunder Bay may be dropped in its port status to a residual port and that in fact the current policies discriminate against grain handling through Thunder Bay.

It is a matter of federal responsibility. I cannot myself offer up the solution to my honourable friend, except to say that we are continuing to press the case of the Great Lakes as a major shipping artery, that Thunder Bay can handle grain transportation as cheaply as any other port, and we are trying to encourage policies from the federal government -- even if it subsidizes the farmer; that is fine -- that do not skew the transportation subsidy so that it discriminates against the Great Lakes in shipping lanes and Thunder Bay specifically.

We are concerned about this and have been for some time, and I can tell the member that we will continue to try to persuade the federal government that this is important to the economic wellbeing of the entire country.

Mr. Kozyra: The Premier touched on the residual port status, and the supplementary deals with that. Compounding the problem is a recent plan to ship grain from Churchill, Manitoba, to Sydney, Nova Scotia.

Is the Premier prepared to take action similar to last year’s, when he did write to the Prime Minister when Thunder Bay was threatened with downscaling to residual port status? What action will the Ontario government take to ensure that Thunder Bay, Canada’s third-largest port, gets its fair share of the grain export market?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have been assured by the federal government that it would not be reduced to residual port status.

That being said, it is something that bears monitoring all of the time. We view these developments with some concern, and we want to make sure that the action they come forward with meets some of the rhetoric or the assurances they are giving us.

Again, it is a matter in the federal jurisdiction. I will take this up again with the Minister of Transportation, the one responsible, to make sure we continue to press the case for the viability of the Lakehead grain-handling facilities, as well as the entire Great Lakes system.

HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and it concerns the blob that was found in the St. Clair River some years ago, a blob that the minister, I am sure, will recall was largely composed of perchloroethylene but did contain other carcinogenic chemicals.

Since the blob was found, Dow Chemical has been vacuuming it up and disposing of the residues in its dump sites. But a very serious allegation has been made by employees of Dow Chemical, an allegation that Dow is violating the ministry’s certificate of approval for its La Salle Road dump site and is using that site to dispose of such dangerous toxins as hexachlorobutadiene and hexachlorobenzene, both cancer-causing agents.

Can the minister tell the House what the monitoring by his ministry has shown at this particular dump site and whether he is aware of the allegations that have been made?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the members probably know, at the present time there is a labour dispute going on at Dow, so there has been some additional surveillance of the company on the part of the Ministry of the Environment. While Dow is continuing to operate with employees other than those who are out on strike, including management employees, it has people there who may not be as familiar as the regular workers with what is going on, for instance, in terms of the operation of pollution abatement equipment. For that reason, we are undertaking additional surveillance.

In terms of the question the member directed to me, I would be pleased to look into that. I know that our investigations and enforcement branch, when it receives any information of this kind that comes, for instance, to the Sarnia office, has two people assigned, in addition to the entire office there -- part of that component is two full-time investigations and enforcement officers who investigate as soon as they receive that kind of information.

Of course, our ministry will take whatever actions are appropriate in terms of charging, if it is necessary to press charges, or whatever other action is necessary. I appreciate the member raising the issue in the Legislature.

Mrs. Grier: I welcome those assurances but I have to say to the minister that the allegations which have come to me have nothing to do with the labour dispute at the plant. It is laboratory workers at that plant who have done their own testing and have found up to 500 parts per million of toxic chlorinated organics in samples of the waste going to the La Salle Road dump and have been so concerned that they have warned the truck drivers not to carry what in fact they have been asked to cart to that dump.

Can the minister commit his ministry to immediate testing of the dump, not only in the lab but also at the dump itself, and an investigation of what is happening in the lab? Will he also give us his assurance that he will indeed prosecute if he finds that Dow has in any way violated the certificate of approval which is very specific and which precludes any dumping of organic chemicals at the La Salle Road dump?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member can rest assured that all of those things can happen because it is our policy, under the new statutes which the member was part of, bringing in the new penalties legislation which was passed in December 1986, to utilize all of the provisions of that legislation which deal, as she knows, not only with penalties but with other ways of dealing with those particular problems in terms of investigations and so on. She also knows that we are in the process of increasing the number of investigations and enforcement branch staff available.

I would be happy to have a full investigation take place as these allegations are brought to my attention and we will undertake whatever actions are necessary. Always, when our investigations and enforcement branch determines that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and to lay charges, we are in the position to do that. We gather information from as many people as possible. It is always very helpful when the people in the plant come forward to provide that kind of information.

The member herself does a service by raising this kind of question in the Legislature and she has my full assurance that we will undertake as many of those activities as possible to ensure that this problem is overcome.

COUNSELLING SERVICE

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Changing Ways, the only London agency that provides remedial counselling for wife batterers, is facing shutdown. In 1986, the government made the commitment to end family violence. Prevention is the key to the government’s campaign against family violence. Yesterday, the government announced a $600,000 advertising campaign in part to prevent sexual assault and family violence.

1450

Changing Ways is the only service of its kind in London. If it is shut down, judges will lack the sentencing option of counselling. The alternatives are costly and ineffective: jail, probation and fines. Is the minister committed to the promise he made two years ago and will he support this program?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We are very much committed to the promise we made. My colleague’s announcement yesterday was part of a preventive program, which all members of this House have long indicated has to be part of our total package. Therefore, it is not appropriate to compare a preventive program with a curative program, as we are in this case.

I would point out to the honourable member that when I assumed responsibility for this ministry there were no funds at all, absolutely none, allocated to community preventive counselling, whether it was for the battered woman or her children or the offender. In 1985, the first year for which I was responsible, we put $1.2 million into that program. This past year, we have had $3.6 million in that program. That is about three times as much, and there is an additional amount of money going in this year. There has been a very significant increase.

With respect specifically to Changing Ways, that has been a three-way partnership all the way along. My colleague the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) has been responsible for those offenders who are referred by the courts and he has repeated that he will continue to be responsible for those. My ministry, along with the United Way, has been responsible for the voluntary admissions to the program.

Mrs. Cunningham: Curative programs and prevention programs, when it comes to family violence, as the minister has often stated himself, are equally important.

Here we have another 1986 promise, at that time supported by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who was the minister responsible for women’s issues and who cared about women’s issues at that time. One would think reducing the incidence of family violence is still important to the Attorney General and his government.

Programs are very important, much more important than advertising campaigns. The minister should not simply accuse us of asking him to spend more money. He and the Minister of Correctional Services should get their act together.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Mrs. Cunningham: What specific reasons, therefore, should I give to the citizens of London for the minister’s nonsupport and ultimate closing down of Changing Ways?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Our responsibility as a government is to allocate the resources we have as fairly and as broadly as we possibly can. The member will be aware of the fact that, prior to our forming the government, there were no resources there at all. We have multiplied those resources every single year.

My understanding is that the financial problems of Changing Ways at the present time are not due to a reduction in funding from my ministry. In fact, our funding has been increased. The funding from my colleague in Correctional Services has been increased. The problem is the way in which they are applying for continuing funding from the United Way.

I was advised recently that they had not even made a formal, proper application to United Way until yesterday, I think it was. I think it is reasonable for that process to continue. We are a participant in the program. We have been and we will continue to be, but we cannot be responsible for all of their funding resources. Like anyone else, we are a sharer.

YUGOSLAVIAN FILM FESTIVAL

Mr. Sola: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Presently, a Yugoslavian film festival is being held at the Ontario Science Centre’s film theatre. This festival has triggered a great deal of concern among Canadians of Croatian descent. People from throughout Ontario, from ridings represented by all three parties here, have contacted me to express their concern and anger over the manner in which their community is depicted in the films shown during the festival. They feel this is an example of hatemongering against their ethnic group.

In light of this, I would like assurances from the minister that the government of Ontario had no involvement in sponsoring, promoting or financing this festival.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I believe the issue the member has raised is a very sensitive, very important and critical issue to members of the Croatian community. He and I have discussed it. The Ontario Film Institute is a department of the Ontario Science Centre and the film theatre is the screening device by which films are shown. The Ontario Arts Council has an arm’s-length policy and so does the Ontario Film Institute. I suggest to the member, and I would certainly be more than willing to help him in his representation, that he make representation to the boards of both the Ontario Science Centre and the film institute.

In addition, what I am more than willing to do is to discuss with my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) the relationship, if any, of the screening of sensitive films such as the ones he has in question under his effort -- it is a joint effort -- to revise the Theatres Act. I certainly feel, as the member does, that any misrepresentation of the truth is something we should all be aware of and do something to avoid if at all possible.

Mr. Sola: In a written response, the ministry has stated that the film festival is supposed to “reflect the linguistic and cultural communities of Metro Toronto.” The Croatian community of Metro and all of Ontario rejects the inference that the subject matter presented in these films reflects the essence of its culture or its language. The films seem to reflect more the diabolical musings of a pathological mind, than the cultural experience of a people.

Throughout the films of the director Lourdan Zafranovic there is a direct and repeated association between Croatia and violence. Ontario’s policy of multiculturalism and “celebration of the diversity of our cultures” has nothing in common with the themes portrayed in these films. Therefore, neither Canada nor Ontario should have any connection, however remote, with an event such as this one --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Sola: -- which uses an ethnic minority for target practice in hate mongering. What can the Croatian community do to clear its name and how can a similar situation be prevented from recurring for any minority living in Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: As I indicated to the member, I would be more than willing to accompany him and arrange a meeting with the science centre and the film institute. I think one of the solutions would be to ask members of the Croatian community if they have a set of films which would portray, in their own words and their own artistic expression, the truth of the matter.

In addition, the member should know that the Ontario Film Institute is currently being reviewed by our ministry and I am sure the board of both the science centre and the film institute will take this matter into consideration. The member and I, I hope, will be meeting later and we can talk about some very positive action which he can then communicate to his community.

PREMIER’S ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. It is about apartheid in South Africa and the government’s policy in that regard. I wonder if the Premier can tell us why he is scheduled to be opening the conference entitled the Outdoor Advertising Association of Canada, when this association’s four-day conference will have a day particularly related to South Africa. It will have delegates and executives from South Africa and one of the topics to be discussed is, “Outdoor advertising controlled in legislation in South Africa.”

I wonder if the Premier is sincere in Ontario’s policy of advocating a boycott of goods that originate in South Africa, which is supposed to be the position of this government. We passed a resolution last week moved by his colleague the member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi) on the question of the boycott of South Africa. Can the Premier tell us why he is endorsing this conference by opening it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no idea what the member is talking about. If that is true, I am not going.

Mr. B. Rae: I will send over the article to him. Perhaps he does not know that, “A spokesman for Mr. Peterson’s office, Guy Côté, said yesterday that the Premier is scheduled to give a welcoming speech to the delegates on June 13, and there are no plans to bow out.” That is contained in today’s Globe and Mail.

I have received many phone calls subsequent to the news of this conference being held. The president of the Outdoor Advertising Association of Canada said: “There might be a group opposed to the killing of kangaroos, and they might demonstrate because Australia is also coming. The whole thing has absolutely no political overtones to it at all.”

1500

The Premier is down as speaking to this conference. He is down as somebody who is scheduled to present his greetings to the conference. It is being held at L’Hotel. There are many people who are profoundly offended by the participation of delegates from Canada at this convention. I ask the Premier why he is scheduled to speak at this convention.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, I speak at many things every week and I bring greetings to people who are coming here.

If the Leader of the Opposition is in fact accurate -- and I did not know about those things on the agenda -- I am not going.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister knows that the farm debt load has not changed appreciably in the last three years and that borrowing costs remain high. Can the minister explain why there was absolutely no notice given to farmers, farm organizations or even financial institutions that the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program benefits would be cut by 60 per cent this year, in spite of the biggest tax grab ever in the most recent budget?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As usual, the honourable member is wrong in what he says. Not only was a press release sent out back in 1986, but the brochure states very clearly that the OFFIRR program was a scheduled program and that it was to terminate after three years, although I must say it will have gone four years due to the fact that when we first formed the government, I introduced the initial OFFIRR program. Then I introduced the OFFIRR Plus program, which was a scheduled three-year program, outlined very clearly in the brochure that farmers received, and outlined very clearly in the press release that was sent out at the time we introduced the OFFIRR Plus program.

Mr. Villeneuve: The minister may be right. However, in events leading up to September 10 of last year, not one mention was made that the OFFIRR would be cut by 60 per cent.

On average, the net farm income -- and the minister knows this -- is about $21,000 for Ontario farmers, and it has been down in the last number of years, particularly for grain producers. Can the minister tell these producers what help they can expect, if any, after the biggest tax grab in the budget? What help can our farmers expect in replacement of the 60 per cent reduction in OFFIRR?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: When the honourable member asks these questions about the agricultural budget, he must do it with so much tongue in check that it is a wonder he has not bitten it off.

This government and this ministry has introduced, since we formed the government three years ago, well over 80 new programs for the farmers. We have increased the agricultural budget by 86 per cent since we took over from those critters over there. We have taken the old Tory budget from $324 million up to $563 million.

