Journal des débats 1988-juin-02 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should play an increased role in promoting and developing new crop uses, particularly the use of grain corn for ethanol-methanol gasoline, for the production of calcium magnesium acetate, and in promoting the increased use of biodegradable bags, and that to further these aims, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should be more active in promoting these alternate uses to the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Villeneuve has moved the resolution standing in his name. Le député a jusqu’à 20 minutes pour faire sa présentation. Il peut en réserver une partie pour la fin. Le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is with particular pleasure that I rise today on this my private members’ resolution. First, I believe that it is a timely one in terms of both the environmental approach to the issue and the agricultural aspect. Timing also seems to be of some significance because of coincidence. Today’s other motion deals in considerable detail with degradable plastics, one product in which corn can quite easily be utilized, and I compliment my colleague who is also bringing in a very similar resolution from the Liberal Party.

Timing is also important for another reason. The federal government has announced that lead is to be removed from gas by 1992. Further, even the unleaded gas we use contains a manganese compound -- MMT, methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl -- which is already banned in the United States and parts of Europe because of its high exhaust pollution emissions. What this means is that we should not feel too self-righteous in the knowledge that we will be banning leaded gas. As a province, we should be looking towards the alternative octane enhancer to both lead and MMT.

The large oil companies are reluctant to act in this area. They are protecting their own domain and that is understandable, especially when there is a chance that up to 10 per cent of gasoline consumption could be replaced by alcohol. The oil companies would rather see chemical substances such as MTBE. methyl tertiary-butyl ether, be used to mix with gas.

The proposal that I would like to see in this province endorsed and supported by the government is for a blend of 92 per cent gasoline, five per cent methanol and three per cent ethanol to be used in our motor vehicles in the near future. Not only would this cut down on light crude consumption which Canada imports, but also it would aid western Canada in methanol production as well as western grain producers and Ontario’s presently very depressed corn producers in reducing surplus stock of substandard -- and I underline substandard -- grains. We can create alcohol with inferior grains. Even Quebec is expected to be a surplus producer of grains within 10 years, a development which would benefit an eastern Ontario ethanol facility.

But all this can only happen if Ontario takes the initiative now so that facilities are ready long before January 1993, in order to take advantage of this changing standard. This can only happen if cabinet ministers, basically those named in my resolution, co-operate to a much greater degree than they have to date. I want to illustrate with one particular example.

Earlier this year, on February 8 to be exact, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) was asked at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association convention, more commonly known as the ROMA convention, about a substance called CMA, calcium magnesium acetate, which is a potential replacement for road salt.

For those who are aware of it, the Ministry of Transportation has been examining CMA since 1983. A 1984 report mentioned the following about producing CMA: “Grain corn was identified as the most favourable biomass feedstock in view of the tonnage projected to be required in large-scale use.” That is the end of quote from a report which was prepared in 1984.

For its testing, the ministry has been buying chemically produced CMA at a higher price than the corn biomass system would cost: a much higher price I must say. Yet when asked, the minister was completely unaware that CMA could indeed be produced from corn. The minister was also completely unaware that his cost estimates were for a more expensive version of CMA derived from other sources than corn.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) was also present at the ROMA convention and he could have easily informed his colleague of the potential that corn has in producing CMA. It certainly would have been easy to inform the Minister of Transportation in the intervening 24 hours before I asked my question in the House, but that did not happen. I wonder about communications within cabinet.

When one considers the terribly depressed prices that Ontario’s grain growers have faced in the world marketplace recently, it would have made some sense for the province to examine ways of using up our domestic surplus production.

With ethanol the situation is just as obvious and I would like to deal with ethanol in some greater detail. The idea of using alcohol in fuel and indeed for fuel is not a new one. In fact, jurisdictions such as the United States and Brazil are far ahead of us and provide us with a few ideas on how we should approach alcohol fuels here in Canada and particularly in Ontario.

Support for an ethanol plant was part of the Liberal Party campaign platform in 1985. It seems like ages ago and is totally forgotten. Fuel alcohol was also a prime promise made by one David Peterson, when he was campaigning for the Liberal leadership way back in 1981. The Liberals were even talking about replacing gas entirely with wood alcohol from northern Ontario, and I am sure members in this Legislature will recall those promises, long since forgotten by the government.

The idea has not been costed out and, of course, did not make technical sense either then or now, given the effects of burning pure alcohol in existing automobile engines. The problems of producing different engines would have cost enormously in the production of motor vehicles. But since 1981, we have accumulated much more information, and circumstances have also changed.

1010

Fuel alcohol first became popular as a result of greatly increasing oil prices in the 1970s. That crisis led to a number of reactions, such as the Liberal Party’s suggestion to convert our forests into automobile-fuel wood alcohol. I would point out, however, that while trees are indeed a renewable resource, it takes much less time to grow an acre of corn when compared to growing trees. In recent years, of course, the price of oil has dropped, but there are now two newer factors, and I will touch on them.

First is the existence of grain surpluses, particularly that of corn where Ontario is concerned. Members should know that Ontario grows about 70 per cent of the total production of corn in Canada and, as a result, the problems faced by corn producers are really and strictly an Ontario issue. The surpluses have led to poor prices, to the extent that earnings increases for Ontario’s cash crop farmers in the past two years have been largely due to federal support via the special grains programs and other subsidies.

The second factor -- and I emphasize this one -- is that of the environment, which is of great concern to everyone. To the public, especially in urban centres where the problem is most apparent and acute, the environment is one of the most important issues of the day and one which alcohol fuel additives can help to address to a great degree and to correct.

Currently, our gas-burning engines use fuel with either lead or MMT as the octane enhancers. As I have already mentioned, lead is to be banned by 1993 in Canada. But the manganese in MMT, which is also an octane enhancer, is very much a pollutant, and it would be to our advantage to ban that as well. Alcohols are able to replace both lead and MMT as octane enhancers and to reduce harmful emissions.

There are essentially two types of alcohol that can be used, ethanol and methanol. Ethanol is the more expensive of the two, while methanol cannot exist in a mix with gas without the presence of a co-solvent such as ethanol. These two facts have resulted in two different formulas for Canadian gasohol. One is a blend of 90 per cent gas and 10 per cent ethanol, and the other is, as I already mentioned, 92 per cent gasoline, five per cent methanol and three per cent ethanol.

The United States has, for a number of years, witnessed the production of 90 per cent gas and 10 per cent ethanol fuel, supported by generous state and federal subsidies. For example, the US federal tax exemption is 16 cents US per litre. The 1986 report from the standing committee on energy, mines and resources recommended the use of ethanol-methanol or EM gas, but rejected the idea of the US-type subsidies, and I agree with that. This question of subsidy should be examined further, because the Ontario situation cannot be compared to the American.

First, the after-tax gas price in the US is considerably less than that here in Ontario. As a result, more expensive production costs for ethanol require subsidies to reduce the cost to consumers. Taxes here now, since the most recent Ontario budget, have driven up the final price of gas to surpass the plant-gate cost of ethanol. That is important. As a result, no substantial subsidies would be necessary if minimal provincial and federal tax breaks were available initially to set up the plants.

The plant-gate costs for unleaded gas are about 22 cents per litre; for ethanol, they are 40 cents per litre, and for methanol, they are 14 cents per litre. Any price increase to consumers could easily be negated by adjustments to taxes on fuel alcohol, while losses to the Treasury would be offset by taxes generated from new employment created by an improvement in our trade balance and, of course, always greatly reducing the exhaust pollution in the process.

It is obvious that the EM mixture is the most cost-effective, as the ethanol content, the most expensive of the components, is only three per cent. It should be pointed out, however, that E10, the name used by Mohawk Oil for its blend of 90 per cent gas and 10 per cent ethanol, has been selling for a number of years. Mohawk Oil has a commercial fuel ethanol distillery in Manitoba producing 7.2 million litres per year, derived primarily from corn but also from barley and oats, as well as from other substandard or fire-damaged grains.

Always remember that this alcohol will be used in the gas tank of your car and not in the glass.

To date, some 1.5 billion miles have been travelled on Mohawk’s E10 fuel. It is estimated that E10 fuel requires tax breaks of one to two cents a litre to maintain a price parity. This already exists in Manitoba, where there is a two-cent-per-litre tax break. Mohawk Oil also sells EM gas in western Canada, where Alberta provides a tax break of 0.04 cents a litre; Saskatchewan, of 1.2 cents a litre, and British Columbia of 0.6 cents per litre.

EM gas is available in Ontario from the United Co-operatives of Ontario stations in Guelph and Listowel. Ontario does not tax ethanol or methanol, equating to a tax break of 0.64 cents per litre and making ethanol-methanol gas very competitive. I should also mention that I have visited the UCO station just outside of Guelph and have seen the widespread acceptance of the EM gas blend.

It is popular among those with environmental concerns -- and that includes all of us -- and it is also popular among farmers who stand to have an increased use of some of their own production. You should always remember that farmers on the national basis use from 12 per cent to 15 per cent of the fuel consumption here in Canada.

By supporting EM gas, we are not talking about getting the province into any form of ongoing subsidy program, and I emphasize that. I think, however, that the province’s promotion of EM gas does provide the opportunity for capital assistance without much alteration to existing programs. I believe the government can accomplish this if the Minister of Agriculture and Food shows some effectiveness and some initiative in lobbying his cabinet colleagues.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) should be made aware of the importance of acting and acting soon in this area. At current prices, an economically-sized ethanol production plant would cost some $20 million. Assisting with a capital grant of such a size is certainly within the province’s capacity. It would even be less than much of the assistance that the province has provided to the auto industry and recently to the Goodyear tire industry, just to name a couple.

The other area where we could look at providing assistance on a one-time basis is in assisting retail service stations with retrofitting costs to handle the new blend. That would cost in each and every individual service-station case from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $1,500 per service station -- not an alarming sum. The total investment, therefore, for creating an entirely new provincial industry would not be excessive, while greatly reducing exhaust pollution.