I have spoken to many farmers in the honourable member’s riding who have come up to me and have said that they have never seen a ministry introduce more meaningful programs than the Ministry of Agriculture and Food over the last three years. I do not know what farmers the member is talking to.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In the interest of the House perhaps proceeding more effectively, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture and Food could raise his voice a little bit. It is very difficult to hear him on this side.

Mr. Speaker: I am certain that he can.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, which might be of interest to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

In his statement last week in conjunction with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) regarding Temagami and the parks, the Minister of Natural Resources made a great deal out of the fact that he was following the June 1978 blue book, which states -- I do not know whether he is aware of this – “The master planning and development and management policies set out in this document are without prejudice to, and may be superseded by, any settlements of claims made between the Ontario government and the Indian bands in Ontario”

If this is the case and he is following this policy, is not time of the essence in resolving the Teme-Augama Anishnabai claim in the Temagami area so that we will actually know what is going on there with the land in question?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This question should more properly be put to the Attorney General, and I so redirect.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, the band under Chief Potts has commenced legal proceedings and its action has been tried and dismissed. They have appealed the matter, as they are entitled to do, to the Court of Appeal and that appeal is pending. I think it has been arranged by the court to be heard early next year.

During the pendency of that appeal a year ago, we made an offer in the neighbourhood of $30 million to settle the band’s claim, half of which was to be paid by the federal government and could be taken in either cash or in crown land.

The settlement proposal, which we hoped would be the basis for negotiations -- it was an opening proposal -- was rejected by the band because it wanted to complete its appeal first.

I understand that but I think it is a misfortune because I think it possible we could have made a settlement. In any event, I hasten to tell my honourable friend that that is the history. If the band wants to reopen negotiations with us at any time, they have only to say the word.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the Attorney General’s answer. Is he aware that Chief Potts has indicated that he is prepared to negotiate if there are no preset conditions? Also, the band has initiated an occupation of the Red Squirrel Road extension today and has indicated that it will stay on the road until the fall, if necessary, to prevent construction. If this is the case, would it not be advantageous and appropriate for the provincial government to make contact with the band and with Chief Potts to try to initiate new negotiations rather than waiting for the court action?

Hon. Mr. Scott: We made protracted efforts to get negotiations going. The last word I have from Chief Potts, for whom I have very high personal regard, was that they would not be prepared to meet with us and negotiate this land claim, notwithstanding our eagerness to do so. If my honourable friend is right and Chief Potts now wishes to negotiate, I am certain we will hear from him in due course. When I do, the member can rest assured that we will be glad to enter into those negotiations.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. We have been receiving complaints from the people of the Marathon-Thunder Bay area this year with respect to the deterioration of road conditions to an extent that it is considered to be a dangerous situation. Can the minister tell us what he has done to correct this situation and how much money he intends to spend this year in reconstruction of parts of Highway 17 and Highway 11 in that area?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: We are aware, because of high water levels, of substantial breakup of the pavement on Highway 17, particularly in the area of Hemlo where there are added and heavier trucks as a result of the mines there. Substantial design work is required to be done. Some remedial work will be done this year and substantial rebuilding and reconstruction is scheduled for early next year.

PETITIONS

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and, in particular, the Minister of Labour:

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

“That the minimum wage cover all workers in Ontario without exception and that the minimum wage in Ontario be adjusted with inflation to ensure that all working people can support their families with a standard of living that is above the poverty line.”

This petition has been signed by approximately 800 residents of Sault Ste. Marie. I have affixed my signature to it as well. I strongly support it and hope the government will act on it.

1510

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: I have a petition signed by 12 constituents of Etobicoke-Rexdale.

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercialization of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have signed the petition.

TRITIUM

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas one billionth of a gram of tritium can cause cancer; and

“Whereas the transport of heavy water containing tritium could be eliminated by building additional removal facilities at the Pickering and Bruce nuclear plants; and

“Whereas tritium can contribute to nuclear weapons if exported;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, oppose the transport of heavy water containing tritium and the export of pure tritium.

This petition contains 323 signatures of people from Oshawa, Bowmanville, Ajax and Whitby, and I am pleased to affix my name thereto as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT

Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the City of Etobicoke.

Motion agreed to.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: The bill amends the Landlord and Tenant Act to give tenants of residential units or residential complexes the right on a first refusal basis to purchase the unit or complex when the landlord proposes to sell it, demolish it or otherwise change its use. Tenants of residential complexes are required to assign the right to purchase to a nonprofit corporation, the members of which are tenants of the residential complex, a nonprofit housing corporation or a nonprofit co-operative housing project.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS / TROISIÈME LECTURE

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Les motions de troisième lecture des projets de loi suivants sont adoptées:

Bill 116, An Act respecting the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund;

Projet de loi 116, Loi concemant le Fonds du patrimoine du Nord de l’Ontario;

Bill 117, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved third reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education.

Mr. Jackson: I wish to say a few words before the final approval of Bill 125. It is ironic that we close this debate and move towards approval of this bill with so many loopholes still left open in the bill.

Members of the House should be aware that the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and myself together introduced more than a dozen amendments in committee last Wednesday which would have at least partly addressed some of the shortcomings of this piece of legislation. Most of them were solidly defeated by Liberal members of the committee that examined Bill 125.

For the benefit of the members present today, I would like to briefly comment on the issues our party tried to resolve in that committee concerning this bill. One of the major concerns the Progressive Conservative Party had was with the minister’s apparent unwillingness to live up to the intention of representation by population equitably in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

While the member for Scarborough West’s amendment to section 24 was a step in the direction of providing some sort of equity between the number of electors represented by separate school trustees and the number represented by public school trustees, the fact is that separate school trustees in Metro Toronto are responsible for many more electors than are their public sector counterparts. In some instances, they are responsible for as much as 60 per cent more representation.

I strongly believe that now the decision has been made to move to representation by population, the populations should be equalized in both sectors. It is for this reason that my party tabled an amendment which would equalize the population sizes between public and separate school trustees.

I was disappointed to learn that the Metropolitan Separate School Board was not offered the opportunity to have direct input on the specifics of Bill 125. But to be fair, even with the groups that were contacted for input, some of their comments and concerns were ignored.

When our party introduced an amendment that would have effectively allowed for the franchise of cottagers in the “electoral group” definition, we did so for a number of good reasons. First and foremost, the exclusion of cottagers will mean that significant areas of jurisdictions of school boards will now be without adequate trustee representation.

Second, while the move to representation by population is worthy, it has been pursued, at least to some extent, to the detriment of another form of equity, namely, that cottagers who pay municipal school taxes will now have no say in the use of those tax dollars. I am pleased that the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) made very strong and cogent arguments, both publicly and before other members of this House. Again, unfortunately, the Liberal and New Democratic members of the committee voted against the owners of cottage properties and the ratepayers of cottage properties in this province.

A third significant amendment put forward by our party would have pushed this legislation closer to its democratic ideal. While the member for Scarborough West’s amendment to provide for an Ontario Municipal Board appeal mechanism is worth while, it does not provide the right for individual citizens to appeal board decisions with respect to board size, so what we really have is a kind of half right of appeal, where citizens can appeal clerk decisions but they cannot appeal board decisions.

Fourth, I have some concerns with the arbitrary nature of this legislation, as well. It was interesting to hear the comments of the member for Ottawa-Rideau (Mrs. O’Neill) last week when my party introduced an amendment that would have allowed boards to change their size by a simple majority, as opposed to the two-thirds requirement outlined in this legislation.

The member told the committee that the reason this amendment should not pass was that the decision to change the size of a board was much too important to be made by a simple majority. Being a former trustee, the member should recognize that many boards make million-dollar budget decisions with simple majority votes. Also, she should know that the boards do have bylaw rights to deal with internal decisions and in the event they saw two thirds as necessary, they could probably pass a bylaw to that effect at some point in the future.

1520

The point is that school boards do not need Mowat Block lawyers making their rightful policy decisions. The minister should recognize that trustees are also elected and responsible public officials. But I am not surprised that the minister and his parliamentary assistant did not recognize the competence of school board trustees in the matter of Bill 125.

When our party introduced an amendment that would have ensured that municipal clerks were not saddled with the responsibilities of dividing up electoral trustee boundaries, a responsibility the clerks themselves told the minister they did not want, the Liberal majority on the committee soundly defeated the recommendations of the municipal clerks of Ontario. Just as boards can make their decisions in terms of board size, so too they decide on matters now in the hands of the municipal clerks.

For the record, my party supports the principle of representation by population in the election of school board officials, but only when the transition to such a system is handled smoothly and thoughtfully.

The minister should be aware that the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections very worthwhile recommendations of not making changes affecting municipal elections beyond January 15 in an election year has been violated. Hence, the process has not been handled with either concern for the affected parties and the general public or in an expeditious manner.

In short, this legislation should be postponed until the 1991 election so that the proper time can be given for consultation, and more important, so that members of this House and school boards across the province are not forced to deal with this faulty piece of legislation. Otherwise, Bill 125 is going to be the Ministry of Education’s version of the rent review legislative disaster known as Bill 51.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to make a few comments; I was not able to be here on Monday to talk a little more about this bill.

I would like to echo a few of the comments by the member for Burlington South only in terms of concerns about the process that has been undertaken here around the production of this bill and how much better it might have been if we had had a slower and more measured look at this legislation.

I am pleased, however, with the accommodation of the minister on a number of matters, especially the matter which was very important to me of an appeal mechanism for individuals to dispute the distribution of seats, ultimately before the Ontario Municipal Board if necessary, and not to preclude that kind of appeal, as in the initial legislation. I was pleased he was willing to entertain that amendment.

I think it is a little regrettable, again because of the time frame, that a separate amendment postponing the proclamation of this particular section until after the election had to be introduced, because there is a great concern that perhaps the whole process of the election this fall could be undermined because of the tight time frame we are under if the appeal mechanism were to go through at this point.

There is one small matter -- or it may seem like a small matter to the members here in the south -- that was not dealt with by the minister that I would like to draw attention to again, and that is the concern that in certain districts in northern Ontario, not many of them but in the northwest notably and on Manitoulin Island, there are situations where there are schools run by the public boards of education that have in fact a majority, in some cases a very large majority, of Indian students in those schools. In our present law, under the Education Act, there is a maximum of two representatives of the Indian band to be appointed to any board in Ontario.

I moved an amendment in the course of the committee hearings to suggest that increasing that number, if more than 50 per cent of the students were Indian, to four representatives of the band, would be an appropriate kind of step, reflecting again this notion of the population basis of our decisions now around the running of schools.

Unfortunately, this was a new idea which, thrown up in terms of a committee, is sometimes a little difficult for people to grab on to and to see as a fairly good interim step. By the time the bill has come back to us for third reading, it has not been possible for the government to check with those bands as to whether or not that would be seen to be an appropriate step to take at this time.

I would have hoped that it might have been and that this kind of representation would be seen by those bands, but that has not been the case.

The other strikingly difficult issue for me that was not accepted by the ministry, and we did not have a long debate about it in the committee hearings, was the matter of mandating open meetings of the boards of education to discuss this redistribution of their seats. We were trying to get through the amendments being proposed as quickly as possible, and when this was presented by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) we did not have a great deal of time to discuss the merits of this.

It strikes me that when we talk about changing the way the school boards are elected to increase the democratization by accepting representation by population, one of the things we should have done was to guarantee that no school board in the province could undertake a redistribution of its seats in private, because under the present legislation it would be possible for such a board to make its redistribution plans by private meeting of committee of the whole, and the public could be excluded from the process.

I thought it was a very helpful amendment that was proposed and I regret that was not acceptable to the minister. The minister’s position on this is that these are duly elected boards which can make these kinds of decisions themselves, that we should not mandate this to them and that they are ultimately responsible to their electors. While we were not able to make these arguments in great detail in committee, I would just suggest that we have any number of ample precedents by which we demand of councils and boards of education that certain aspects of their processes be handled in public. This would have been an excellent one to have added to that number.

That being said, I think it is one of those cases which is a little rare for a member of the opposition, that even in the case of a majority government, where the opposition numbers cannot guarantee any kind of motion put by an opposition member, we did succeed in getting through a number of amendments which have made this slightly better legislation than was proposed.

In termination, I would say that if we had more time for reflection, I think this legislation could have been an awful lot more suitable than it is, even with those few amendments that we were successful in bringing forward.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Just very briefly, this bill has had a very lengthy history. Its origins actually come from recommendations made by trustees in this province dating back to 1978, so I am not at all surprised by the comments of the member for Burlington South, given his party’s proclivity for procrastination on matters as important as this that affect very clearly and very specifically the basic principles of local governance.

The member also made some reference to the issue of double representation for those people in this province who are fortunate enough to own more than one place of residence. At the same time, he indicates his party fundamentally supports the principles of the bill, and yet I cannot think of anything that would more clearly violate those principles of representation by population, as opposed to representation by wealth, than an amendment that would in fact count those people in this province, who own more than one residence, twice for the purpose of school board elections.