Just as with the auto plants, new jobs will be created. If all Ontario were to utilize EM gas -- which is maybe wishful thinking -- using Ontario ethanol, thousands of jobs would be created. Statistics Canada’s model shows at least 5,000 jobs would be created in Ontario, not saying that it would strengthen some very weak grain markets at present. Initially, we certainly cannot hope to get a 100 per cent EM gas usage. But even at 20 per cent ethanol-methanol blend usage, it would result in over 1,000 jobs being created while reducing pollution. This is certainly substantial, and it is a start in the right direction.

There are a number of locations in Ontario that would be suitable, many of them in high-unemployment areas. An ideal site would have good facilities for receiving corn, a heat-energy supply, water and access to transportation facilities to ship the ethanol to fuel refiners and blenders and, of course, the byproducts which could certainly be used in the feeding of livestock.

Possible locations include the Bruce, Sarnia and Chatham areas and, of course, Prescott, which happens to be in my riding, where the Elders Co. has very recently taken over the elevator at Prescott in Edwardsburgh township right on the seaway with existing rail facilities and along Highway 401.

1020

I should also mention that a byproduct of ethanol distillation from corn is a high-fibre protein substance called DDGS, distillers’ dried grains and solubles, and is in high demand for animal feed here in Canada as well as in Europe.

I could go on for an hour, but I would like to reserve the time left to answer my colleagues who will be addressing this private member’s motion.

Mr. Miller: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on ballot item 27 brought in by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) concerning the promotion and development of new crop uses in Ontario’s agriculture and food sector.

First of all, I would like to recognize the Ontario corn producers who are present. There is Cliff Leach who is sitting in the gallery this morning. He just happened to be coming along at the right time to hear the debate on this resolution. There are Terry Daynard, executive vice-president, along with members of the association, and Gordon McNern, who is vice-president of business development for grains, St. Lawrence Starch Co., which is one of the manufacturers of ethanol at the present time, perhaps the only one in Ontario. Also there is a representative of Ontario co-operative, Glen Perchbacher. It is fitting that these people are here this morning to hear the debate.

As the third party’s critic for Agriculture and Food -- I am referring to the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry -- the member’s input is highly valued on this side of the House. We appreciate the diligence with which he performs his duties as an opposition critic.

The resolution introduced by the honourable member contains three examples of specific ways in which he would like to see the development of new crop uses take place, and I would like to address these examples individually.

The first is the use of grain corn for ethanol-methanol gasoline. As I am sure the honourable members are aware, ethanol can be produced using cereal grains or corn and it can be made out of many other products such as potatoes, and even straw. It is not only corn that can be used to make it; it can be made out of many other materials. It is used as an octane enhancer in gasoline to reduce the lead content in the fuel.

Agricultural groups consider ethanol to be a potential alternative use of agricultural commodities in Canada. Specifically in Ontario, the greatest benefit would be realized by the corn producers. We all know that for a farmer corn prices have been at depression prices over the past several years.

Many private companies have indicated an interest in building an ethanol plant in Ontario. The proposals have been evaluated by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

The fuel ethanol market is not yet well established in Ontario, and although St. Lawrence Starch has two ethanol-methanol-fuelled automobiles on the road at the present time, the industry is still in the experimental stages of market development. Therefore, full-scale government involvement in the fuel ethanol industry is somewhat premature.

The public costs of establishing a fuel ethanol industry in Ontario, as projected by the proposals received, are perceived to be prohibitively high. I think that is the input cost versus the return. Distillers’ grain, a byproduct of the fuel-ethanol production process, can be used in feed rations and this product competes directly with soybeans and hay and other sources of feed that would be displaced by distillers’ grain.

Mr. Villeneuve: Imported soybeans.

Mr. Miller: I think we are almost on a balance on the soybeans and we can produce more. I think this year is going to be a good example for the honourable member.

The price of corn could be expected to rise slightly and this would impact negatively on corn users. I think you have to take all the factors; we certainly want to get an increase but it has to also be competitive.

The Ontario government has a road tax exemption for ethanol and methanol used as gasoline additives in Ontario. This initiative has recently been adopted by the government of Alberta and is under consideration by the federal government as well. I think our federal friends do have a role to play in assisting, if we want to get this product in use.

When all the above factors are taken into consideration, including the impact on other agricultural products, the public cost of capital assistance in plant construction and the cost of production subsidies and tax exemptions, balanced against the as yet unproven marketability of fuel ethanol, it makes sense that prudent, careful management of this potential alternative use of Ontario corn is the best course of action.

Although the potential of fuel ethanol appears promising, more work needs to be done by the industries concerned before large expenditures of public money can be allocated. We believe that industry should be encouraged to take the initiative to research and develop new technologies, and I think that is what St. Lawrence Starch is doing. I think there has to be co-operation with not only St. Lawrence Starch, but also our oil refineries because there is where one of the problems lies, to get the oil refineries to get the mix. I think Petro-Canada, one of our own companies, is not too co-operative along those lines. That is another federal problem.

We believe industries should be encouraged to take the initiative to research and develop these new technologies.

The second suggestion for a new crop use in the resolution is the promotion and development of calcium-magnesium acetate. This product, also corn-based, is being tested as a replacement for road salt. There are several advantages of this product over road salt. For example, it does not rust automobiles and is less harmful to the environment. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation is conducting research on this product now, but the production costs are still out of line for full commercial use on highways in Ontario.

The third proposal of the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is with respect to biodegradable plastic bags. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food is aware of the potential of this product developed from a starch derivative, again based on corn. I understand St. Lawrence Starch has developed a biodegradable carry-out shopping bag and it is to be commended for its work in this area. Indeed, I met with representatives of this company two weeks ago to discuss this specific new product initiative, as well as the ongoing ethanol efforts.

Further research is needed before biodegradable garbage bags are commercially produced and various companies are now experimenting with different levels of cornstarch in the plastic to obtain the desired strength. We are optimistic that the impact of this product on the waste management industry could be enormous.

Finally, I would like to again voice my appreciation to the honourable member for drawing the attention of the House to these three potential nonfood uses of grain corn. I might add that sugar is another product that can be produced from corn and there is a tremendous market for that too, but we are still having to compete with other sugars being dumped into Canada, a free trade issue, which is really destroying the industry.

I wish to assure him that members on this side of the House are concerned as well and are doing what we can to encourage these developments. In fact, the rural caucus of the government met as recently as this morning to discuss this very issue with the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has taken a lead role in promoting and developing new uses for a variety of Ontario crops, and I would like to direct the attention of the members specifically to the Ontario crop introduction and expansion program whose purpose is to expand crop opportunities for the Ontario farmer by encouraging more co-operative research efforts between the public and private sectors.

The Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food is in frequent contact with his cabinet colleagues to co-ordinate the government’s initiatives in these areas and to facilitate interministerial co-operation where areas of jurisdictional overlap occur. I want to make that point very clear.

I would like to wind up my portion of the debate on this resolution. I guess I have a word of warning. My colleague from Kent has brought to my attention that this is the driest year on record since 1890, and it could be a disaster as far as our grain supplies are concerned, not only in North America but also affecting overall world markets. We have to be very careful that we have the food supply that is so necessary. While we seem to have mountains here, those mountains can disappear very quickly. I suppose we have to take that in perspective.

1030

Also, for the farming community, as our Prime Minister found out on his trip to Europe, 45 per cent of the net farm income in Canada is from government assistance; in the European Community countries it is 49 per cent.

I suppose those things have to be considered in the overall use of corn for ethanol.

Mr. Wildman: I want to rise and congratulate the member for the united counties in introducing this resolution this morning. It is my pleasure to participate in the debate in favour of the resolution.

I am tempted to point out that on occasion members of this House, as well as others of the general public, have used alcohol as a fuel and it has certainly got them revved up. I do say though that --

Mr. Villeneuve: They spun their wheels.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, many of us are spinning our wheels.

Seriously though, I think it is a significant proposal to suggest that in a period of depressed markets, we should be actively, as a government in Ontario, promoting alternative uses for our food products, particularly ones that will be beneficial to the environment.

I must say I was disappointed in the comments of my good friend the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) who, I suppose, was not just speaking as a representative of the rural caucus of his party, but also in a way as a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food this morning in this private members’ debate. He seems overly cautious in his approach. To state that there is not a well-established market for ethanol-methanol fuels is to beg the question of the resolution, I submit, because the resolution is proposing that the government should be promoting these alternative uses for corn and grain products.

I think it is incumbent upon the provincial government, for the reasons of trying to improve the markets for these products, lessening our dependence on petroleum products and cleaning up the environment, to promote actively, as is proposed in the resolution, the production of these products and their use and to promote the market. That is, I think, what the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is proposing.

It has been suggested over the years that the cost could be prohibitively high and that this type of fuel alternative would not be competitive with purely petroleum fuel. I do not think that is the case, as was pointed out by my friend from the united counties. With the current end price for fuel in Ontario, that is no longer as serious a concern.

I am disturbed, though, by the member for Norfolk’s suggestion that in producing these new products from corn, that might gain a market but that might then raise the price of corn, which would adversely affect other consumers of corn. Surely we should be doing all we can to improve the price of corn with the terrible depression in the price right now. The fact is that the farmers are facing a very serious debt crisis in this province. It seems to me that we should be doing all we can to improve the price of farm products, not worrying that they might go up. I really do not understand that argument.

I do agree with my friend from Norfolk that the federal government should be involved. I am sure my friend from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry would agree with that. I think that both levels of government should be doing all they can to promote experimentation with and development and marketing of the products. He did say that the Liberal Party was in favour of encouraging industry to develop these products. I would like to know how they want to encourage industry. I think they should be doing that. I think they should be promoting it, but I think they should also be involved in terms of helping to fund research and development in these areas.

I should point out that in some countries, methanol fuels have basically taken over the market. All you have to do is look at Brazil, for instance. Certainly, in the midwestern United States there is a significant market for mixed gasoline fuels that are using methanol products. I really think there is a potential market that should be encouraged by the government.

With regard to the other two products proposed in the resolution, I think we should be less cautious than the member for Norfolk indicated. I look at the state of Michigan, for instance, which has banned the use of road salt. The climate across the border, across the St. Marys River from my house is not significantly different than it is where I live. If the state of Michigan could ban the use of road salt, we could in fact be doing a similar thing in Ontario. I am not suggesting necessarily we need to ban it, but surely we should be looking at alternatives, particularly when you consider the environmental damage and the damage to agriculture that is done by road salt. Certainly, all consumers with automobiles would be interested in having the government do whatever would be possible to lessen the rust our automobiles face.

This may sound like a funny reason, but, as a northerner I am also concerned about the number of animals, particularly moose, big game, that are killed on the highways because they are searching for salt in the summertime, the salt in the ditches. The Ministry of Natural Resources right now is doing experiments to try to keep these large animals away from the highways because one of the reasons they are coming out on to the highway is to get the salt. Salt residues might be lessened if we could be using other products.

Mr. Miller: Put salt blocks out.

Mr. Wildman: They are putting out salt blocks. That is one of the things they are doing. They are putting salt blocks in the bush and they are also building grates along ditches to try to make it impossible for the animals to walk in the ditches, so that they will not go there.

The other suggestion was biodegradable bags, the use of cornstarch. We once did use biodegradable bags almost completely. They were called paper. It is unfortunate, frankly, that we have moved to plastics so much in our society because we have a tremendous environmental problem, particularly in southern Ontario but right across the province, with landfill.

One of the biggest difficulties we have with landfill is these plastic garbage bags that people use. A lot of the garbage that is put in those bags is indeed biodegradable. But when you put it in those bags and seal them up, they can last for ever. I think we should be attempting to protect the environment by ensuring that whatever research needs to be done into biodegradable bags that could be used for shopping bags and garbage bags will be done, rather than attempting to increase the use of plastics in our society. Plastics increase our dependence on petroleum, of course, and they are harmful to the environment. They last for ever.

I congratulate once again my friend from the united counties for introducing this resolution this morning. I realize the concern that was raised by the member for Norfolk with regard to the dry year and the fact that because of the difficulties that are being experienced, particularly in western Canada and other parts of the Prairies where grain production may be down substantially, the price may rise. But I think we should be doing all we can to try to level off the tremendous experiences we have had with peaks and valleys in prices, where we are dependent on bad weather that harms one farmer to improve the price for another group of farmers.

I do not think that is the way we should be dealing with farm marketing and pricing in the modern world. I think we should be doing all we can to develop alternative markets that will help to increase the price on a more steady plane and to ensure that farmers are able to market their products and that these products will benefit consumers in the overall society by being ones that will lessen the cost to consumers and improve the protection of the environment.

I would hope that all members of the House will join in supporting this resolution and that if the resolution passes, as I hope it does, the government will respond and there will not just simply be another expression of opinion by the House that it is in favour of something as if it was sort of a motherhood issue and it just stays there.

I hope that if this resolution passes, the government will, in fact, take action and the Minister of Agriculture and Food, in conjunction with his cabinet colleagues, will set up a task force to determine how they will move in this area, what kinds of grants will be provided, what kinds of marketing promotion will be provided and what kind of research will be encouraged so that we can indeed develop alternative products in this way.

1040

Mr. McLean: I want to read this resolution into the record once again.

“That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should play an increased role in promoting and developing new crop uses, particularly the use of grain corn for ethanol-methanol gasoline, for the production of calcium-magnesium acetate, and in promoting the increased use of biodegradable bags, and that to further these aims, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should be more active in promoting these alternative uses to the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.”

I think that resolution really says it all. I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity to speak about and show my support for this resolution from my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. By supporting this resolution, the members of this Legislature will be demonstrating this province’s commitment to reducing pollution, conserving our shrinking reserves of conventional light crude oil, creating employment for those required to produce ethanol and developing new uses or markets for Ontario’s corn.

There are several reasons I suggest it is in the public interest to encourage the use of grain corn for ethanol-methanol gasoline additives in Ontario and right across this country for that matter. The first, and to me the most important reason, is the protection of our health through the reduction or complete elimination of lead in our gasoline.

For many years, lead compounds have been added to gasoline to raise its octane rating -- thus improving the fuel’s anti-knock capabilities -- in this time of high-compression engines. However, we have all heard about medical research that suggest lead released into the environment through the combustion of fuel can cause serious health hazards, especially in area of high traffic volume such as Toronto or Hamilton or London. There is also evidence that elevated blood lead levels are associated with harmful biochemical effects in children.

This country is among the growing number of nations restricting lead concentrations in gasoline. We are all no doubt aware that the permissible lead level was lowered to 0.29 grams per litre of gasoline from 0.77 grams in January 1987. On March 25, 1986, the federal government indicated its intention of effectively eliminating the use of lead in gasoline by the end of 1992.

Both ethanol and methanol would serve ideally as octane enhancers in replacing lead. Not only would replacing lead with ethanol or methanol reduce pollution and risks to our health, it would also prove to be excellent high-octane fuel.

Ethanol would boost octane from one to two points and automobile manufacturers could then increase the efficiency of car engines to utilize the increased octane. Ethanol is a clean-burning fuel and that means fewer deposits on car engines and a reduction in existing deposits. This will contribute to longer engine life, reduced run-on and smoother acceleration. The lower emissions would lead to a reduction in pollution equal to taking one car in five off the road, provided all cars use the new blended gasoline.

Another feature of this new blended fuel is something we can all probably identify with. It would prevent gasline freeze-up because the alcohols eliminate condensation in the fuel tank. Motorists would not have to bother ensuring there is some gasline antifreeze in their tanks every time they pull up to the gasoline pumps during the cold winter months.

Conserving Canada’s dwindling reserves of conventional light crude oil is something we are told to do, it is something many of us are trying to do and it is something we could do better through alcohol blending. Alcohols can serve as fuel extenders by displacing some of the crude oil required in gasoline production.

Methanol is currently manufactured from natural gas, which is a resource more plentiful in Canada than light crude oil, and could also be made from other carbon-rich materials such as coal and wood. Ethanol can be manufactured from ethylene, a chemical produced in petroleum refining, derived from ethane, a constituent of natural gas, or fermented from starch and sugar containing feedstocks such as grains and root crops.

Expanded production of ethanol, using a variety of agricultural materials, could also benefit Ontario’s agricultural industry by increasing public demand at a time when the agricultural community faces stiff competition selling its produce abroad. It should also be noted that ethanol production provides a market for substandard produce, crop residues and crop surpluses.

Ontario grows approximately 70 per cent of Canada’s corn and is a province where 35 per cent of Canada’s gasoline is consumed. Even if all of this gasoline was blended with three per cent ethanol produced from Ontario corn, the supply of Ontario corn would still be sufficient to meet all existing domestic markets and a surplus would still exist to be sold internationally.

Ethanol can be produced cheaply from high-cellulose wastes. If only corn cobs, which are ejected from the rear of the combine harvester after the grain is separated during corn harvesting, were used for ethanol production, the supply would theoretically still be in excess of the amount necessary to add three per cent ethanol to this province’s entire gasoline supply. Fuel ethanol could be produced year-round from grain corn preserved direct from the combine as wet corn silage, thereby eliminating the usual $10 to $15 per tonne cost for artificial drying.

As I mentioned earlier, ethanol can also be produced effectively from lower-quality grain which exists in almost every year because of poor weather in certain agricultural zones. This fact could enable higher-quality grains or corn to be concentrated and devoted to other uses such as export markets, where reputation for quality is vital to the marketing success.

It is my understanding that nearly 8,000 jobs could be created if this government took a serious interest in ethanol production. The plants for this production could be spread throughout the province, creating employment in numerous sectors rather than just in one or two. This government must take an active role in job creation, pollution reduction, health protection, light crude oil conservation and farm market creation. This government can take a more active role in these areas by supporting the resolution of my colleague.

I would like to conclude by restating my reasons for supporting this resolution before us now. Agriculture is in a position where it is capable of supplying feedstocks required for ethanol production well in excess of the potential requirements without any major impact on its ability to supply existing and potential markets. A large-scale ethanol industry could result in a three per cent to four per cent increase in grain corn prices to Ontario farmers, because ethanol can be produced from weather-damaged crops and from ensiled, wet grain, therefore avoiding the expense of artificial drying.

As the technology is perfected to produce ethanol from high-cellulose materials, our farmers will also benefit from new markets for crop residues. But even if the impact on agriculture was not included, ethanol-methanol blended gasoline could be judged as being successful and beneficial to the long-term wellbeing of Ontario for the following reasons.

The facilities required to process ethanol could aid economic development in rural Ontario and low-employment areas by creating an estimated 7,750 new jobs. The byproducts of ethanol are distillers’ grains and solubles which are valuable feed supplements with international market potential. Ethanol-methanol blended gasoline is an environmentally safer fuel which works better than traditional gasoline currently available to consumers, and ethanol is a renewable resource which would ease the stress on diminishing conventional crude oil resources.

1050

I urge all members of this Legislature to support this resolution from my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and I join with him in urging the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong), the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) to also support it.

The income of farmers has not increased like those of other people in this society. Farmers are still the backbone of the country. Why should farmers work long hours and still lose at the end of the year? The money these farmers receive in Ontario is nothing to compare with what industry wages are. Everybody gets an increase in salary except the farmers. The Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program of this government has been decreased by 60 per cent. The day will come when people will be paying dearly for what they eat if they do not look after the farm community.

Mr. Tatham: I am pleased to take part on the resolution proposed by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

I know a man who is sometimes asked for a letter of recommendation by people he does not know. This man applies two rules to each request. First, he finds out whether or not the individual has paid his taxes. Second, he also finds out from legal sources whether the individual has been involved with the law and to what extent. If the answers are favourable, a letter of recommendation is forthcoming. If the answers are not, no letter.

The honourable member’s resolution, in my view, must pass two tests. Let me describe test number one, the ecosystem approach. What is it? Ecosystems are natural or artificial subdivisions of the biosphere, with boundaries arbitrarily defined to suit particular purposes. It is possible to speak of your personal ecosystem -- you and the environment on which you depend for sunshine, air, water, food and friends; the Great Lakes basin as an ecosystem -- interacting communities of living and nonliving things in the basin; or our planetary ecosystem -- the biosphere.