In conclusion, I want to make reference to the comments of the member for Scarborough West, particularly relative to a suggested amendment with regard to native representation on boards of education. At the time that amendment came forward, I indicated it was a matter that can and should be considered, but only in consultation with those directly affected, and it was a matter that could and certainly would be addressed in further reviews of the Education Act.

I would like to thank the members of the standing committee on social development for their co-operation and their input. I do think this is a significant step forward in terms of local governance in this province, and I am delighted to see that this bill will in fact receive passage in plenty of time for everyone to make preparations for the forthcoming municipal elections.

Motion agreed to.

1530

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT

Hon. Mr. Wong moved second reading of Bill 82, An Act respecting Energy Efficiency.

Hon. Mr. Wong: As outlined in the speech from the throne in November 1987, the government is committed to new measures to encourage greater energy efficiency and conservation in Ontario. Last December the government introduced Bill 82, the Energy Efficiency Act. Today I am pleased to be introducing a motion in the House for second reading of the bill.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind members of the intent of the act. The Energy Efficiency Act is a logical extension of this government’s energy policy, a policy based on the cornerstone of energy efficiency and conservation. The act is an example of how Ontario is taking the Canadian lead in promoting more efficient uses of energy. The act is designed to do two things.

First, it will enable the government to introduce regulations to ensure that major appliances and other energy-using products sold in Ontario are tested for energy efficiency using acceptable and recognized procedures.

Second, the act will allow the government to introduce minimum standards of energy efficiency for these products, which include appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, clothes dryers and home heating equipment.

This legislation will provide Ontario with many benefits. Having it in place will ensure that consumers can be confident that the appliances they buy are energy efficient.

Since first reading of this bill last December, I have been pleased with the positive reaction of many groups, including utilities, manufacturers and consumer representatives. In a recent letter to me, the Consumers’ Association of Canada applauded “the provisions for a program to develop standards for measuring performance, certifying and labelling of equipment.” The president of the association welcomed the bill’s calling for the setting of minimum efficiency standards. She called the bill a major step forward in protecting consumer interests.

Another letter of support came from Ralph Nicol, chairman of the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association, which represents Ontario’s 315 municipal electric utilities.

My staff has also advised me that the principles and concepts of this bill have met with support from representatives of the Canadian appliance manufacturing industry, and I am pleased to be able to advise the House that we have also had strong support from Ontario Hydro.

As some members may know, the United States introduced similar legislation in March of last year. The US legislation covers 13 categories of appliances and heating and cooling equipment manufactured in or imported into the United States, and there is a significant amount of trade between Ontario and the United States in these products.

Ontario’s Energy Efficiency Act will ensure that consumers have a wide range of efficient products from which to choose. It will provide our appliance manufacturers with a level playing field. Early passage of the act will give them enough lead time to adjust their products in order to remain competitive. The act will also mean that Ontario will not become a dumping ground for inefficient American appliances.

In the long run, I believe the Energy Efficiency Act will lead to significant improvements in the overall efficiency of major appliances throughout the province.

With this act in place and with the government’s continued commitment to energy conservation and efficiency, I am confident that Ontario’s energy future will continue to be secure. With a solid energy foundation, we can ensure that Ontario’s future economy will be strong.

Mr. Charlton: It gives me pleasure to rise and start out my comments by saying that I and my colleagues will be supporting Bill 82. The bill basically sets out a reasonably good framework, mechanisms for inspection and penalties for noncompliance in terms of establishing energy efficiency standards for appliances in Ontario.

Having said that, there are a number of comments I would like to make that I do not think jibe precisely with the introductory comments which the minister has made. I understand the minister’s desire to have his ministry take credit for the leadership which this piece of legislation reflects. On the other hand, although he was not the minister at the time, and I grant him that understanding, neither the Ministry of Energy nor Ontario Hydro during the course of the select committee hearings two years ago provided any leadership on the issue of appliance efficiency standards.

Hydro played a very sceptical role throughout and the ministry unfortunately could provide us with little or no positive instruction about how to approach this question. The committee in fact had to get most of its assistance from outside presenters and expert witnesses whom the committee paid.

That speaks to two of the things that come to mind as a result of this bill. One is that if the Ministry of Energy had in fact really been providing the leadership on this issue, we would not have had to wait a year and a half to see the bill introduced in the House. Again, I grant to the minister the fact that the bill was introduced fairly quickly after his appointment last fall, but as I said at the outset, this piece of legislation is a framework. It does not even contain the efficiency standards. This framework could have been put in place fairly quickly two years ago, after the select committee on energy recommended that this be done.

My other comments relate more specifically to the legislation and how this piece of legislation will operate. As I have said, Bill 82 sets out a structure, a framework under which we will impose appliance efficiency standards. It also sets out how we will monitor that through inspections and so on, and it sets out penalties for noncompliance. The bill does not deal directly with the question of efficiency standards, only how they will be set. The regulations, therefore, will make or break this piece of legislation.

I guess what I am saying is that it is fair for the minister to stand up and say that he believes this is a positive piece of legislation, and I concur that at this point I also believe it is a positive piece of legislation, but if it is not followed up with the most appropriate work in terms of defining the efficiency standards in the regulations, then the legislation itself will mean little or nothing.

In addition to that, and I have discussed this privately with the minister, if we do not also create an automatic review mechanism to ensure that whatever efficiency standards we put into the regulations initially are reviewed and updated on a regular basis, it will be a one-shot step in the right direction and then we will likely founder, like we have done on so many other pieces of legislation, waiting another 20 years to review those standards again.

I am suggesting it is extremely important that in the regulations we create a mechanism which will cause an automatic review of the standards that are initially set, on a regular basis and in some kind of public forum, so that we can understand more clearly each step of technological improvement which is occurring and so that we can ensure that the standards we are updating from time to time are the best and the most useful in terms of energy efficiency in Ontario.

1540

Having said all of that, I applaud the minister for finally ensuring that this legislation comes forward for discussion and for vote on second reading. I hope the minister can assure us as well that the bill will move very quickly through second and third readings so that we can get on with the implementation of standards, because as the minister has suggested, we are still going to have to go through a period of adjustment while the industry in this country gets itself in shape to comply with whatever standards are imposed by the regulations.

Mr. Runciman: I want to indicate at the outset that my party will also be supporting the bill. I do not have any real criticisms of the legislation. I pose a number of questions that I would hope the minister might respond to.

He mentioned the comparable legislation in the United States and indicated that it applied to 13 areas. Just looking at the legislation, this covers 14. I am wondering which one is different in terms of the Ontario jurisdiction versus the US and what implications that might have for cross-border traffic.

Obviously, the minister indicated when he made reference to the cross-border trade and the US legislation, and I am assuming that the Energy Efficiency Act is precisely comparable to the legislation in the US, that there are no significant differences or any differences that may indeed create difficulties in terms of cross-border traffic.

I would like to know also what the implications of this act are in terms of other jurisdictions within Canada. Are all the other Canadian jurisdictions enacting comparable legislation or are we going to be faced with some difficulties, which are certainly not unusual for this country in terms of interprovincial trade and the construction of artificial barriers to discourage trade between provinces?

Perhaps I am inferring too much from the tone of the minister’s remark when he mentioned, “We have the support of Ontario Hydro.” He sounded almost thankful for that. I can have some sympathy with that, based on the crown corporation’s submission to the Ontario Energy Board with respect to free trade, which is in direct contradiction to the position taken by the government. I can see that perhaps at least in one small issue he has the support of Ontario Hydro, the largest crown corporation in this province.

Thankful for small blessings, perhaps; I do not know. I guess we have been encouraging him and his government not to take a cap-in-hand approach with respect to that utility. I would like to really know what it means for this piece of legislation to have the support of Ontario Hydro. What was he indicating to the House when he made that comment? What are the implications of having it or not having it?

Finally, we would like to know what the cost implications of this legislation might be. I am assuming the minister and the ministry have taken a look at what the implications might be for producers and consumers. We would also like to know what the implications might be in terms of the taxpayers, and I am thinking especially in respect to the authority given by the bill for the minister to designate inspectors for the purpose of the act.

Are we talking about a number of permanent employees, new civil servants who are going to be coming on board in the ministry? If so, what are we talking about in terms of numbers, full-time and part-time, and what are the implications in terms of cost to the ministry?

Obviously, when we are introducing any new legislation, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the government has reviewed the implications of that particular piece of legislation.

I would appreciate the minister’s response to those points of concern and again indicate our support for the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Wong: First of all, I would like to say that I appreciate the co-operative and constructive comments that have been made by the members from the two parties who have spoken this afternoon.

In response to the specific points that have been raised within that co-operative spirit, I would like to say that on the subject of the efficiency standards and how important it is to get the actual specifications and standards in place following this framework of legislation, I totally agree with that, as minister, and remind all parties who are interested in this legislation that the standards will be set in a consultative process with manufacturers, with various consumer groups and with the standards setting organizations. In other words, there will be full consultation to make sure that such standards are made in a practical manner, as opposed to a theoretical manner.

With respect to the suggestion that some kind of automatic review mechanism be put into place to make sure that, as modern advancement and changes take place in the manufacturing of appliances, the efficiency standards are up to date with the times, that would appear to be a reasonable suggestion and I would certainly take that under advisement.

With respect to the comment about the difference between the new Ontario legislation and the US legislation, I have the two lists here and I would be more than pleased to send over the two lists to the honourable member. One category that we have is number 14, which is a catch-all, prescribed appliances and products, which I think makes our act perhaps a little more complete, because there may be some appliances to which we wish to apply these new efficiency standards above and beyond the ones that have been specified above in numbers 1 to 13, inclusive. I would be more than pleased to provide this information to the member who asked.

With respect to cross-border trade, depending on which appliance we are talking about, the percentage could be significant. In the case of some appliances, perhaps 15 or 20 per cent of the output of a particular plant in the United States might be devoted to the Canadian and also to the Ontario market. We are knowledgeable and, let us say, cognizant of this fact.

What is important here, I think, is to make sure we have timely passage of our legislation so that at the time the US legislation is in place, ours will have been in place effectively at the same time to avoid, as I say, the so-called dumping of inferior products, products that do not meet our standards, in the future.

With respect to other jurisdictions in Canada, it is my understanding that Ontario is currently the province that has shown some leadership and lead with respect to this kind of legislation and that other provinces are in various stages of considering similar legislation. In addition, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the people at the federal level are also watching very closely and carefully what we are doing here because this is something we should be looking at for all of Canada.

1550

With respect to the remark concerning Ontario Hydro, I was simply making the point that in terms of the clear policy directions of this government in the energy field, this government made clear in the throne speech, and since then in various public announcements, consultations and discussions with that corporation, that this was the direction we felt the government and the province should be heading in. Rather than receiving, let’s say, a negative reaction and a lack of co-operation, I am simply pleased to report that we have been getting a response from Hydro that is consistent with government policy and directives.

With respect to the cost implications, I have a dollar figure here pertaining to fiscal 1988 of $550,000. I cannot tell the member at this time exactly how that breaks down, but that helps to provide an order of magnitude.

On the further question of the number of people who will be employed by the passage of this legislation, it is my understanding that we are anticipating perhaps five or fewer inspectors, but I will certainly be in touch with the honourable member who asked the question should the facts be different or should that number be clarified.

I guess the other thing I would like to say is that when we talk about taxpayers and consumers, I think the important thing to remember is that when we have more energy-efficient appliances, appliances that meet our standards, there may be a few extra dollars that are paid out for these better appliances. However, if, for example, an additional $20 was paid out for this better appliance, the energy savings would result in a payback or recovery of that extra investment, usually over a few years. After that, of course, all additional annual savings would be an ultimate benefit in dollar terms to the consumer. From a financial standpoint, it certainly makes a lot of sense.

I would like to add to what I said a moment ago with respect to what other governments in Canada are doing. I have a note here from my staff that at the present time, no other provincial governments have taken this kind of action. Ontario accounts for nearly half of the total Canadian market and produces more than half of the appliances. Also, a reminder to myself and to honourable members: The federal government has the Energuide program in place, which provides energy efficiency labels for six appliances, specifically refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, dryers, dishwashers and ranges.

In conclusion, let me say that this may not have been a totally comprehensive and complete answer to the questions that have been raised. I know that we will have time, as we move towards final passage of this legislation, but in closing I would like to say once again that I appreciate the constructive comments that have been made by members opposite. I look forward to working together in order that we can make this a good piece of legislation for Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved second reading of Bill 100, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Hon. Mr. Ward: In February of this year, I announced in this House that the 1988 grant regulations would include the updating of equalization factors for the calculation of municipal apportionments.

As members will know, school boards are currently financed by a grant contribution from the province coupled with a local contribution or apportionment from the municipality or municipalities supporting the board. Each municipality within the jurisdiction of a given school board has its own unique assessment system, and for this reason it is necessary to adjust differing assessment bases to a common level so that school board costs can be shared fairly and equitably.

As I stated in February, this common or equalized assessment has, until this year, been based on an equalization factor that adjusted local assessments to their 1969 values. As a result, equalization factors have not fairly reflected economic changes that have occurred since 1970.