The ecosystem concept recognizes that you are new, yet not new. The molecules in your body have been parts of other organisms and will travel to other destinations in the future. Right now in your lungs, there is likely to be at least one molecule from the breath of every adult human being who has lived in the past 3,000 years. The air around you will be used tomorrow by deer, lake trout, mosquitoes and maple trees. The same is true of water, sunshine and minerals. Everything in the biosphere is shared.

There is something very strange, deep and mysterious about the way the building blocks of life are arranged as wholes that are, in turn, parts of larger wholes. Everything from atoms to galaxies is literally interconnected. Sharing and interconnectedness are the reasons why the boundaries of ecosystems overlap. Although most people vaguely understand the concept, they do not see how it relates to or affects them.

There is a simple yet profound difference between environment and ecosystem. The notion of environment is like that of a house, something external and detached. In contrast, ecosystem implies home, something that we feel part of and see ourselves in even when we are not there. A home has an added spiritual dimension that makes it qualitatively different from a house. It is a happier place because of the caring and sharing relationships among its inhabitants.

The emergence of an ecosystem approach to planning, research and management in the Great Lakes basin is not accidental. It is a most recent phase in the historical succession of management approaches from egocentric to piecemeal to environmental and now to an ecosystem approach.

This succession arose from stresses imposed by the burgeoning growth of population and technology in the Great Lakes basin. The ecosystem approach emerged in the 1970s with the realization, in part from the discovery of toxic chemicals and human food chains, that people and environments can only be managed effectively in relation to ecosystems of which they are a part.

The essence of an ecosystem approach is that it relates wholes at different levels of integration -- us and ecosystems containing us -- rather than interdependent parts -- us and our environments. This calls for four-eyed vision, two eyes from the egosystem -- a person, corporation, voluntary association, professional discipline, government or nation -- looking outward at its external environment; and two from an ecosystem looking at the egosystem and its operational environment as a whole. This perspective, hereafter termed an ecosystem perspective, is crucial to human wellbeing and survival.

What must be done to practise an ecosystem approach?

1. Know your ecosystem. Develop a perspective that takes account of influences on us of larger systems of which we and our external environments are parts. This requires improved knowledge of the operation and relationships of systems in nature.

2. Act in ways that are ecological -- taking account of that knowledge and perspective -- anticipatory -- forestalling events that could bring later regret -- and ethical, showing respect for other systems of nature comparable to our respect for our other persons.

Because the consequences of preventing something from happening are invisible to the untrained eye, the benefits of an ecosystem approach are not readily discerned. Some examples of the evolution from indifferent to ecosystem management styles may help to clarify what is meant by ecosystem approach and to show the extent to which it is now in development.

1. Organic waste. First, it was dumped wherever convenient -- best of all, in streams or lakes. Next, because of downstream problems, we developed energy-consumptive sewage treatment systems. Now, an ecosystem approach focuses on recycling energy efficiently and material recovery from sewage.

2. Eutrophication. First, it was ignored. When the odours become too strong, nutrient-rich effluents were diverted downstream. Then phosphorus was removed from sewage effluents. An ecosystem approach promotes low-phosphate detergents, more efficient use of fertilizers and nutrient recycling.

3. Oxides related to acid rain. At first, the pervasiveness of the acid rain problem was not recognized. When problems arose locally, the solution was to build taller smokestacks. Then came removal of acids by scrubbing. Now, an ecosystem approach advocates energy conservation and the recycling of sulphur.

4. Water diversion and consumptive uses. The first rule was to divert, the more the better. Then the scale of operation was increased to meet new shortages, encouraging export as a commodity. An ecosystem approach might recommend diverting water sparingly and only in the context of overall regional planning. It might also set limits on overall use or provide incentives for nonconsumptive uses.

5. Cancer. People were never indifferent to cancer. However, it is still commonly viewed in terms of single causes. In an ecosystem approach, real cures -- prevention techniques -- must be based on the knowledge that cancer is to a large degree environmental, with many contributing causes.

6. Toxic chemicals. At first, toxic chemicals were used indiscriminately. Then they were dealt with one by one with regulations after the fact, as in the case of pesticides. An ecosystem approach requires designing with nature, particularly for long-lived compounds.

7. Energy shortages. Successive “solutions” were, first, to ignore the problem, then to increase the energy supply and expand the grid with pricing to encourage greater use. An ecosystem approach encourages conservational pricing with inverse rate schedules to discourage greater use.

8. Traffic congestion. Successive “solutions” have been to curse, build more roads and superhighways, improve public transportation and stagger commuters’ work hours. An ecosystem approach might encourage a broader look at commuters’ work and travel needs and at overall land use planning.

Then we go on to energy accounting: how many energy inputs for how many energy outputs. Although the figures I am presenting are taken from a research paper provided by representatives of New York State College and Cornell University 15 years ago, a principle has been established. In 1970, about 2.9 million kilocalories was used by farmers to raise an acre of corn, equivalent to 80 gallons of gasoline. The 2.9 million kilocalories input of fossil fuel represents a small portion of energy input when compared with the solar energy input.

During the growing season, about 26.6 million kilocalories of solar energy is converted into corn. Thus, when solar energy is included, man’s 2.9 million kilocalories of fossil fuel represents about 11 per cent of the total energy input in corn production.

The important point is that the supply of solar energy is unlimited in time, whereas fossil fuel supply is finite. Would you give this idea a recommendation? Is it of good character? Has the idea paid its way? The answer to those three questions is yes.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is a real pleasure to have had some of my colleagues comment on this private member’s resolution. In the three minutes left at my disposal, I will try to touch on a few of the things that were mentioned.

First, I thank the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham). The ecosystem I do not quite understand. I got a bit of a lesson in ecosystems, but I do hope that this message echoes to cabinet. If it does, then it will have accomplished some of the reasons why I brought it forth.

Some of the people who participated in this debate this morning were concerned that maybe if we take too much corn out of the traditional methods of usage, we will create a shortage. I must tell the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller), and I thank him for participating in this debate, what we are really doing is squeezing a little bit of alcohol out of this corn and we still have a 28 per cent protein livestock feed that goes right back into traditional uses. We will have more than 95 per cent by weight left to go back to the livestock industry. We are taking very little from the corn itself other than removing the alcohol content, which goes to waste anyway as a livestock feed; it is in the starch there. However, it will be enhancing and reducing the pollution, enhancing our atmosphere, our air. I do not see how anyone can object to that.

1100

The St. Lawrence Starch people who are here this morning I had occasion to meet last fall. They have all of the technology now for the processing and distilling of the product. The government need not take an initiative here. All the government has to do is send a clear message: “Yes, we are concerned about the environment. We are concerned about weak grain prices. We are concerned about creating jobs.”

Mr. Miller: We sent the message.

Mr. Villeneuve: I hope the message continues to come out, because following what the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) said, that the state of agriculture was in very difficult times because of the Massey Combines closing and that agriculture was really going through some tough times, the Minister of Agriculture and Food yesterday almost broke his arm patting himself on the back when I questioned him about a 60 per cent reduction in the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program. He did not answer that question. Leading up to the September 10 election, there was no talk about reducing the OFFIRR program by 60 per cent.

Mr. Wildman: That’s true, but last year it was 100 per cent and the Treasurer could have continued it at 100 per cent if he wanted to.

Mr. Villeneuve: To the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), I thank him very much for participating in this debate.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Villeneuve: I did not want to light a fuse here, but those are facts and they happened very recently in this Legislature.

United Co-operatives of Ontario has also taken the initiative. They have two service stations in Ontario, and I visited one last fall when I met with the people from St. Lawrence Starch. They are taking the initiative. They know there is a market out there. They know the public of Ontario is concerned. The message has to come from all the different ministries, and it is the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) primarily who have to sell this.

I certainly hope that this private member’s resolution has in some small way created some activity or some thinking. We do have all of the technical things in place. All we need is the will of the government to act.

Le vice-président: Le débat de la résolution de M. Villeneuve est maintenant terminé. À l’ordre du jour.

PLASTIC PACKAGING

Ms. Collins moved resolution 34:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that plastic packaging often poses serious environmental problems, and recognizing that research into possible solutions to these problems is required, and recognizing that plastic packaging materials are important in our economy, and further recognizing that the development of initiatives to develop environmentally sound plastic packaging use and waste management practices could prove economically valuable for Ontario, the Minister of the Environment should develop, as soon as possible, a plastics waste management policy affirming a clear preference for the reuse, recycling, recovery and reduction of plastic packaging materials where feasible, and in such cases where the reuse, recycling, recovery or further reduction of materials may be deemed inappropriate or impractical, the minister should consider safe and environmentally benign degradation as a desirable method of waste disposal for certain plastic products. To develop a comprehensive plastics waste management program, the minister should:

(a) identify the areas of plastic usage where degradability may be desirable;

(b) identify the pros and cons of the available and potential degradable plastics technologies for different plastics usages;

(c) identify the degradable plastics capabilities of Ontario industry and make recommendations regarding public policy initiatives to assist this development;

(d) conduct research into the effects of plastics degradation and its breakdown products both in the environment at large and in landfill sites;

(e) involve the plastics industry in encouraging the reuse, recycling, recovery and reduction of plastics;

(f) identify areas where further research is needed;

(g) make recommendations regarding the co-ordination of intergovernmental action where necessary;

(h) make recommendations for legislative or regulatory action regarding specific plastics usages;

(i) make recommendations concerning the performance standards of degradable plastics; and

(j) identify the economic and environmental effects of recommended actions.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make her presentation and may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Ms. Collins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to reserve a few minutes for later, but I must tell you I was relieved to hear that the reading of the resolution was not included in my time allocation.

Mr. Callahan: It usually is. We made an exception.

Ms. Collins: Thank you.

As members may be aware, this is Canadian Environment Week. It is a time not only to reflect on the health of our environment but also to take further steps to protect it. The consideration of this resolution presents this House with an excellent opportunity to do just that. Many members may remember the popular 1960s film The Graduate. There is a scene in this movie in which a young college graduate, wondering what he is going to do with his life, is advised that the future is in plastics. Prophetic words.