To correct this situation, we have begun the process of updating of equalization factors so as to ensure a fairer distribution of education taxes among ratepayers in different municipalities. In order to minimize the impact of this process in any one year, we have begun a phase-in of the new factors. This year, we have moved one fifth of the way towards adopting current property values as a basis for apportionments. We have also provided a five per cent cap on the tax impact for any municipality in any given year.

Bill 100 accompanies our updating of the equalization factors. Clearly, in moving to the use of current factors, we must provide municipalities with a degree of certainty with regard to apportionments during the phase-in period. With this bill, we will therefore modify the appeal process with regard to apportionment currently available to municipalities under the terms of the Education Act.

With the amendments included in Bill 100, appeals will be directed to arbitration by municipal treasurers only on questions of error or omission in the assessment data or in their calculation and where the provisions of the regulations under the Education Act have not been applied. This modified appeal process will ensure a fair and orderly phase-in of updated equalization factors. It will also remove the uncertainty of potential arbitration rulings that could award some municipalities large adjustments at the cost of other municipalities.

In the meantime, as we phase in updated factors, all municipalities will move towards fairer tax apportionments that will be based on updated property values.

We believe that in phasing in the use of updated factors, we have taken a responsible step to correct a situation that has been left largely unattended since 1970, and I hope all members will join me in supporting this initiative.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Are there any comments or questions with respect to the remarks by the minister?

Mr. Sterling: I would like to ask a couple of questions and use the procedures in order to do that.

Would the minister confirm, first, how the actual formula is arrived at, and second, how in fact is it put into place? Is it put into place by regulation, by order in council or a by cabinet order?

The other question I have relates to the divisional board set up that is made up of the treasurers of the various municipalities that would comprise part of that board. Does a majority vote of the treasurers carry the day with regard to that divisional board, thereby putting into effect a situation where a number of treasurers from very small municipalities could in fact control the decision of the board.

1600

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will not repeat the questions that are raised by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), which I also would like to have answers to, but I would be interested in the notion of the principle involved in moving away from an appeals mechanism before the minister has completed a phase-in of his new system. Even if the new system were a just system, it seems to me some intermediary steps being ultimately phased in would be a wise course of action.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Just very briefly in response to the concern as to when the apportionments are calculated and how they are transmitted, they are transmitted during the course of the disbursement of the general legislative grant regulations, which traditionally occurs in February or March of each year.

I think it is important to look at this whole issue in its historical context. The member for Carleton will recall that back in 1969 the government of the day moved away from assessments being done at the local municipal level, I think with great fanfare and with an honest intent to move towards significant property tax reform in this province over the course of the next 10 or 15 years.

At great public expense, assessments were done from one end of this province to the other by the Ministry of Revenue. Unfortunately, though, that whole process got off the rails. Different municipalities opted into moving towards market value assessment and away from their old individual assessment. What we have is a situation in which any number of assessment bases were established from municipality to municipality in this province. Therefore, it was something less than an objective exercise in determining an apportionment, whether it was for school board purposes or for upper-tier, county or regional purposes. By bringing in the updated, equalized factors, using the data that are available clear across this province on the basis of those ministry --

The Acting Speaker: The minister’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am sorry; I guess I will have to do that in wrap-up.

Mr. Sterling: I have no objection to giving the minister another two or three minutes to respond both to my concerns and those of the member for Scarborough West.

The Acting Speaker: May I have unanimous consent of the House to allow the minister to complete his response?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ward: My apologies, Madam Speaker. I guess I should have done it in wrapup. I was not paying attention to the two-minute time frame.

As I was saying, the data are now available. Since we have brought in the new equalized factors, I think we can say with certainty that this is now an objective and empirical exercise. Everyone knows with some assuredness the accuracy of the assessment information. It does not have the flexibility of local property assessors making some determinations on a municipal basis. Therefore, the whole matter very much becomes one of number crunching in terms of the information that is used to determine which municipality pays what share of the local school board levy.

In terms of the actual process and the role that the treasurers play, it is the same role they have played over the course of the last many years in determining apportionments for trustee representation and municipal representation. It is the same role they have played over the years for determining county or regional apportionments. When it comes down to saying precisely whether or not a vote is actually taken, I cannot respond directly to the members on that. As far as I know, it is a matter of an agreement among the parties and is very much a straightforward mathematical exercise.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There are times, as a critic, when you have to deal with matters that are certainly not designed to deal with your particular mental aptitudes. I would not want to try to enumerate mine -- it being a very long list, it would take too much time in the House, of course -- but there are certain I have difficulty with, and number crunching is not necessarily my forte. But I do want to make a few comments about this bill, which will be largely incomprehensible to most people watching the proceedings today and perhaps to many members of the House as well.

The minister has tried to put this matter into a historical perspective and I thank him for that. I think it is helpful for us, but I think a number of questions still remain which we need some answers to, and not just as opposition critics but as representing and trying to represent in the House the views of some major organizations in Ontario; in this case, specifically the Association of Municipalities of Ontario which belatedly, I must say, has contacted the critics and other members of the House and said it has major concerns with this legislation and would like a chance to come before the House to be able to express its opinions.

As a result, to enable that organization representing all the municipalities of Ontario, we will be suggesting that this be ordered out to committee -- one would presume the standing committee on social development -- to find the time, perhaps in the next week or two, when we could have a day’s hearing during which groups like AMO may come in and have the kind of discussion with the minister about whether this is timely, whether it is just a matter of straight number crunching or whether there is still a need for a right of appeal for aggrieved municipalities or boards that feel their assessment has been inappropriate.

There have not been many cases of appeals under the existing legislation, but there are some recent ones one can refer to. I was hoping that perhaps in the wrapup, the minister could talk a little bit about how, for instance, a recent situation in Nepean, as I recall, is avoided under the new system, and why that need to appeal to the OMB would no longer be there for them. Using a particular example might make it easier for some of us who are not accountants, of mind and practice, to be able to understand what is going on here.

The principles that have applied in the past have been that where you have small municipalities which, through a regional board, have apportionments of money to them to run their various school boards, a particular school board can complain, first, to that divisional board about the way the apportionment has been done and hope there is redress for its grievance; failing that, it can go to the Ontario Municipal Board, take its grievance there and hope the OMB will agree with its position and change the apportionment.

What seems to be taking place is that we are in the middle -- not even in the middle -- we are at the first steps now of a major change in the way the system of apportionment takes place, which is supposedly going to reduce the amount of local flexibility that is there and have a formula that takes into account the kinds of concerns all municipalities would have in terms of how these boards receive their moneys.

But the minister himself has said today that we are only partially into the process of that this year. With the new announcement of the general legislative grants early this spring, we now are going to be dealing with one fifth of the market value component, as he was saying, and a five per cent factor which is being brought in, presumably to be changed in its interpretation over the next number of years.

My question to him which he did not really have time to respond to in his two-minute extended allocation was that here we are at the beginning of that change of process, and at this stage, in 1988, I am not clear how much local input there still is on the assessment and apportionment factor and how much of it is now carried so much by the new regulations that if somebody wanted to appeal, he would in fact be appealing against the provincial government’s opinion on this rather than any determination by local treasurers.

1610

If you look at the legislation, which is very short legislation, the treasurers are still being given powers in terms of apportionment, because there is a right to appeal to them about errors of omission or of calculation in the assessment. There is, therefore, admitted to be some sort of role continuing.

I guess what I need to know today, as we go into the committee stage, is: In 1988, how much of a role is there? Is there still the situation where the determinations of apportionment could be so extreme that, for instance, a very small municipality in a collection of municipalities, which has a very low tax base or has a very high unemployment rate in that given year, might feel that it is sufficiently aggrieved that it would like to appeal and it will have no place to appeal, or are we far enough into this new mechanism that is being developed that that will not be the case? Can the minister tell us where we are in this process at the moment, how long it is going to take to complete, and does he think that in fact some temporary bridging amendment is important in order to protect that basic principle of appeal that we would all support in this House?

The other thing I am not clear about is, after the new equalization formula is completed, whether it is possible that the mathematical variances which have been developed are still going to leave some municipalities with a grievance, still make them feel that, because of their own particular circumstances, whatever they might be, they are not being dealt with fairly under the new provincial regulations and no longer want to direct their appeal at all to the local treasurers or to the Ontario Municipal Board about decisions of the treasurers, but in fact want to appeal to the government or to some body about the provincial government’s jurisdiction. Is that a possibility? If that is a possibility, what kind of appeal mechanism does the minister see as replacing the old-style appeal which would now reflect the reality of the new equalization formula that the government has developed?

We will be opposing this bill until we are certain, after these hearings with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, that its concerns are being addressed by the government. At that time we will be reconsidering our position as we come back to third reading, but we are anxious that we not proceed to take away an appeal mechanism, that very basic process which is so crucial in a democratic government and community like our own, without understanding that somebody’s rights may be being curtailed.

As a result, we will be opposing the second reading of this legislation and referring it to committee, and we will be interested to see how the interests of AMO and the government can be accommodated through amendment, if necessary, or just through explication, if that is all it is going to take.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to respond to Bill 100, but I am a little less than pleased with its content. I would first like to address what we in our party consider to be the fundamental problems of the premise of this bill. I would then like to address some of the specific concerns we have in relation to the absence of an equitable appeal of municipal school tax apportionments affected by Bill 100.

For the benefit of those members not apprised of the city of Nepean’s recent appeal of the distribution of its school taxes across several area municipalities, let me very briefly say that the impetus for this bill is the result of an OMB decision that provided for an equitable distribution of municipal school taxes across a number of municipal jurisdictions within the Carleton Board of Education.

The city felt that its share of apportionment was unfair and imposed an undue burden on its ratepayers. Consequently, they introduced an appeal to the OMB which they subsequently won. That was a victory for the equity they were seeking and my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) will, in a moment, briefly explain the details of that case more fully.

Suffice it to say that the Ontario Municipal Board, in that case, as in potentially many other cases, provided an independent hearing for all the parties involved to air their concerns over the equitability of apportionment. The long and the short of it is that the system worked. It was working and it continues to work. But Bill 100, on the other hand, will take away this right of appeal. Their only avenue now is to go the route of an appeal to the divisional board which is really a second-best solution.

Currently, at least one city is in the process of preparing a freedom-of-information request to find out what the new regulations used by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) for apportionment adjustments will really mean and we hope that he will be forthcoming with that information.

Aside from the obvious difficulty this government has had with providing information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, if this city does receive word on the new assessment factors, it will have no right of appeal to the OMB on the basis of an equitable distribution of its 1988-89 apportionment.

I cannot understand the rationale for denying them this right. In essence, the Ministry of Education has granted itself the authority to force a school board to apportion and thereby compel a municipality to levy local taxes on any basis the ministry pleases without review or appeal to the OMB.

Some would argue that the loss of this appeal is not that significant. In fact, this right has been used quite frequently. However, this puts more force in the direction of keeping the right of appeal in the current legislation.

In the past, the ministry has done fairly well in distributing the share of apportionment equitably across the province. The relatively few times that the OMB has been utilized for appeals of this nature is testimony to that. However, as members of the House have pointed out, some members more than others, the Ministry of Education has been known to err before.

Let me also say that the potential for ratepayers to wish an appeal to be launched on their behalf is now greater than ever before, with more and more people recognizing this government’s failure to live up to its commitment to shoulder a greater share of educational costs as it has promised in the last two election campaigns. The potential for irate ratepayers to voice their discontent to the OMB has increased exponentially.

I believe that the current system of apportionment appeal, which allows for an independent body to decide questions of equity and apportionment, is worthy of support. Let me also say that the Progressive Conservative Party cannot support Bill 100 in its present form. Hence, as the minister stated in his commitment in this House to the committee system, just last week he agreed publicly that the process worked well and, therefore, I will be calling upon him to refer this bill to the standing committee on social development.

I hope he will support that commitment and participate in what would be, I believe, brief and short hearings, but would in fact be fair to both the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area that have expressed a specific desire to come before a committee of this House to respond to this bill.

I appreciate that if we can proceed in this fashion, we may be able to resolve this matter in the next couple of weeks. I think it is important that we listen to the concerns of the boards and to AMO and allow them to maintain their appeal mechanism, which past boards have enjoyed. We hope that, in the future, they will be able to as well.

1620

Mr. Sterling: I am pleased that one of the people who has had the most extensive experience with this whole concept and piece of legislation is here with us in the member’s gallery: Dr. Hal Hansen, the chairman of the Carleton Board of Education. Dr. Hansen was kind enough to copy a letter which he had sent to the minister early in May regarding Bill 100, and I am going to talk a little bit about it.

While this bill seems to be rather innocuous in terms of its size and the understanding of it, actually, I guess if the taxpayers of Ontario looked at a piece of legislation like this in view of the substantial property taxes they pay each year for our education system, there might be a significant interest in what we are doing this afternoon.