In recent years, the use of plastic products and materials has increased dramatically in our society. In particular, we seem to have fallen in love with plastic packages, containers, wrapping and other short-life products. The reasons are not difficult to determine. Plastic is lightweight, safe, durable, inexpensive and highly protective of packaging contents. All the indications are that this love affair will continue and, if anything, intensify. By the year 2000, in the United States alone, it is expected that the demand for plastics will rise by 36 per cent, to reach the staggering figure of 76 billion pounds annually. Of this amount, 25 per cent, or almost 20 billion pounds a year, will be used in packaging or other short-life uses. That is a lot of plastic bags.

However, if we do not change the way we dispose of these materials, our future in plastics could look very bleak indeed. The problem we face is simple, and actually, it was mentioned earlier on the last resolution. After we use plastic products such as garbage bags, food and beverage containers and six-pack carriers, most of us just throw them out and forget about them. As such, these materials are highly symbolic of our fast-paced, throwaway society, as a visit to any fast-food outlet will readily attest. However, they are not just symbols. Most plastics are made from petrochemicals and take a long time to break down.

When we dispose of our plastic garbage, it may go out of sight and out of mind, but it does not go away; at least, not quickly. It is estimated that plastic debris takes 2,739 years to degrade into a harmless state. The results of this durability are more and more evident. Our society faces a growing problem of where to put its garbage. We are running out of room in our landfill sites. Every proposal to create a new one generates often intense opposition from local residents. Serious environmental concerns exist about air emissions from refuse incinerators, also often resulting in opposition to their construction or continuation. Plastics are increasingly adding to these waste disposal difficulties.

Although plastics currently comprise only a relatively small proportion of municipal solid waste, estimated at about seven or eight per cent, this proportion is steadily rising. That is not the only problem with plastic waste. Plastics also endanger many forms of wildlife. The biggest culprits in this regard are garbage bags and six-pack holders. The numbers are chilling. It is estimated that 100,000 marine mammals and hundred of thousands of sea birds die each year from eating or becoming entangled with plastic debris. Finally, as any outdoor excursion will confirm, plastics litter our lands and waterways.

It is true that this defacement of our environment is due to careless behaviour. However, because of the durability of plastics, the shortsightedness of this generation will be visited on our descendants for many years to come. Litter is not just an eyesore; it is also the violation of a trust.

We must take steps now to deal with the problems posed by short-life, single-use plastic products. Just to clarify, I include in this category plastic items such as packaging and wrapping, food and beverage containers, six-pack ring carriers, swab sticks, agricultural mulch film, fishing lines and nets, and even diapers.

1110

It is generally agreed that the recycling of waste materials is the best way of meeting the challenge for our growing garbage crisis. In the last few years, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has begun to actively promote the recycling option.

The most visible sign of this campaign, of course, is the curbside blue box, which is appearing in more and more Ontario communities each year. In my own riding of Wentworth East, the city of Stoney Creek has had blue boxes for several years, and the city of Hamilton has just started its city-wide blue box campaign. However, to date, aside from some types of bottles, these recycling efforts have not really touched plastics.

The purpose of the resolution I am moving today is to change this situation by calling upon the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to develop a plastics waste management policy as soon as possible. This policy would affirm a clear preference for the reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery of plastics, where feasible.

Nevertheless, a recent study has suggested that a maximum of 25 per cent of plastic waste produced during the coming decade has a realistic potential of being reused or recycled. It is possible that this figure is a low estimate. We just do not know until we put in place a comprehensive plastics recycling program whether or not that is the case. However, it is quite likely that the four Rs still would not effectively cover all plastic products.

Fortunately, there are technologies available now which cause plastics to break down relatively rapidly after use. Plastics of this type are termed degradable and they fall into one of two categories: first, biodegradable, in which breakdown is accomplished or assisted by natural organisms; or second, photodegradable, in which breakdown is accomplished by exposure to ultraviolet light.

Some Ontario firms currently are in the forefront of the development of these technologies. We have already heard this morning, for example, that St. Lawrence Starch Co. of Port Credit is producing a product known as Ecostar, a blend of plastic and corn starch.

The resolution I am proposing states that safe and environmentally sound degradation should be considered a desirable method of waste disposal for certain products for which the four-Rs option is deemed impractical or inappropriate.

I should mention to members that when I originally thought about introducing a bill or a resolution to address the problem of plastic pollution, I intended to set a long-term but mandatory deadline after which the sale of nonrecyclable or nondegradable short-life plastic products would not be allowed. A number of legislatures in the United States and Europe have enacted measures of this type, although usually they are specifically directed at particular plastic products, such as ring carriers. Almost a dozen US states, for example, now require degradable beverage ring-top containers, and Italy has recently passed a law requiring all packaging materials to be degradable by 1991.

However, I believed that a comprehensive plastics program dealing with a whole range of short-life, single-use products was required. Yet the more I examined the issue, the more obvious it became that, although we definitely need a plastics waste management policy as soon as possible, a number of questions must be answered before we can implement this policy in detail.

For example, it is not clear for which plastic products degradation rather than recycling would be desirable. It is also not known exactly how degradable plastics behave in a landfill site or in the environment at large. In addition, there are quite legitimate concerns that degradable plastics may have the undesirable effect of encouraging people to litter.

Accordingly, this resolution calls upon the Minister of the Environment to establish a comprehensive plastics waste management program to address these concerns. Based on this research, the body or task force set up to oversee this program will then make recommendations for further action, such as waste disposal regulations for specific plastic products and government initiatives to assist the development of degradable plastics technologies.

The implementation of this program will benefit both our environment and our economy. The growing trend throughout Europe and North America to recognize and act on the problem of plastic pollution opens a real window of opportunity for companies that produce recyclable or degradable plastic materials.

The development of a plastics waste management program could provide the critical boost our industry and research establishments need to become world leaders in this area. Policy initiatives introduced in this regard could dovetail nicely with the work presently being done by the Premier’s Council.

For example, the strategic procurement program could possibly be adapted to require that the government purchase recyclable or degradable plastic bags, or perhaps need for further research into degradable plastics could spur the creation of a centre of excellence in the highly promising field of environmental technology.

It has become evident in recent years that economic development must be compatible with environmental protection. If we want our children to enjoy a prosperous future, we must bequeath to them a habitable planet. To achieve this objective, we must begin now to pursue the path of sustainable economics, not just in words but in deeds. I believe that an environmentally sound plastics waste management program could provide a concrete illustration of the wisdom of this approach.

Once this program is in place, its ultimate success will depend on the co-operation of each citizen; and after its implementation, it should be much more difficult for each of us to put out a garbage bag, grasp a six-pack holder, open a fast-food container or drink from a Styrofoam cup without considering where these plastic materials will end up. Perhaps the future does lie in plastics, but we must act now if we wish to live in that future.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The honourable member has eight and a half minutes left. Do you wish to reserve any amount of time with respect to that or the whole eight and a half minutes?

Ms. Collins: I should not require more than a couple of minutes, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Then the honourable member will reserve two minutes?

Ms. Collins: Yes.

Mrs. Grier: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am very glad the private member’s motion which the member for Wentworth East (Ms. Collins) has moved is before us today, because it gives us an opportunity to talk about a subject that is becoming increasingly important to those who try to protect the environment. I think the analysis that has been given by the member of the problems with plastics -- the problems they cause and the problems of getting rid of them -- is a very good analysis.

I regret, however, that in her examination of what to do about the problem, she rejected the idea of suggesting legislation and controlling the use of plastics in our environment. I think the program she has outlined, while worthwhile and obviously necessary, does not go nearly far enough. It smacks too much of more research while we decide what we are going to do, rather than actually coming to grips with the problem and initiating at least some action to prevent the degradation of our environment any further by plastics.

I would remind the honourable member it was the government that is now in office which, in fact, introduced the two-litre plastic bottles to our environment and it is those bottles that have really contributed to the increase of plastic in the waste stream. In fact, since their introduction in 1978 in the United States, almost 22 per cent of the volume of carbonated beverages is now sold in those large plastic bottles and there is no way of turning a used polyethylene terephthalate or PET bottle into a new one. If we really want to do something about the plastics problem, we have got to stop their entry into the market if they are not recyclable or reusable.

I want to talk a little about the four Rs the member mentions in her resolution. We all of us say we support reuse, recycling, recovery and reduction. Unfortunately, though, when we talk about recovery, that too often means incineration. Incineration is not a good answer to the problem of waste management and it is a particularly bad answer when we come to talk about plastics.

I want to make it very plain that while I am supporting the member’s resolution there are some aspects of it that really trouble me. If, in her definition of recovery, it becomes incineration, then that is certainly something I have reservations about. As to the problems of burning materials which contain chlorine compounds, plastics and bleached paper are two of the major sources of those compounds. During combustion those are exactly the compounds which produce dioxin, and that is one of the problems which has been evidenced in much of our food and in much of the human body and is certainly one of the most carcinogenic substances showing up in the food chain. I think we have to be very clear that incineration of plastics is not a solution we are about to support.

1120

The other difficulty with one of the four Rs when it comes to plastics is that recycling is not easy. It is easy to recycle paper, it is easy to recycle metals and it is easy to recycle glass and aluminum, but it is not easy to recycle plastics. In fact, in New York state, I understand two thirds of the plastic soft drink containers that were returned under its recycling or deposit systems ended up being buried because there is just no way of reusing that material and putting it back on the market.

If it can be reused, though, there are certainly some advantages, because reusing plastic is a great saving in energy. In an article by World Watch Institute, there were some facts that indicated by developing a process for recycling plastics, we could save twice as much energy as burning them in an incinerator. I quote Dr. Jack Milgrom, a plastics analyst: “Producing a fabricated plastic product from scrap instead of virgin resin saves 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the energy otherwise used, including the energy of the petroleum feedstocks used to manufacture the resin.” Certainly, if we could begin to recycle some of that plastic, we would not only be saving the disposal costs, but we would be saving the energy used to create the plastic in the first place.

Essentially, what we have got to focus on if we really want to come to grips with the plastics problem, and what this resolution, in my opinion, does not focus upon sufficiently, is the source reduction. Certainly, we support biodegradable plastics and we support any ecological solutions to the problem of plastics, but we have got to really look at how we can reduce the introduction of plastics into the waste stream if we are to prevent them ultimately ending up as an environmental contaminant.

The kind of technological solutions which are identified in the member’s resolution might well serve to divert attention away from that essential element of reducing the source. I think we also do not know enough about the actual conditions under which plastic products do biodegrade. Is it in the earth? Is it in sunshine? How are we going to know how it will really work in the real world? All of that will take a long time to develop. The kind of research the member outlines in her resolution is perhaps going to delay for far too long legislation to prevent the entry of plastics into our economy.

We do have the constitutional ability to legislate against the introduction of plastics and we have done far too little of that. I made reference to the present minister’s permission to allow these plastic containers into the soft drink industry. Not only have we allowed that new product on to the market, we have done nothing and this government has done nothing to prevent the entry of other kinds of plastic into the waste stream. I think more attention needs to be diverted to the kind of legislation we need and to enacting that legislation quickly, as well as to the very laudable research which is suggested in the member’s resolution.

I hope, if this resolution is adopted, it will not be seen as the end of the problem but merely a beginning, and that the time frame which is contemplated for the kind of research the member is outlining and the kind of examination and the kind of policy discussion will be a very brief one. As the member has outlined, the problem is very great and, in my opinion, we cannot delay any longer before really coming to grips with it. We have to begin to legislate on this aspect, not just study it further. I thank the member for allowing us to have the opportunity at least to raise the issue and debate the subject. I hope we can move forward from here and really take some action, not just research into what action might be necessary.

Mrs. Marland: When I came into the House this morning, I thought this was really a historic day, because at that time we had seven women in this Legislature and five men. I feel that is worth putting on the record and should be recognized. I am happy to have a woman in the chair, as I have mentioned before. I am also happy to support the resolution of the member for Wentworth East.

The member’s resolution calls on the Ministry of the Environment to develop a plastics waste management policy which states a clear preference for the reuse, recycling, recovery and reduction of plastic packaging materials. Where this is inappropriate or impractical, the resolution calls on the minister to consider safe and environmentally benign degradation, a desirable method of waste disposal for certain plastics.

Although progress is being made in the areas of recycling newspapers, metal cans and glass bottles, the disposal of plastics is presenting a rather stubborn challenge. An ever-increasing number of convenient but nonreturnable plastic containers is adding to an already troublesome household waste stream.

In 1987, soft drinks sold in nonrecyclable two-litre plastic bottles accounted for 10 per cent of the pop market. Dairy products are increasingly packaged in plastic, and now other groceries such as ketchup, jams and relishes are being sold in the squeezable plastic containers.

Although plastic packages have the advantage of being lightweight, unbreakable and flexible, they do not easily lend themselves to reuse or recycling and they do not really decompose.

Recyclers already have their hands full in expanding collection of newspapers, glass bottles and metal cans. Plastics are not as efficiently collected. Their relatively cheap production costs and low weight make the economics difficult, and their physical properties do not always facilitate compaction, making them take up considerable space on recycling trucks.

Plastics cannot be separated and cleaned for recycling as readily as cans and bottles because of their physical properties. For instance, a squeezable ketchup bottle is made of six layers of plastic, each engineered for shape, strength, flexibility and impermeability. Plastic containers for different products have different characteristics and properties.

Some progress has been made by a Toronto company, Ecoplastics Ltd., which has developed a resin that allows plastic packages to disintegrate in the sun. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have vacation time where we walk beaches anywhere in this world would certainly know that if we did have a plastic that disintegrated in the sun, we would have an instant cleanup on the beaches.

I think it is abhorrent, when we do have that opportunity, to see the amount of plastic that is on the beaches. It speaks for itself about the fact that this is a severe, worldwide, garbage problem. This process is being promoted for use in a variety of plastic products, such as clear packaging, fishing nets and six-pack rings.

In the United States, trends of increased use of plastics are emerging rapidly. The two-litre plastic soft drink containers there represent 22 per cent of the volume of soft drinks sold, and the plastics’ share of US municipal waste has nearly doubled in the past 10 years. Plastics account for a 17 per cent share of a $19-billion food-packaging market and are projected to grow to 50 per cent of a $44-billion market by the year 2000.

The reason what is going on in the United States is significant is that our Canadian consumer preferences usually follow quite closely those of the Americans, if not for any other reason but the fact that we are so inundated with their advertising. Actually, we are already experiencing similar trends here.

1130

Awareness of the difficulty in recycling this large share of waste plastics is also increasing rapidly, especially in light of the problems facing municipalities currently searching for new landfill sites. Those of us who are directly involved with that issue and some of us who were at the municipal level before we came into this Legislature, know what a severe and serious problem the search for new landfill sites is.

At least seven US states and as many European capitals have introduced bills to limit or ban some plastics. There has been some research in the area of plastic recycling. The Toronto Recycling Action Committee commissioned a report in 1982 which concluded that plastics deserve to be considered as a priority in the identification of potential recycling developments.

In 1984, Environment Canada published a study entitled Plastics in the Waste Stream: The Needs For and Benefits of Recycling. Subsequently, in 1985, the department published two handbooks on plastic recycling. Despite the research work which has already been completed, there has been very little in the way of action.

The resolution of the member for Wentworth East is timely in that the rising costs of landfill and incineration and the public’s concern with the state of the environment might now help deal with the economic problems of recycling plastics. Certainly, if we are sincerely committed to the preservation of the environment, I hope we will see a greater emphasis by this provincial government and other jurisdictions across Canada on the development of a sincere commitment to the three R’s.

When we talk about “reuse and recycle,” we also have to look very seriously at the reduction at the original source, of that kind of material being used in as many products as it is. I have thought how fantastic it would be if a company like McDonald’s, for example, would take the initiative, with all their publicity, to decide they were going to be the company which would use a biodegradable product for the containers of the food products they sell, rather than all the plastic products they use.

I think if we can look at reduction, then obviously we solve the problem at the other end. Our world and our environment are obviously far too valuable to all of us and to all the generations that will follow to put it at risk unnecessarily. We have a lot of convenience and in the long run perhaps we have a lot of economy in the use of plastics in terms of inexpensive or less expensive forms of packaging. But I feel very sincerely that sometimes we have to make an investment that is more expensive in some areas in order to have something we have worked for and protected at the end.

I hope this resolution will receive the support of the Legislature. I hope, being a private bill, that it will not just sit on the shelf. It is possible, because it is a government member’s private bill, that it will not sit on the shelf. The only negative comment I must make is that I feel it is unfortunate that the private member has to bring this bill forward because the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and his staff have not yet seen fit to develop a policy in the past three years which would deal with this increasing problem.

It would be very simple to make it mandatory to have a deposit, particularly on the PET bottles. The jug milk stores have done that on their plastic containers. I think the incentive to return those large PET bottles by charging a deposit on them in the initial purchase would be at least one step towards the reduction of the number of those that end up in the domestic waste stream. Even though they are not recyclable in terms of reuse, they are recyclable by the manufacturers, and that is one step that should be taken.

Ms. Hart: I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this worthwhile resolution brought by the member for Wentworth East.

Proper waste management is an important issue which must be addressed by all of us. It appears that, almost simultaneously, most municipalities in Ontario are experiencing a waste management problem. You can tell that if you read the local papers in any municipality in this province.

This problem has arisen for a number of reasons: population growth, change of lifestyles, the NIMBY, not-in-my-backyard syndrome, lack of earlier planning and the nature of the materials we now use in packaging.

I am pleased that this resolution recognizes the complexities of waste management and puts the proposed plastic waste management strategy into the proper context. As with all the proposed solutions to waste management, the use of biodegradable products has its advantages as well as its disadvantages. I am pleased the resolution indicates that this government should develop a waste management policy that affirms a clear preference for the four Rs. That has been and will remain this government’s first priority in dealing with waste management, be it plastics, glass, newspapers or other waste-stream components.

Our first priority must be to reduce the amount of waste we produce. This is particularly important in the area of packaging. Much of today’s packaging is made of plastic. Current estimates show that packaging waste represents about one third of municipal solid waste. Plastics represent about seven per cent by weight of all municipal solid waste. However, when that is represented by volume, plastics represent about 30 per cent of municipal solid waste. Anybody who goes to the grocery store can tell you that. It is a dispiriting experience to come home and throw out a whole garbage bag full of waste packaging.

Obviously, there is a problem which needs to be addressed. This government’s recycling program is an attempt to address this problem. When our government came into power in 1985, the amount of money set aside for recycling was a mere $750,000. This year, our budget for recycling will be $7.7 million, up 10-fold.

By the end of this year, most major urban centres in Ontario will have a curbside multi-material recycling program. The challenge facing this government is to expand the curbside recycling program to include composting, to include apartments and to include materials that are not currently part of the program.

Plastics often represent underrecycled materials. Of the plastics in the municipal waste stream, polyethylene terephthalate is the most recyclable. PET is the type of plastic used for packaging, and the most prevalent PET package is the two-litre plastic soft drink container. It has been estimated that the potential market for recycled PET is 1.33 billion pounds per year. That is more than twice the total amount of PET currently sold annually in North America. We need to encourage the recycling of PET as part of the curbside recycling program.

Another type of plastic that should be recycled is polyvinyl chloride. PVC is the most common plastic found in packaging. We could use PET to induce a broader recycling of PVC and others, in effect, to be the engine that drives the initiative.

We need to look at reducing the amount of waste we produce. Packaging of consumer products and industrial goods serves many worthwhile purposes in our society. One I can think of is cleanliness. Nutritionists tell me that for years they fought to have bulk goods packaged so that the cleanliness could be determined and made consistent.

1140

Excessive packaging, on the other hand, creates unnecessary waste and results in disposal problems. I heard a good example of this the other day. It used to be that banks provided to their business customers for their daily deposits sturdy canvas bags. I understand that they are now providing, and of course charging for, disposable plastic bags to make daily deposits, and these bags are not reusable. That is clearly one of the areas we could look at.