This bill really has more to do with municipal governments in a lot of ways than it does with the education system, because what Bill 100 does is tell the property taxpayer how large a cheque he is going to have to write out each year for the education part of his taxes. In the area I represent, this represents a significant portion of my very own tax bill, and for the 27,000 households I represent in Carleton, it also represents a significant portion of their tax bills.

I would like to thank the minister with regard to the settlement of the dispute which arose over an appeal relating to the 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 apportionments in the Ottawa-Carleton area. After some pleading with the minister on both my part and the part of other members of the Legislature from that area on both the opposition side and the government side, the ministry did come forward with some $4 million to settle old accounts. Really, I think Bill 100 springs out of the problem that arose as a result of those appeals, particularly by the city of Nepean and the township of Goulbourn. I do not represent the city of Nepean -- I see the member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler) is here -- but I do represent the township of Goulbourn.

What happened in that particular case is that the city of Nepean and the township of Goulbourn sat down after looking at the piece of the pie they were required to pay in relation to the Carleton Board of Education’s annual levy and said: “This isn’t fair. The formula which the Ministry of Education has put forward is not fair to our property taxpayers. Therefore, we’re going to appeal.”

They first went to this divisional board which is made up of the treasurers of the various municipalities. Those treasurers could not get their heads together and say, “We will cut a deal in such a fashion that will be fair to the township of Nepean, the township of Goulbourn, the city of Gloucester, the township of Cumberland, the township of Osgoode, the township of Rideau and the township of West Carleton.” Those are all the municipalities involved in the Carleton Board of Education.

They took it the next step, which was an appeal to an independent body, the Ontario Municipal Board. The OMB, as pointed out by Dr. Hansen, being an independent body, found -- I want to quote, and he was kind enough to put it in his letter:

“The board finds that the method used in the regulations does not produce equal taxes on equal valued property, nor is it possible, under the existing assessment and taxation procedures, to achieve this result on all property classes in all municipalities. The board, however, does accept Mr. Stamm’s view that the first priority of the Ministry of Education is to achieve equity among residences.”

What happened in that case was that we had, on one side of the road, in one municipality, a three-bedroom bungalow which was of equivalent value to a three-bedroom bungalow on the other side of the road but, each one being in different municipalities, one paid $800 a year more in property taxes as a result of the apportionment formula the Ministry of Education had in effect. So the inequity or the unfairness was self-evident. The board saw that and said, “There has to be a remedy here.” They instituted the powers under the existing legislation to remedy the situation.

Now what we have is the Ministry of Education facing the situation and, I believe, creating a better formula now than was in place before. I give them credit for that and for their approach in terms of implementing that over a number of years. One fifth at a time over five years is a good approach too because it has more effect on a number of small municipalities than the larger municipalities. Therefore, it kicks quite a hole in the township tax levy in the case of the small municipalities, and particularly the township of West Carleton.

Notwithstanding the minister arguing that he now has a fair formula -- and I think he probably does have a fair formula -- if it is indeed fair, then why worry about a mechanism which allows municipalities that feel aggrieved to go to the OMB? Under the present law, as I understand it, even if the kickout is wrong, the municipality still must come up with the money in any given year.

It is not the case that the Carleton Board of Education would be issuing a levy based on the formula as it understood it and not getting paid by the municipality that felt aggrieved and wanted to appeal. They would still get their money to run the schools, etc., and the municipality would have to pay. It is not a situation of a municipality being put in a position by allowing it to appeal to stall the process and not pay its bills. They have to pay their bills under the present law. But what this legislation does is strip away the right to appeal to an independent tribunal to have the matter settled.

The trouble with the divisional board process is that, first of all, it can consider only the formula and the mathematical calculations. They cannot attack the equity or the fairness of the formula that is put there. They cannot say, “In our situation, because of our assessment schemes or whatever, this formula is not fair.” They cannot go then to the Ontario Municipal Board and make that argument before an independent board. The treasurers, under the divisional board, can really only make a decision, as far as I know or I understand, if it is a unanimous decision by all the treasurers who are sitting around that particular table, if they agree.

This is not important only in the formal sense of the right to appeal. What this act, in terms of its practical effect, will also do, in my humble opinion, is not put in front of the divisional board a reasonable bargaining tool for an aggrieved board. My feeling is that if there is not even a chance of a threat of an appeal to the OMB, a treasurer who feels that what has been done is unfair, or even that the calculations are unfair, will not get a fair hearing because he does not have the negotiating tool to go that next step.

That is a minor point in terms of what has gone on, but that is what has happened in the past. If you look back in the history of the case of the city of Nepean and the township of Goulbourn, in terms of appealing, I think you will find the treasurers did try to accommodate the concerns of Nepean and Goulbourn over a period of time, but they finally ended in frustration in 1984 and that led to the appeal. That was not when the frustration started. It started much earlier than that -- I believe in the early 1980s. I could be corrected on the timing in that particular part.

The fact of the matter is that those negotiations, in my view, will not take place when you strip away the final appeal.

1630

I must bring forward that the municipality I represent, the township of Goulbourn, which did appeal successfully under the old rules and I think received in the neighbourhood of $300,000, which was significant for a municipality of approximately 10,000 or 11,000 people, has asked me to pass along a resolution to the House that a municipality must be allowed to appeal its apportionment if, in its opinion, undue burden exists and that an independent agency such as the Ontario Municipal Board should be available to hear and determine such an appeal.

Quite frankly, in terms of the minister’s striking of the new formula, I feel he is on the right track as far as that particular formula goes, but I still challenge him with regard to the fact that in some cases there will be inequities that are seen within the formula he has put down. For instance, those inequities are going to be there next year.

While I guess his ministry has been asked to provide figures or calculations as to how this would break out under the Carleton Board of Education, I can only point out that if you take a three-bedroom bungalow in the various municipalities that come under the jurisdiction of the Carleton Board of Education -- I mentioned them before; I think there are eight of them -- you have taxes ranging from a low of $670 a year to a maximum of $1,115 a year. I might add that the maximum comes in the riding of the member of Nepean, not my own riding, so I am speaking on behalf of his residents in particular regarding the inequities involved in this piece of legislation.

I am speaking also for the city of Nepean to have the right to appeal on the equity of the formula as well. I hope the member for Nepean will vote along with my party in opposing Bill 100 and protect the property taxpayers in Nepean. I am sure he will. He is smiling; I do not think he will do that then. I do not know if he is going to speak. I think he might try to rationalize himself out of this position.

At any rate, I think it is important because the fight by the city of Nepean and the township of Goulbourn was long and hard. I think the inequities that were evident in the formula before are going to be done away with, but there is no guarantee of it. As I understand it, the formula is set at the whim of the Minister of Education, so whatever he thinks is fair is fair. There are no clear legislative guidelines that say the minister must make the formula in accordance with these rules. While I would never impute ill motive to any minister in terms of doing that, because he would be in hot water if he tried to do something that is grossly unfair, there could be a situation where, unintentionally, a formula could be put in that particular situation.

The Carleton Board of Education, which was the focal point of this particular issue of Bill 100, put forward the following resolution, which I will read with the consent of the chairman, who was just here and gave me his consent:

“That the Carleton Board of Education request that Bill 100 be revised to allow an independent agency to hear an appeal against an inequitable and unfair apportionment of school board levies.”

Therefore, we will no doubt be moving amendments in the committee, where I assume the government is going to support its own piece of legislation, but we feel, quite frankly, that this issue goes to the heart of this legislation, so we are unable to give it our approval on second reading but we will certainly act in a very constructive manner, along with the ministry, to revise this otherwise good bill that has a principal flaw in it.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I do very much appreciate the interventions of the honourable members of the opposition and the very good questions they raise.

I think it is important to point out, though, that in terms of a lot of the issues that have been raised relative to the municipal tax burden in terms of the funding of education, concerns over variances in assessment on a property-to-property basis, while they may be interesting, I do not think they speak specifically to the legislation that is before us. I think the members have correctly identified that the major thrust is in fact the updating of the equalization factors and that this has been a necessary component of that exercise, but I should caution the members to note carefully that in bringing in the updated equalization factors this year, we did so in such a way that they could be phased in.

The reasons for that, I hope, are abundantly clear, because there is no denying that any change in equalization factors does have impacts. It does represent a shift from one property taxpayer to another, and the whole premise of moving in that direction, as the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) will know, having been here many, many years when the issue of property tax reform was under consideration, is that those shifts are intended to create greater equity.

Certainly we could have moved to using the new assessment data and the new equalization factors all at once in one given year as it were, but it was felt that there was a danger in encouraging those kinds of shifts taking place on the property tax bill, and consequently the decision was made to go on a three-year basis.

The difficulty in retaining further appeal mechanisms in that regard is the availability now of updated and current assessment values readily at the disposal of an appellant to go in and to challenge the factors that perhaps would have been used alternatively without this update. I fear very much that to do that would clearly eliminate our ability to phase this in to lessen the impacts in any one given year.

I think that is an important point to be noted and to be cognizant of, because clearly a municipality that over the course of the next three years may be reducing its apportionment, say by 10 per cent -- which, by the way, is the case in Goulbourn -- could then find itself facing an appeal from other municipalities that say: “Why should we have to wait the three years? You have the current data now. We want it all at once.” Consequently, we are forced to weigh one problem against another and they are both legitimate concerns.

I just want to speak briefly to the Nepean issue. That matter, I think, went on certainly a lot longer than four or five years. In fact, the first appeal was in the 1970s, and the parties did settle. It was an out-of-court settlement, as it were, as a result of what transpired at the hearings or whatever.

You have to bear in mind the very reason for that appeal was a sense of inequity, a sense of unfairness in the way that assessment information was being utilized to generate the apportionment figures. Had the decision been made 10 or 15 years ago -- whatever -- to use current data which was available, those taxpayers would never have been burdened with what ultimately was determined to be an unfair apportionment. I think that is equally important to note as well.

1640

I just make those points in closing. I am looking forward to the presentation put forward by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I just want to add that I do not believe there was any more flexibility in the past practice. There has been some reference to that. The whole basis of the appeal was the inherent unfairness of varying systems of assessment from municipality to municipality.

The question was raised as to what happens with those which are currently under appeal. The legislation does in fact establish a date. Those matters which were under appeal prior to the utilization of the new factors will still be heard. I will point out, though, that subject to Nepean, unless the members feel that was an isolated case, the Ontario Municipal Board was flooded by requests by something like 40 or 50 jurisdictions from one end of the province to the other, which clearly recognized that there were inequities, that those would be heard by the board, because the data base was just so blatantly outdated, some 19 years out of date, that obviously everyone was prepared to go to the board and take their chances.

The one thing that really brought this issue home to me was the opportunity I had in February to visit most of the boards of education in northwestern Ontario, where there happened to be a large number of apportionment appeals.

Notwithstanding what the public positions may have been of the trustees or the chairmen, time and time again they said to me how concerned they were with the fact that this outdated data was pitting municipality against municipality within a board jurisdiction; that the loss of a significant industrial assessment in one area could have a fundamental impact; that nobody had any faith in the data which were available; that the whole exercise was totally nonproductive.

Notwithstanding what impacts may take place in their own community, whether they were to go up or down in terms of apportionment, their plea to me was: “Let’s get this thing done properly. Let’s bite the bullet and bring these factors which are 19 years out of date up to current terms. Whatever the impacts are, we’ll live with them. It’s far better than community fighting community.”

That led us to the equalization factors, that led us to developing a phase-in and that leads us to this mechanism which I think is consistent with the fact that the exercise is now objective and there is no basis or reason for the utilization of the Ontario Municipal Board in this fashion.

The Deputy Speaker: Hon. Mr. Ward has moved second reading of Bill 100, An Act to amend the Education Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This legislation will make a number of minor amendments to the Municipal Act so that it will more accurately reflect the current trends of the municipal sector. I do not intend to take the time of the House to describe all the proposed amendments. Indeed, many of them are of a housekeeping nature and do not require further elaboration. However, I do want to point out to the members some of the more important provisions.

Section 160 will be revised to increase the annual tax payable to municipalities for such institutions as public hospitals, correctional institutions, community colleges and universities. These payments are being increased from $50 to $75 per student, resident place or rate of bed. The amendment provides for the payment of these higher amounts to some 200 eligible municipalities.

The final report of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Liability Insurance in Ontario recommended that a clear legislative base be established for municipal self-insurance and reciprocal insurance exchanges as an alternative to the present limited market for municipal liability insurance. The provisions of this bill will implement these recommendations by affording municipalities the option of self-insuring and the ability to participate in a reciprocal insurance exchange.

The legislation will also clarify that municipalities are permitted to borrow temporarily until all of their revenues have been received. Furthermore, the range of short-term borrowing instruments available to municipalities will be expanded to include a banker’s acceptance.

In addition, the legislation will allow municipalities to delegate their authority for temporary road closings to a committee of council or to a municipal official.

Another amendment will substantially increase the fines for both individuals and corporations for contraventions of municipal sewer-use bylaws.

Finally, the legislation will make amendments to the acts for Metropolitan Toronto, the regional municipalities, the district of Muskoka and the county of Oxford to parallel the changes that are being made to the Municipal Act regarding municipal insurance and the use of bankers’ acceptances.

Mr. Breaugh: We will support the proposed legislation by the ministry. Essentially, I guess, there is a process that has evolved over the years of each of the municipalities bringing forward certain difficulties that it has encountered in the last little while with the Municipal Act and other acts, and a process of consultation has been developed over the years that eventually produces a bill such as this on pretty much an annual basis.

When you read the details of the bill, there are not a lot of shocks to be encountered in there, but one thing that does come through in the bill is the restrictive nature of legislation governing municipalities in Ontario and that a lot of this truly restrictive nature is a holdover from the days when many municipalities did not have administration of their own, they were very much creatures of the province, and they were very much things which had an elected body that you could identify but there really was not the staff to carry very many of the duties of the council.

As one reads through this bill and looks at the various changes that are being made, one is once again struck by the notion that there are some very large municipalities with very sophisticated administrations that are not allowed to do a whole lot of things. One would have thought, for example, that if municipal councils were interested in the concept of self-insurance, those that have studied it and put together very sophisticated reports on that matter and analysed it and gone through their municipal organizations and had great seminars on the matter and conferences about it were reasonably mature people and that they should have been able to do that; and yet, the Municipal Act was not clear in all of that.

One of the other little interesting changes that is being proposed in here is the age-old argument on how one finances sewers. To give you one example in my own area, at one time there was a co-op project put in on Garrard Road, which is on the border between Oshawa and Whitby. At the time it was put in, there were no sewers that were made available to those residents, so they had to use large lots in order to accommodate weeping tiles that are necessary with septic tanks. They were forever operating off a community well and did their own distribution system. It worked quite well for a long period of time until there was more development in the area and then they began to have some problems with that and then, of course, went to the municipality and cried out for city services, sanitary sewers and the provision of water services.

1650

When it came time to actually put this stuff in the ground, the municipality found out that it was locked into a technique that seemed to be appropriate in many other places, except when you put these city services into a subdivision that essentially was built to a rural standard, had large lots with a lot of frontage and you were paying on a per-foot basis for the installation of that, the municipality very often found that what it would actually cost to get city services would be $8,000 to $10,000 a lot. That is a lot of money.

The municipality was not able to respond, even though it probably could have, with any other form of financing technique, so the bill, for example, does provide for some little variations of the traditional schemes on how to do that.

I regret somewhat that there is not a smoother way to do this. I know there are problems with turning the municipalities loose. In my experience as a municipal critic for my own party, for example, once in a while there are municipalities which, it would seem, break the rules and do not act properly, but I would have to say that municipal governments all over Ontario have a pretty solid track record. There are very few exceptions. I can think of one, in northern Ontario where the ministry had to take it into receivership because it got into some financial difficulties.

Most municipalities now, large and small, are pretty sophisticated in the way they are run. They could certainly stand legislation that was a little broader than the Municipal Act. If that is not the preference of the government, then I think some better way of evolving into these kinds of annual changes ought to be worked out.

I know there is a process there. The minister and I have both been in municipal politics and we have been to these conferences and we know how staff work it out. On this bill, for example, not every staff member in Ontario is happy with the proposed changes, but at the very least the minister is in a position now to argue that there is a process of identifying how we should develop changes to the Municipal Act. It has been argued out there. You win some and you lose some. Not everybody is happy with every single change that is being proposed in this particular bill. I am aware that there are other municipalities that would like further changes in the Municipal Act. I think it would be useful now for the ministry to do a little broader review of how we get to this stage and whether it is actually necessary to have quite so cumbersome a process at work. It seems to me that many municipalities could accept a good deal more responsibility and latitude than they are currently given under the Municipal Act, and many of the restrictions that are placed on them are really not necessary.

I recognize that there is a process at work here. I am reluctant to interfere with that process because it has served us well for a number of years, but I do think we need to develop a system that expedites these changes.

I will conclude by saying that I think anybody who has ever served on a municipal council gets very upset from time to time that the municipality wants to do something that everybody on the council thinks is a most reasonable way to proceed. Then the city solicitor stands up and gives the legal opinion that the Municipal Act does not allow you to do this. Sometimes it is pretty hard, when you are sitting there, to figure out just why it is that you are governed by a Municipal Act that might have been appropriate 50 years ago but is not anymore, and why you are somehow forbidden by this ancient piece of legislation from doing the sensible thing.

I wish we could respond to them in a better way, a faster way, but I do recognize that this is the end product of a process which has worked for many years. I just think that process needs some revision.

Mr. McCague: We are generally in support of this bill. One thing I do not believe the honourable member of the official opposition raised is the issue of the election of warden. I think we are in a situation here where the larger municipalities really are not involved in that particular issue and the voice of the smaller municipalities may not be heard. I presume the minister will want to address this at some point.

In the case of Simcoe county, there was a great effort, and a private bill a few years ago, to cut down the size of Simcoe county council, which got up as high as 55 members. In fact, at one point in time it was the fourth-largest governing body in the Dominion of Canada. It was decided that it was prudent to cut down the size of that county council, and of course the principle of each municipality having representation on that county council was maintained.

I presume the largest population in a municipality in Simcoe county is around 13,000, and that is a rural population, and the smallest is something in the area of 500 electors. It may have risen; my figures may be a little out of date. It may be up to 1,000 at this particular point in time. Yet I see that the legislation says that there will be only one vote per member.

Obviously, the county council can decide that there should be one member for the first 5,000 voters, and each 5,000 after that would get you another member of county council, which in some cases would put it up to three members per municipality. What I think we do in this Legislature is get representation by population. I just wonder if this particular point was overlooked in the drafting of the legislation. Granted, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, in its comments, is basically endorsing what the minister has in his legislation.

I know that AMO also recommends the way of breaking a tie. It is always a very difficult thing to lose out by lot. I have not known one but there may be a case the minister will tell us about where, after 4 or 14 hours, it is still a deadlock. I have known of ties that have existed in the past and a little time broke those ties, but it may be preferable in everybody’s minds, not necessarily in mine, to break a tie by lot.

I note that there has been consultation with AMO on all these points and that both AMO and the Municipal Engineers Association have some concerns with parts of the bill, in particular the increased fines for serious bylaw infraction.

What is pointed out is that there are set fines within -- is it the Environmental Protection Act? I believe that is the case. It is pointed out here that with respect to the fines that could be levied against a municipality, which may have already been levied against a ratepayer, be it an individual ratepayer or a corporation, the maximum fine in the first instance against the polluter, if you want to put it that way, is at one level, yet the fine against the municipality is at a much higher level. Therefore, you could get a situation where the fine to the polluter is $10,000 a day and to the municipality is $25,000 a day, and therefore the municipality would lose out.

The minister will correct me if I am wrong in that analogy. I think what is being recommended is that the fines in this instance be exactly the same as the fines in the Environmental Protection Act or whatever that piece of legislation is.

1700

Also, AMO is opposed to the 21-day extension of the notice period. They feel that 14 days, as presently is the case, is adequate. I would be interested to have comments from the minister as to why he did not take their recommendation and incorporate it in the legislation.

It seems to me that we have amendments each year to the Municipal Act and to certain other acts related to municipalities. As far as tax refunds arising from clerical errors are concerned, the recommendation of AMO would seem to make a lot of sense. They are not really opposed to the principle that is espoused in this legislation, but they are saying that they think the ministry has only gone halfway. They are asking that the minister have these sections removed completely from the bill and dealt with separately at a later time after further consultation. A recommendation like that would seem to me to make abundant sense if waiting another year, until the next round comes along, would lead to more consultation and a better solution to this particular problem.

Most certainly we would endorse the municipal powers regarding insurance. We are all well aware of the difficulties they have had in that general area. They need a legislative base to allow them to self-insure or to join reciprocal insurance exchanges and provide liability insurance to those volunteers acting on behalf of the municipality.

The tax levy on public institutions is very welcome. The fact that the minister will increase the annual tax rate on the resident place or full-time student basis by 50 per cent is very welcome news.

Other than that, I think it is good legislation. Redeeming debentures by lot seems to be a fair way to do it, and I am glad the minister is adding that to the regional acts and to the acts for Metropolitan Toronto, Muskoka and Oxford.

Short-time borrowing is also a good idea.

Temporary closing of municipal roads: I did not realize that the minister was getting into the film-making business, but if he is, I certainly would want him to be able to close a road to allow him to get his picture taken.

School fees in municipally owned trailer parks: That is something that has perplexed municipalities for some time and is a valuable addition to the legislation.

The three areas I would like to have the minister comment on are the election of a warden and the one vote per member of county council, whether the minister will consider standardizing the fines for sewer-use bylaw infractions to have them the same in all the provincial acts and whether the minister will accede to the municipalities’ recommendation that 14 days is sufficient -- it probably is -- for the extension of notice. I would also ask the minister to consider setting aside the issue of tax refunds arising from clerical errors until his next round of Municipal Act amendments.

Ms. Bryden: While this bill is partly housekeeping, it does have some rather significant items added to it and one of them is the increase in the penalties for discharging wastes into sewers. This penalty that is here of $5,000 for the first offence and $10,000 for the second for individuals, and $25,000 and $50,000 for corporations, appears to be in line with the penalties in the Environmental Protection Act for offences that are considered technical offences rather than outright pollution by corporations and individuals.

But I think the offence of discharging wastes into sewers is something that is not being recognized as a very serious offence, particularly in large industrial areas, or areas with a great amount of industrial activities, such as the city of Toronto. I am told that of the toxic materials that come into the sewage plant, more than half comes from what is dumped into the sewers by industry, rather than what comes into the sewers from the normal sanitary sewer collection.

The problem is that a lot of these materials that are being dumped into the sewers are not monitored. We do not really know what is in them, whether they are toxic metals, materials that are cancer-producing agents or materials that will interact with other materials in the sewage system and cause new toxic substances such as dioxins. We do not know whether they include polychlorinated biphenyls; the testing for those is merely a matter of occasionally monitoring what is coming in. I think we have to be much tougher on companies that are discharging wastes into the sewers.

The workers in the main sewage plant at Ashbridges Bay, which is in my riding, have been complaining of illnesses, rashes, lung effects and stomach effects just from the atmosphere of the plant and whatever they inhale or whatever they handle in their work. A great many of them feel that there has not been adequate medical examination and testing of the employees to see what the cause is of these illnesses.

They have requested the Ministry of Health to undertake surveys, but so far it has been left to the union people to have themselves tested under the Ontario health insurance plan on a voluntary basis. They have confirmed that many of their workers are suffering from the effects of what appear to be toxics that are coming in through the sewers.

What this means is that the sewers are being used as a disposal service and as a cesspool, really, for industrial processes that should perhaps never have been undertaken, because no industrial process that creates toxics should be started without adequate pre-testing of its effects. But we do not have a law that requires the pre-testing of the use of chemicals and toxic materials. The law seems to wait until actual damage occurs or illnesses occur and then the claims investigators at the Workers’ Compensation Board determine whether there has been an actual toxic discharge that should not have been allowed.

1710

I think if we had stiffer penalties on the discharge of wastes into the sewers, we might get industry to start revamping its processes, in the first place to not introduce any new chemicals or toxics until it has investigated the effects on people and on the sewer system and the interaction with other things in the system.

Second, industries should be encouraged to recycle any toxics that can be sold. One man’s poison is another man’s gold. Some of the toxics that they are dumping in order just to get rid of them could probably be marketed, and I think industry should be encouraged to do that.

The other thing is that they should be looking at means of production which do not call for toxics. They should be looking at new methods that will be more efficient and more conducive to health. If you had very serious fines for dumping into the sewers, I think you might get the companies to attend much more to the problem and to take a much more serious attitude to it.

In some areas, the penalties for pollution include jail sentences for the managers and the board members if they are condoning activities that are detrimental to the environment or to health. I think in this area, if we find toxics going into the Toronto sewers or into any other major industrial city’s sewers, there should be penalties, including jail sentences, in the legislation. That is the only way to concentrate their minds, so to speak. Even if the fine is $50,000 or $100,000, that is often just a licence to pollute.

I hope the ministry will consider redefining the kinds of offences to which the minister is applying the fines that are in this act, the new fines, and consider whether there should not be jail sentences and a more serious effort to stop industry from producing the pollutants that are going into the sewer system. Our sewage plants are just not geared to handle a lot of the toxics that are coming into them, and that is one of the reasons the lakeshore and the lake itself are becoming so polluted. Until we get that under control by stopping it at its source, we are never going to clean up our Great Lakes.

Mr. McCague: Since the matter of the member’s comments was pollution, I might just use the opportunity to tell the minister that what I was referring to was fines similar to the Environment Enforcement Statute Law Amendment Act, which name I was unable to recite at the moment of my comments.

Ms. Bryden: The member is probably referring to the 1986 enforcement law for the environment. As the House will probably recall, I think all parties were demanding an increase in the penalties under the Environmental Protection Act and under various other acts protecting our water resources, our forest resources and things of that sort, and our air.