The Ministry of the Environment’s approach is to encourage industries and the public to accept responsibility for waste produced by minimizing the consumption of goods with excessive packaging, thereby reducing waste-generator levels. This issue is being reviewed to determine specific additions that may be warranted. The four Rs approach to waste management that we have heard of today to reduce the amount of waste entering municipal landfill sites will remain the first priority of this government.

Biodegradability may be appropriate under certain circumstances. The region of Durham has recently passed a resolution saying that plastic shopping bags sold and used within the region must be biodegradable. This is an innovative approach to waste management. We should approach the use of biodegradable plastics carefully, however. We need a complete breakdown of the plastic structure into harmless components. It is not helpful if the breakdown results in more plastic chips.

As well, if and when the biodegradable plastics break down, there is a lack of knowledge as to what the plastic breaks down into. If it is just breaking a large sheet of plastic into smaller bite-size chunks, then the question of the toxicity of the plastics has not been resolved. If the biodegradability breaks the products down into its basic elements, then there are advantages to the use of biodegradable packaging.

The lack of knowledge on this topic needs to be addressed. Some feel that the use of biodegradable plastic shopping bags will lead to increased litter. Therefore, the use of any biodegradable bags must be coupled with an education program to teach people how to use the bags in an environmentally sound manner.

Another problem with biodegradable products that needs to be looked at is the fate of biodegradable plastics in landfill sites. The most common use of biodegradability is that which breaks down under sunlight. However, in a properly engineered and operated landfill site, each night the landfill site is covered with soil. Therefore, the sunlight would never be able to penetrate into the landfill site to break the plastics down. Some of the benefits, therefore, are lost when the plastics enter a landfill site.

We must never allow the use of biodegradable plastic to interfere with the recycling program. The presence of biodegradable plastic will make the sorting of plastic waste into the different types much more difficult -- not impossible, but much more difficult. I feel that this resolution calls for a comprehensive waste management strategy for plastics, a resolution that states that the first priority must remain the four Rs of reuse, recovery, reduction and recycling; a resolution that also calls for further study into the advantages and disadvantages of the use of biodegradability. These questions must be answered before the proper use and role of biodegradable products and our waste management strategies can be properly assessed.

Proper waste management requires that we look at all options in handling our waste, from the four Rs to biodegradability to new technology that constantly is appearing in our marketplace. The development of these and their place in the proper context within the overall waste management master plan in this province will be a challenge that this parliament will face for many years to come.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support this resolution and applaud the member for Wentworth East for bringing it forward.

Mr. Swart: I do want to speak on this issue, even though I am only a mere male. After four female speakers, with a female in the chair today, I have the temerity to rise and speak on this issue. The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) mentioned that there were more women in the House than men at a certain point this morning.

There are now, proportionate to their numbers, far more women in the House and it is not untrue to say that in many environmental issues, women have given a great deal of leadership in this province. In fact, again compared to the number of women in the legislatures and holding senior positions in many organizations, their involvement in environmental matters has far exceeded their involvement in many other areas.

For this, I compliment them. It shows, I think, that they have perhaps more fundamental good sense, proportionately, than many of us males have in our society. I would be less than fair today if I did not pay tribute to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) for the leadership she has given on environmental matters in this House and the very high degree of competence she has brought to the matters dealing with environmental issues.

This resolution that is before us today is, I think we would all agree, a good resolution. Nobody is going to vote against it in this Legislature. In fact, it is rather interesting that we have two resolutions here today before us that are somewhat similar, both dealing with the matter of environmental pollution, at least the first resolution to some extent pertaining to plastics and suggesting alternatives to them.

I would have liked to have spoken on that resolution as well. However, I find that demands on my time, which I thought might lessen during this period, have in fact increased. By apparently trying to catch up and through the normal demands which a person has on time, I was not able to speak on that.

We need action. As the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore said, we need action on this matter, not just resolutions which call for research. Nobody denies that research is necessary, but we need action. I was thinking of this matter the other day when I took out the garbage and took out the blue box we have in Thorold and put some plastic bottles into that blue box. When I went out the next day, because the garbage had not been picked up, they were lying beside the garbage.

In our municipality -- I am not sure this is true in other municipalities -- in the recycling they do not take the plastic. They will take the bottles and they will take the other items that can be recycled but they do not take the plastic. So the plastic ends up in the garbage bag and goes out to the landfill, which is the way it is handled in our area. Of course it will rest in that landfill for decades and decades and perhaps centuries.

So we need some action to ensure that plastics are recycled. They can be recycled. The technology is there. There is no question about it. It may be more costly but they can be recycled, and there should be action taken quickly on items such as that.

1150

I think we have to recognize that plastics are here to stay. They serve a great need in our society. No one can deny this. The public wants them. Therefore, we are going to be using them and continue to use them. It is wishful thinking that somehow or other they are all going to be replaced. Sure, some of them can be replaced with something other than plastics, but in many of their uses they are going to stay. That means, of course, that we have to do one or both of two things: there has to be a high degree of recycling and we also have to move to the biodegradable types of plastic.

I think all of us know that will probably be more costly. Whichever one of those we use, at least for a period of time, it is going to cost society more. The costs of recycling, at least at the present time, they tell us, are more than just producing the products new. With going to biodegradable plastics, first, there may be a real technical difficulty of having them as tough as the plastics we have at the present time, a difficulty replacing them. Again, they are going to be more costly.

I just want to say that if they are going to be more costly, it is a price society is going to have to pay, because although the production of the present plastics may not be terribly costly, the cost to society over a long period of time is going to be much greater in clearing up the mess at some time, and we will have to clear up the mess at some time, just like the burying of chemicals in the past.

We find now that to treat those chemicals and to eliminate the danger is going to be tremendously costly. Perhaps not to the same degree but to some degree the same thing is true with plastics. The cost of cleaning up the mess of our present types of plastic is going to be extremely costly and we must move quickly.

It is important -- there is no question about it -- to develop a plan, and the resolution we have before us deals with most of the issues we must deal with in developing a plan. It is stated that “the Minister of the Environment should develop, as soon as possible, a plastics waste management policy affirming a clear preference for the reuse, recycling, recovery and reduction of plastic packaging materials where feasible and in such cases where the reuse, recycling, recovery or further reduction of materials may be deemed inappropriate or impractical, the minister should consider safe and environmentally benign degradation a desirable method of waste disposal for certain plastic products.” Then it goes on with all the things that need to be done.

I say that those things do need to be done, but the bottom line is that of action. That is where this government is going to fall down. That is where the Conservatives and Liberals fall down in our society all the time. It is all very well to talk in general terms, in platitudes, about needs; nobody disagrees with that sort of thing. But the problem is that when it comes to the bottom line, you have to interfere with the marketplace, and that is what those people will not do. They will not interfere with the marketplace.

It does not matter whether it is in auto insurance; there is no question about public auto insurance, but they will not interfere with the marketplace. It does not matter whether it is the bereavement industry; everybody knows that people should not be bothered on that matter, but they will not interfere with the marketplace. It does not matter whether it is the high cost of housing that we bemoan, where in Toronto now over 50 per cent of the cost of the houses is due to speculation on land. Ah, but we must not interfere with the marketplace. They will not do anything about those things.

Even on health, it was not the Liberals and the Conservatives in this nation who brought about public health. It was the New Democratic Party, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. Why did they not bring it about? Did they not know it was needed? Of course they did, but they would not interfere with the marketplace at that time. That is the bottom line. If the government means it, there should be this plan of action. It should be brought forward within a certain period of time. We can do it if we have the will to do it and are willing to interfere with the marketplace.

Ms. Collins: I have only a couple of things to say. First of all, I want to express my appreciation to all the members who have spoken and said that they will be supporting this resolution. I do appreciate it and I think it is very appropriate. I mentioned earlier that it is Canadian Environment Week, but this Sunday is also World Environment Day, so I think both resolutions are quite appropriate this week.

I listened carefully to the comments of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in regard to the fact that this is not a bill but a resolution, and legislation is needed. I do not argue that fact. In my remarks earlier, I did talk about the possibility of having a comprehensive policy and also making recommendations for legislation and regulations.

The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore went on to talk about some of the problems with the four Rs and some of the problems with degradable products. It is for that very reason that I think we have to look at all of those things before bringing in the legislation and the regulations.

I am quite familiar with the problems of recovery. As an alderman and a regional councillor in east end Hamilton in my former life, I had the Swaru incinerator in my ward at that time. It was the first incinerator in the province, and we had a great many problems with it just three or four years ago, when the dioxin levels were extremely high. I was very involved in the fight to have the incinerator retrofitted.

But again, technology moves very quickly. The incinerator was built in the early 1970s and already the new technology has been improving incinerators across the province. We do not know how much further that technology will advance in the next few short years.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Ms. Collins: I did not realize I would use my two minutes so quickly. I thank the members for their support.

Mr. Speaker: I know the members are aware that the standing order states that the vote shall be taken at 12 noon. It is so close to 12 noon, would the House be in agreement?

Agreed to.

CROP USES

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Villeneuve has moved resolution 33.

Motion agreed to.

PLASTIC PACKAGING

Mr. Speaker: Ms. Collins has moved resolution 34.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 11:59 am.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

Mr. Mackenzie: Yesterday hundreds of Massey-Ferguson retirees and their spouses demonstrated in front of the Downtown Holiday Inn where the annual meeting of the Varity Corp. was held. Varity is the company set up with the usable remnants of Massey-Ferguson, which, as Massey Combines, went into bankruptcy. These retirees have been robbed of their benefits, as outlined in this House yesterday.

When questioned about the demonstration, Jack Nowling, a Varity spokesman, first said, “What demonstration?” and then said, “Angry people often do irrational things.” What a sick comment from a company which, while cheating long-time, loyal workers, had just announced a healthy profit and a bonus of 2.5 million shares to key executives of the company only -- executives like Chairman Victor Rice, whose salary last year was only $600,000 from this company, or President Laurenzo, whose salary was only $463,000. What an example of corporate morality and justice in the province of Ontario.