But I think we have not gone far enough yet with sufficient penalties under all these acts to ensure that we are going to have a clean and unpolluted environment. I think you will find in the schools that youngsters are most concerned about the degradation of our environment and are wanting action that will make governments much more conscious of the effects and be much tougher in their protection of the environment.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I want to thank the honourable members for their comments, their participation in the debate and their support of this bill. What it does, really, is clean up a number of areas which have been pending for some period of time. I feel that parts of this bill do reflect the fact that we have been listening to our municipal people and have sought their support in bringing forth Bill 59.

The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) made a good point with regard to finding better ways of dealing with these amendments and dealing with the situations generally. I want to say that we do have regular, ongoing meetings with all the municipal associations. We have regular meetings with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, at which many of the concerns raised here today are discussed.

I am also available to meet with many of the municipal leaders across the province and I have been taking that opportunity to find better ways to reflect the views of the municipal people. This is reflected in some of the legislation we have brought in already and some of the studies which are now under way.

I just want to refer to some of the concerns that were raised. One was the sewer-use infractions, which the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) in particular referred to. The present maximum fine for contravening a municipal bylaw, including the sewer-use bylaw, is $2,000. Bill 59 proposes to raise the maximum fine levy very substantially. In the case of an individual, the new maximum fine will be $5,000 for a first offence and $10,000 for subsequent offences. In the case of a corporation, the new maximum fine will be $25,000 for a first offence and $50,000 for subsequent offences.

We have looked at this issue very carefully, and I believe the new fines will be sufficient. However, I want to say to the honourable members that once the legislation is enacted, we will be monitoring the situation very carefully and will be prepared to review the adequacy of the maximum fine levels once again if there are problems that might arise from time to time.

With regard to the question of clerical errors, I fully recognize the concerns for a more comprehensive legislative package which addresses errors that go beyond the preparation of the assessment roll. I therefore established a working group consisting of representatives from the concerned municipal associations, the Assessment Review Board and the ministries of Revenue and Municipal Affairs to review all the tax refund adjustment provisions that are contained in the Municipal Act.

The tax refund provision in Bill 59 addresses a particular problem which, in principle, many municipal associations, municipalities and rate-payers agree needs to be resolved by legislation now. In the longer term, the working group I have established will develop comprehensive proposals to revise all the tax refund adjustment provisions in the Municipal Act.

The member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) spoke of the election of the warden on county council and the number of votes the members have. I might say that the provision to allow each member of county council to have only one vote in the election of the warden was specifically requested by the county and regions section executive committee and this request was endorsed by the AMO executive committee. If there is a better way, we would be glad to hear that, of course, but we do meet regularly with our municipal people and we take seriously the recommendations they make. That is the reason we have made that change today.

1720

With regard to the extension of the notice period which was referred to -- the member for Simcoe West referred to this -- it has been explained to the association that the extension of the notice period from 14 to 21 days will allow the taxpayer more time to arrange for payment of the taxes. I think that is important. This will be closer to the 30-day payment period allowed most businesses for the payment of invoices. The change is intended to provide a more realistic time frame. It takes into account potential mail delays as well as the extra time required by some taxpayers to process their payments where they receive multiple billings, for example, as in the case of mortgage companies.

Those are some of the comments that I wanted to make in response. I just want to say in closing that I will be proposing a minor amendment to the bill to go into committee, having to do with the dates which have now passed. I would like to have that reflected and brought up to date.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to municipalities.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which sections of the bill? At this moment, I just want to list them, please.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Section 31.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. That is all I want to know right now. Any other sections that people would like to amend? If not, shall sections 1 to 30 carry?

Sections 1 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 31:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Eakins moves that section 31 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“31(1) This act, except sections 5, 8, 12, 13 and 16, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

“(2) Sections 5, 8 and 16 shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of January 1987.

“(3) Sections 12 and 13 come into force on the first day of January 1989.”

Mr. Breaugh: I do not have any problem at all with this amendment but I do think that it is dearly time that a ministry that has this many people in its employ could inform the members of the House when it has amendments to a bill that it is bringing forward. If they cannot draft the thing right in the first place, at least they should have the common courtesy to obey the standing orders of the House, which simply ask them to provide reasonable notice of amendments that they are proposing.

We went through a second-reading debate where the minister had ample opportunity to inform the House he was going to pose an amendment. Surely it would have been possible for someone in the ministry to make copies of the amendments he was going to propose and provide them to the table officers and to the opposition parties. I do not think that is asking too much. I am not asking for any kind of earth-shaking technology to be used here. But it seems to me, if they screw up in the drafting of a bill, it surely should not be too difficult to correct that error by means of simply letting the opposition parties know they have an amendment to put forward.

We have no objection to this amendment. The only objection I have is that it seems to me it should not be beyond the possibility of this minister to conform to the standing orders of the House, which are not particularly onerous. If I can conform to them, surely the minister, with all his staff, can.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I want to apologize to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). I accept full responsibility. It was my understanding that had been done, and I do apologize for that.

Motion agreed to.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Section 32 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Eakins, the committee of the whole reported one bill with a certain amendment.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 128, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am here today to seek second reading of Bill 128, the Planning Amendment Act.

As indicated when the bill was introduced, these amendments include changes to further this government’s priority to help provide housing throughout the province. I reiterate that my ministry is committed to meeting provincial housing objectives.

I am proposing that the Planning Act now formally recognize the provision of a range of housing types as a provincial interest. This will enable my ministry, in conjunction with the Ministry of Housing, to guide and direct our collective efforts to provide affordable housing.

Other significant changes in the bill are:

Clarifying the act to ensure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs may define a local planning matter to be of provincial interest, whether or not a formal policy statement has been issued.

I would stress that formal policy statements are intended to deal with broad policy matters such as the protection of agriculture lands and mineral resources. It is impossible to have a formal policy statement in place to deal with every conceivable issue that may affect provincial interests. I can assure the Legislature that these powers will be used with the utmost discretion.

Reducing the overall time for the zoning process. The notice provisions for a required public meeting will be reduced to 20 days from the current 30 days. Also, the appeal period, once council has passed the bylaw, will be reduced to 20 days instead of the current 35 days.

These reductions will now enable all developments, including housing, to be built more quickly, allowing upper-tier councils that now approve local official plans, to delegate their authority to a committee of council or to an appointed official to approve such local amendments. This change reflects my commitment to further local accountability as well as to speed up the planning process.

1730

Deleting the reference in the act to March 19, 1973, as a cutoff date in the validation process will allow me to validate any title regardless of when the act was contravened, clarifying that the Minister of Municipal Affairs on behalf of cabinet can support in a positive manner a municipal position on a matter of provincial interest. The current wording of the act only allows cabinet to declare its position where provincial interest is affected in a negative manner. The word change would therefore allow the minister to declare a provincial interest in any situation.

All other changes in the bill are intended to improve the effectiveness of the Planning Act and do not alter its fundamental principles in any way. Our goal is to ensure efficiency in the planning process. I believe the proposed amendments will help us meet that goal.

Mr. Breaugh: It is with a little trepidation that we support the proposed changes to the Planning Act which are here. I want to put these reservations I have up front because I think some day we may be reading this afternoon’s discussion and regretting that it happened.

The Planning Act is an awkward one. It has just gone through a major revision and it was not an easy thing to do. Now we are changing it once again. Most of us who have had some experience with the Planning Act know that there are a lot of checks and balances in there. It does not work quickly. That is the one thing we could all admit about it. It has some awkwardness about it. There are a lot of people who have their fingers in the pie.

This proposed legislative change may expedite the process somewhat, and I say “may.” It may not, as well. It is done in a rather curious way. I was struck, as I went through the proposed changes we are discussing this afternoon, by how many indirect and obtuse ways were used to put forward a change here. I think it not unfair to categorize these changes as being kind of a warning shot put forward by Ontario that if municipalities do not respond to a housing crisis which is apparent to us, Ontario will in some way intervene, but it is not quite clear exactly what that way will be.

The reservation I have is that I am as aware as anybody that this government has a number of rather strong friends and allies, shall I say, in the development business. Although the stated changes to the act are to expedite the process, they will have a side-effect. The side-effect will be to make someone in Ontario literally millions of dollars, because that is what the development industry is about. It can be used for good and it can be used for bad.

If it turns out that this government intends to intervene and substantially alter the planning process as we know it so its friends can make a bundle of money, there will be a whole lot of people in here who will be most unhappy. I hope that is not the purpose of it. That is certainly not the stated purpose, but that will be a by-product of what is being done here.

If the government tries to get its own act in order, which is in part what is being proposed in this bill, so that various ministries will be able to respond somewhat faster, I condone the move. I wish the government luck. I have watched various ministries do their job on planning matters over a number of years and I must say that from the outside, it is just about as confusing as it is from the inside. The first major problem that many people have is, “Which ministry lost the plans now?” and try to identify who has them, who put them in a filing cabinet somewhere and who is supposed to have this matter under active consideration but in fact does not.

I hope the stated intention comes close to the practice, that there will now be a concerted move on all the ministries which have some say on planning matters to have their say, but get it done -- do not stall and delay all these projects all the way along the line.

If I had my druthers in the changes that are being proposed here, I think I would have been much more straightforward. When the bill goes to committee I am going to move two simple amendments, because I believe this is what the government is trying to do and, for some reason, decided not to do.

I believe that what they want to do and ought to do now are essentially two simple things. I believe that under the current Planning Act they could, if they really wanted to, accomplish these things now, but I have no objection to their getting changes in the Planning Act in the manner that they have outlined.

The two changes I am looking for are very straightforward. One is to say every municipality across Ontario ought to have a minimum standard for affordable housing. An allocation of at least 25 per cent of the new houses that are built, new housing accommodation that is put on the market, ought to be for affordable housing; and then second, every official plan across Ontario ought to provide a working definition of what the government means by affordable housing in that community.

These are not easy challenges for some municipalities to meet. Some of them would look at them and say: “This is not going to be a problem, because our municipality has recognized our social responsibility for some time and we have always tried to keep a lid on housing costs in our area. We have tried to provide support for nonprofit groups, for co-op projects, for a variety of ideas on how you can meet an immediate need that is there.”

Many communities are very actively working at it. Mine is perhaps a good example of a community with a long history of identifying the different ways in which you could put housing on the market in a variety of ways and where the local council has traditionally been very responsive to that notion.

If anything, for a community like mine, these two amendments would be no difficulty whatsoever. They would meet the initial requirement of a 25 per cent allocation now and would be anxious, I think, to embellish upon that, to do better than that.

Some municipalities will have a little difficulty, but I think what all of them would recognize is that as long as the same requirement is put on every municipality in Ontario, it is at least fair; and that is, I think, as good as it gets.

As long as the same criteria are established for each development as it goes through the planning process in any community in Ontario, they will all say it is fair. They will not like it, many of them, because it will deprive them of the opportunity to maximize their profits, but as long as you face the same rules everywhere in Ontario, there is a certain amount of fairness about it. I anticipate that people will grumble a little bit, but they will accept it.

In the longer analysis of things, we really do have to get back to building some more modest, affordable type of housing accommodation in Ontario. This idea that in our community there will never be any more of the poor or the working class is ludicrous, and somehow municipalities have to work their way through that system.

It is not quite as easy as I would like it to be. I wish we could write one definition of affordable housing that we could all apply all across Ontario, but I do not think you can. I think that will have to be done community by community. For example, we are in downtown Toronto now. Most people in downtown Toronto would agree that a house that would sell for $75,000 would be, by anybody’s standards, affordable housing. In many parts of rural Ontario, what you would have done with that kind of criterion is double the cost of housing in that community. So I do not think you can do that.

If you took another tack and decided you wanted to go by income and you took the average industrial wage, that is a very meaningful term in many parts of Ontario. It certainly is in industrialized southern Ontario. If you go to rural Ontario, it may have no consequence whatsoever. It may not be the number that works.

What I am going to propose when we take this bill to committee is that we be more straightforward, that we put two simple requirements under the Planning Act, under these changes, on each of our municipalities and we allow them some flexibility, we allow them some local determination of how they would go about it. We recognize there are some that would be well above this standard right now. There are some that would have to struggle a little bit to get to that standard. There are some that would have to be a little creative in going through their definitions of what they mean by affordable housing. But they would all have to recognize that no matter where you are in Ontario, your municipality has to take a fair share of the social obligation of the province.

I do not know of very many municipal councils that are up front about saying, “We don’t want the poor to live here.” But I do know they have an ingenious number of ways in which they make it very difficult for anybody to build affordable housing.

I know there are co-operative and nonprofit projects around Ontario that are treated by their local councils with a variety of responses. In some places it is a warm, “Come on in here and we will see if we can identify how you and I can work together to better serve our community.” When that happens, the process works very well by itself.

1740

I know of a number of communities around Ontario where the municipality, in its official plan, in its day-to-day local planning activities, is very concerned about that problem and is working very hard to take federal and provincial programs and implement them. I congratulate those communities that do that. I think that needs to be done. I know of a few that are struggling with this concept. As one who has sat through public hearings when we have had projects for nonprofit or co-operative housing or whatever the proposal was that day, I know there always seems to be somebody who wants to argue before that council that this is a great idea, “but not in my backyard.”

I have been part of a council that had to kind of say: It’s in my backyard, so it will be in your backyard too. You have the same social obligation that I have. We’ll be happy to address your concerns about property values.” If members can find me someone anywhere in Ontario who has had his property values go down in the last year, I might reconsider my views on this; but I believe that the property value argument is one which is escalating everywhere in Ontario.

The problem really has been for all of Ontario to find ways to get it done. I know there is not a shortage of good ideas on how to provide affordable housing. I talk on a daily basis with people from all over Ontario who have the good ideas.

This government has had some difficulties getting itself on track on how to deliver that system. This government has had some initial meetings with various municipalities on the shared responsibility that they have. I congratulate the government for that. To sit down and talk to them face to face, I think, is an important first step. I think the second step is what I am proposing here. The government now has to get specific. The basic argument that it will be able to make to them with these two amendments is that there is a basic fairness, that everyone has to accept his fair share of the responsibility for providing decent, affordable housing for people through a variety of means all across Ontario. I believe that is what the two amendments that I am going to propose will cause municipalities to do.

I am aware that this will get a different reaction in different places, but I do know this: If we put to them a basic, fair argument that these provisos will be attached now to every official plan across Ontario, that every municipality and every developer will be faced with the same set of circumstances, we will at least have a basic argument of fairness that they cannot deny.

If there are those who say, “I only want to build for the wealthy,” let them say so and let us deal with that. If there are municipalities that say, “We do not want the poor within our borders,” let them say so and let us deal with that. I believe the greater obligation is on the part of the provincial government to see that under its Planning Act there is a clearly set out standard for Ontario, and that means we have to get off the process of talking about good ideas and worthy ideals and get as specific as we can.

On that basis, I accept that these are changes which will be an attempt to resolve a very serious housing problem that extends from one end of Ontario to the other. The government needs to get as specific as it can, and the time to do that is now. I realize it may be true that the minister did not want to do that at this particular moment. He wanted to fire the warning shot first and later on prescribe by some regulation or intervene under the new provisions of the act to do precisely that. I am simply saying that is really not the way to go. The way to go is to be straightforward, to say exactly what he means, to say it now, to put it in the provisions of the act now and give the municipalities the time to carry out their responsibilities.

I think the minister will find that municipalities will accept that challenge. They will carry that out, they will put those provisions in their planning acts and they will get on about the business of seeing that there is decent, affordable housing for Canadians of all income levels all across Ontario. I think that is what this act ought to be about.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) suggests there be some definition of what affordability is. He has made an amendment here and tabled it in a very proper way so that we are apprised before it would be raised in committee. I appreciate that kind of advance notice of the thinking of the honourable member, but the one thing he raised in his speech which is still left a question, as far as I am concerned, is what his definition of affordable is. There are two kinds of affordability: affordable purchase and affordable rental. Maybe he could just enlighten us on what his definitions are.

Mr. Breaugh: If I were sitting, for example, on the Oshawa city council or the council of the region of Durham, my problem is by and large resolved. We are basically an industrialized area. In that community we could take, for example, the average industrial wage and peg a percentage of that and say that is what we mean, that people at that income level would qualify for housing at this price or rental accommodation at this price.

In many of our communities, this is not going to be a difficult exercise at all. Where I would suspect there will be a little more of a problem is in rural Ontario where there is not a ready indicator of that kind.

In the city of Toronto, I think they can identify that there is no real problem with luxury condominium accommodation any more. They have all of it that they can stand. Their problem is at the other end of the income scale. They are having real problems accommodating the homeless in any sense at all, and it is rapidly becoming the case that there is very little to be found for accommodation for the poor.

The definition that would be useful in the city of Toronto’s official plan may be a little different from what would be found in the city of Oshawa’s official plan. I think the only people who can really help us at all in this matter will be people who are based in those municipalities who are charged with the responsibility of doing exactly this kind of thing in the official plan in a dozen different ways.

That is why I am proposing in the amendment that that particular definition of affordable housing be done at the local level, in their own official plan where they will use a public hearing process to come to those definitions. I think that is the one thing you could not do on a province-wide basis.

I put forward the amendment in precisely that way because, to my mind, that is the only sensible, practical solution to what some people would like to have as a theoretical problem: what do you mean by affordable? In our local communities, we know exactly what that means and that is where that definition should be struck.

Mr. Cousens: We are dealing with quite an important bill that will affect every municipality and therefore every resident within a municipality. In the minister’s first presentation of this bill on May 4 or so, he said, “We are preparing municipal planning guidelines to help municipalities plan for affordable housing.” He goes on to say, “These guidelines are about residential intensification and meeting the goal of 25 per cent affordable housing in every community.”

There is nothing within the bill that really leads to that 25 per cent. That is why the honourable member for Oshawa has come forward with his NDP motions which suggest that we put into the legislation that 25 per cent number, which is a number that has been used by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) when she is talking about her great expectations to promote more affordable housing across Ontario.

It is a worthy goal. We want more affordable housing and indeed we have to work towards it, but I suggest that when the minister tabled this bill for first reading, he did not give the correct interpretation as to what the bill really would accomplish if it were ever passed.

I table that because that came as part of the bill when he brought it out. Here it was, as if it were a proclamation for the Minister of Housing, a very positive statement that we are doing something. Yet, as I hope to point out very shortly, there is not all that much, especially in the very early parts of the bill, that will have much of an impact on housing.

The first thing that happens in the bill -- I get a chuckle out of this and I hope the minister does not mind some humour in this very important business we are about. The Speaker will know that the definition is being changed in this bill, cleaning up some of the --

1750

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You’ve got to have a little humour.

Mr. Cousens: He has a sense of humour. He would not have been here as long as he has been if he did not have a good sense of humour. Sitting beside the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), he would have to have one.

One of the things that is happening in this bill is that the bill is changing the responsibility for the Planning Act, taking it away from what was once the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Now we are not going to let Housing have it. There is a minister who is responsible for municipal affairs. I am trying to give him a plug here. To me, I would be just as glad if this minister took over the Housing portfolio, for the job that is being done under Housing now.

I think of the way he whipped them into shape with Bill 106, Bill 76 and some of those other bills. When the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) comes marching through that Ministry of Municipal Affairs, they start to jump and they say: “Well, at least he has been there. He knows what it is all about. He understands what the municipalities are thinking.”

He does not always do it, mind you, and that is another issue that I want to go after him on, but the fact is that I would be willing to anoint the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) as minister of municipal affairs and housing. I could only do it as an anointer because I am in no position to do it legislatively, but in my old priestly role I could come along and we could make him in some way --

Mr. Speaker: The member might be straying somewhat.

Mr. Cousens: I am not in the least, Mr. Speaker, because I am dealing with section 1, and the last thing you want me to do is to start straying after just talking about that.

I think the fact of the matter is that we will accept there is not much we can do. He is only Minister of Municipal Affairs and there is another Minister of Housing. We have great problems with the way the portfolio of Housing is being handled and it does not make all that much sense. If there is still time that we can turn the clock back to the days of the Claude Bennett, who was Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, then we might be in a position to start seeing something of the relationship that really causes people to want to work together.

That is something that is lacking now, in that there is not that spirit that exists between the developers, the government, the tenants and the municipalities. There has to be a team spirit where we are all part of the solution, not part of the problem, and where the ministry is giving leadership in creating a spirit of working things out together, a spirit of reconciliation, a spirit of saying, “Hey, we’ve got a job to do and we’re going to do it together.”

I happen to believe that spirit is largely gone. We are seeing instead a government that operates with its public pronouncements and its public statements, but the acts and the follow-through do not begin to touch upon the real urgent needs of those communities.

That is why I started off and referred to the opening speech by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. When he said he was doing something for housing, it was like a plug for the Minister of Housing. Well, she needs more than a plug to put something in the dike to keep it from leaking and needs more than just him to help out. There has to be a whole concerted strategy from this government that is not in place yet to tell the people of this province what this government is going to do for housing.

It was something that was promised by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) back a year and a half ago. It was promised two years ago in fact, when Bill 111 was brought in.

Why can we not have that kind of a statement? If the Minister of Municipal Affairs were going to be the Minister of Housing, I would have some satisfaction we would begin to see that.

We lead into the fact that what the minister is doing in this bill is bringing in a new emphasis. What he is doing is saying that one of the key areas, one of the 10 areas -- there are only nine now -- of the act that identifies matters of provincial interest -- He has brought in an amendment within this very large bill that is somewhat innocuous when people look at it and say, “Oh, well, there are more words.” They have brought in an amendment under the bill that proposes to add housing as one of the 10 areas of interest, instead of the nine that were there before. It is putting housing into that grouping.

If you look at what we have in this bill and you have the nine other areas, and the first one has to do with the Ministry of Natural Resources -- I am honoured that the Minister for Natural Resources is here and is at least paying attention again. If there is anyone who is honourable, it is the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Applause]

Mr. Cousens: He did not deserve it, but the fact is, when the Minister of Natural Resources made the announcement for the Lady Evelyn park, I wonder, to what extent was there any consultation, discussion, dialogue or whatever with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs?

The minister indicates that there was, and I am pleased. A lot of opposition is coming to people about the minister’s changes at Temagami, and his parks policy somehow makes people think there is not the dialogue going on that there should be.

When you look at this bill under the Planning Act, there is supposed to be a very close interrelationship and dialogue between the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, where it says, “the protection of the natural environment, including the agricultural resource base of the province, and the management of natural resources.” These are one of the areas of responsibility that fall under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

The words are here, but the fact is that people are concerned about the way Lady Evelyn Smoothwater Provincial Park has been brought in, with a lack of concern about those who have made a living there, about those who are interested in wildlife and about those who want continuing access to the park. There are a number of things on which there has been no dialogue by that minister.

Number two, of the now to be 10, is “the protection of features of significant natural, architectural, historical and archaeological interest.” I do not think there is any doubt we are pleased that the ministry has had a statement on aggregates. That has certainly allowed that industry to proceed and to continue to handle itself; it might come under clause 2(a) of the Planning Act, but it probably comes under clause 2(b). What we are talking about here is that there has been an articulated, clearly enunciated statement as to what can be done in regard to the way that clause of the Planning Act is to be interpreted.

The third point under the Planning Act is “the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy.” Can I just ask, what has the minister or this government done in the conservation of energy? Has there been any significant statement or progress in this regard? The fact is, they come along and it is words, but we are not seeing it. There is no clarification on Darlington. What we are seeing is vacuums within vacuums. I am not trying to give a plug for Electrolux; I am trying to say that over there they do more sucking than they do blowing and they do both at the same time, and sometimes it does not make any sense, just as I did not right now.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Reverend, that’s most unbecoming.

Mr. Cousens: I am sorry. I take that back. The last person I would want to say that of is the House leader for the Liberal Party, who has a big problem coming up tomorrow.

Next is “the provision of major communication, servicing and transportation facilities.” What has this government done on communication, servicing and transportation facilities? Is it involved in or with that?

What I am trying to say is that there are a number of issues, and now what they are doing is adding a 10th that says the provision of a range of housing types becomes a matter of interest and concern to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Why is there not a clearly defined policy statement around that subject?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: There will be one.

Mr. Cousens: Why not have it now? It is another one of those promises, and I am not prepared to sit back and believe, just because someone says it is going to come, that it is going to be there in time for the next election or in time for municipalities that are dealing with these issues to really know where the province is coming from. I think that if the amendment the New Democratic Party has put forward passes, that clearly tells us what their intention is for affordable housing. Is that where the minister is coming from?

That is the kind of thing the minister said in his opening statement when there was first reading of this bill. Is he really saying that 25 per cent of all new housing in those communities should be affordable? That is what he said. The NDP has put it into words. Is that what he is going to support? Why is there not a clearly defined statement of what the minister’s principles and policies are and what the minister really believes housing to be? And if it really is important, why is it that it is number 10? Why is it not up there as number one?

If there is any one thing that is a major concern to the people in the province today -- we have got problems in Ontario, and we all know that individuals have to help themselves as best they can to solve them and if there is going to be a priority by this government, it should be housing. I am not saying that just because I am the Housing critic for the Progressive Conservative Party; it is because it is the number one social crisis in the city of Toronto and in our urban areas. It is the number one issue that this government has to tackle and has failed to tackle. It is the number one issue that we have all got to grapple with, not just as a partisan issue for one party but all parties, to realize that housing is a major concern for everybody in this province.

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

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

1800

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 98, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act;

Bill 116, An Act respecting the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund;

Projet de loi 116, Loi concernant le Fonds du patrimoine du Nord de l’Ontario;

Bill 117, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne des projets de loi.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, we, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and faithful subjects of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty’s person and government, and humbly beg to present for Your Honour’s acceptance, a bill entitled An Act granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988.

Clerk of the House: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill in Her Majesty’s name.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House adjourned at 6:08 p.m.

1 juin 1988