The Ontario government holds shares in Varity, a company which also refuses to stop doing business in South Africa. How were the Ontario shares voted at that meeting yesterday? If this government has any belief whatsoever in justice and morality, it will end all its dealings with Varity, and very swiftly.

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Mr. Jackson: I rise to give notice to all members of the House that today, in committee of the whole, I will be introducing an amendment to Bill 128, the Planning Amendment Act, that will prohibit municipal councils from passing exclusionary bylaws.

Members will be aware that during the last election campaign all three political parties told the Ontario Federation of Students that they oppose these bylaws, which discriminate against unrelated persons who wish to share residential property. Unfortunately, there has been no action by the Liberal government to fulfil this election promise. Seniors, the disabled, single parents, students, the working poor and others are all affected by these municipal attempts to prevent them from sharing accommodation in order to cut housing costs. Not only do these bylaws restrict access to the available housing stock, limited as it is, but they also constitute a form of discrimination which has no place in the Ontario of 1988.

The amendment which I will introduce this afternoon is modelled after my own private members’ bill, Bill 94, which I introduced in January. That bill has the endorsement of the Ontario Federation of Students, the University of Western Ontario Students’ Council, the Wilfrid Laurier University Cord, the McMaster Silhouette and the countless student councils in Ontario. Members will remember that 10,000 university students from across this province have signed postcards asking the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to stamp out exclusionary bylaws.

This afternoon our commitment to affordable, accessible housing for all, especially students, will be put to the test. Let us not fail.

ITALIAN NATIONAL REPUBLIC DAY

Mr. Leone: Today is the 42nd anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Italy. As someone who has fond memories of this important event in Italy’s history -- in fact, I was only 17 then and I was there -- I think it is appropriate for me to rise and offer my warmest congratulations to the President and the people of Italy, to the diplomatic corps in Canada and the consular representatives here in Toronto and to the Italian community of Ontario and Canada.

This gives me the opportunity to remind this assembly of the great contributions made by Italians towards the growth of this great province, Ontario, and this great country, Canada.

There is no place here in Ontario and Canada, there is no sector of our lives, where the presence of Italians is not present, from the initial contribution and discovery of Canada by Giovanni Caboto, from the physical work of our first immigrants who worked -- and many lost their lives -- in the mines; on the railroads; in the building of cities, hospitals and schools, and in the construction of highways and airports, to the presence of Italian Canadians today in every facet of life: industry, commerce, education, science, religion, medicine, professors and deans of universities and public life, including this assembly, which accounts for --

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

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Reville: Martha Macdonald was admitted to the Arthritic and Orthopaedic Hospital today. She is 81 years of age. She lives in the riding of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). Originally, she had been scheduled to have both her knee joints replaced. She has extreme difficulty in getting around. She was called just before entering the hospital and advised that only one of the joints can be replaced because of budget cutbacks.

In discussions with her surgeon, we are advised that this particular surgeon was doing 20 such operations a month and is now doing only six. It is because of government cutbacks that people like Martha Macdonald are going to be required to undergo two convalescences when in fact the medical requirement was that she undergo only one.

I think it is a particularly touching accusation of the lack of planning this government has done in terms of our health care system that this elderly woman is going to have to suffer at least twice as long and perhaps find it even more difficult to get around in the time she is waiting for the second knee joint to be replaced. I think it is shocking.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Harris: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to inform the House about an organization called SADD, Students Against Driving Drunk, in Nipissing riding and indeed across many communities in Ontario.

They are united by the belief that friends do not let friends drive drunk. A community awareness day is held each year to help eliminate drunk driving, to save lives, to alert high school students about the dangers of drinking and driving and drugs, and to promote alcohol awareness and peer counselling programs which are organized by the students themselves.

This year, a joint SADD Day will be held by students at Widdifield, West Ferris and Chippewa secondary schools on Friday, June 3. Once again, it is my privilege to serve as honorary chairman. School assemblies are being held. Free bus transportation is provided to students displaying the SADD keychains provided by the municipality. The local Lions Club of West Ferris is involved in helping with their promotion, and many other contributions are being made by local businesses.

It is a community-wide effort organized by students for students, and I commend them. It is more than just a good cause, it is vital, because good friends do not let friends drive drunk. I congratulate today all those students across Ontario who this week are committing themselves and their friends to a very worthwhile cause.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Ballinger: I wish to address my remarks today to the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) and his great commitment to affordable housing in this province.

On May 2, the member told this House, and I quote, “There is an increasing constituency of people out there in this province who do not have a home or who have to travel so far from their apartment to their work and their employment that it ceases to make life as meaningful and as good as it could be.”

Last December, in a committee of the House, the member for Markham declared, and I quote again, “We have to somehow break through the logjam that begins to open these opportunities for low-rental and new kinds of developments.”

I thought the member’s words were well intentioned until I came across a recent issue of the Markham Economist and Sun newspaper. The headline on that article, which was based on the member’s comments, was “Peterson ‘Premature’ Pushing Housing Units.” The member went on to say, “It’s wrong to try to put low-income-type housing into an expensive area.”

It is clear that the member says one thing down here in this House and quite another when he returns to his riding. Will the real Don Cousens please stand up?

1340

ACCESS FUND

Mr. McLean: I just want to comment briefly on the program that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) has in the province of Ontario whereby he announces about $4 million to help people with access in their homes. He said the program will help 87 families.

I have to tell members that that is not much help to people in my area and other parts of Ontario who are looking for it, when there are only 87 people who are going to be helped in an approximately $4-million program. I say that the minister for the disabled is not doing his job. He is not providing the funds that are needed in the province for these people. I say he should make announcements that are going to involve every part of Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: At the heart of our government’s commitment to health care in this province is the belief that many health services traditionally associated with hospitals can be better provided in the community.

More and more people in our province are receiving health care closer to home without ever being admitted to hospital. I have stated frequently that we must move towards broader-based community health care, while at the same time ensuring high quality, accessibility, safety and the best possible use of resources.

Great strides in technology have allowed many treatments and procedures formerly confined to hospitals to be carried out in other settings. With the development of this new technology, the ministry found itself without the appropriate funding and quality control mechanisms that governed and paid for these procedures in hospitals.

We recognize the tremendous potential that new technology holds in moving more health care into the community. At the same time, we must provide a mechanism for funding, planning and monitoring community-based facilities. I am today introducing legislation to achieve these goals.

The Independent Health Facilities Act will provide for the licensing of facilities providing some services which have traditionally been available primarily in hospitals. Funding may be negotiated with the ministry to cover those expenses which would otherwise be covered through a hospital’s global funding.

The licensing process, as laid out in the act, will be fair and open. Despite any international treaty or obligation to which Canada is a party and any legislation implementing such an obligation, preference will be given to not-for-profit and Canadian proposals.

The need for new facilities will be determined with the participation of district health councils. The ministry will issue a call for proposals where appropriate. All applications will be reviewed under the procedures laid out in the act.

Once licensed, a community health facility and the ministry may enter into either a global or partial funding arrangement. Global funding would cover the facility’s operation, including payment for professional services. Partial funding would cover overhead costs and doctors would be reimbursed through the Ontario health insurance plan on a fee-for-service basis.

The act also gives the Ministry of Health regulatory authority to assess and enforce standards of quality of care at these facilities once they have been licensed. The facilities under the licence will establish an appropriate method for monitoring and assessing the treatment and care they provide.

There are currently a number of facilities operating where a patient is charged a facility fee; that is, a fee for overhead costs associated with an insured service which has traditionally been performed in a hospital. This act allows these facilities to continue to provide services for a period of one year from the date this bill becomes law. During that time, they can submit an application for licensing under the new legislation. The ministry will assess these applications based on the quality of service being provided, the cost-effectiveness of the facility and the demonstrated need for the service in the area.

This legislation will allow the Ministry of Health to plan for and provide specific community-based services where they are most needed. It will provide further opportunity for program and service expansion of our tremendously successful community health centres, CHCs, and health service organizations, HSOs.

We are also confident that we can use funding incentives under the act to promote and foster for the first time viable expansion of community-based health care in northern Ontario.

This act will encourage a variety of procedures now being done in hospital to be safely provided in the community. As a result, our institutions will be free to direct their expert care to those most in need, which in turn will result in substantial savings and efficiencies in our hospital sector.

The government believes this legislation is pivotal to the new change and direction we are planning for health care in this province.

MINIMUM WAGE / SALAIRE MINIMUM

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am announcing today an increase in the general minimum wage to $4.75 an hour from the present level of $4.55 an hour. The change will take effect in the work week in which October 1 occurs.

Cela me fait un grand plaisir d’annoncer que le salaire minimum provincial passera de 4,55 $ de l’heure à 4,75 $. Mon homologue québécois, aujourd’hui, est en train d’annoncer les mêmes changements dans la province de Québec.

My Quebec counterpart is also announcing today that the government of Quebec will raise its general minimum wage to $4.75 an hour at the same time. The co-ordinated action of our two governments will ensure parity in the general rates in the two largest labour markets in the country.

In addition, I am pleased to announce that the special minimum wage for liquor servers in Ontario will increase by 20 cents an hour to $4.25 an hour, and the special minimum wage for students under 18 will increase by 20 cents an hour to $3.90. These changes also take effect in the work week in which October 1 occurs.

As well, the minimum wage for fruit, vegetable and tobacco harvesters will be increased from $4.55 an hour to $4.75 an hour, effective January 1, 1989.

Finally, I wish to announce an increase in the maximum amount that an employer may deduct from minimum wage earnings in return for room and board. Also effective in the week in which October 1 occurs, this maximum will go from $57 a week to $59.50 per week.

As has been the case in each of the past two years, these adjustments are in keeping with the government’s decision to conduct a regular annual review of the minimum wage in this province.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This afternoon I will be tabling the Environment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988.

This bill is the result of careful examination of three acts which form the basis of our environmental protection programs. They are the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act.

The new bill includes amendments which will streamline and clarify hearing procedures and strengthen the decision-making authority of the Environmental Assessment Board. As well, several of the amendments will be aimed at a more efficient use of staff and their time.

The ministry’s powers of entry and inspection will also be made more precise in light of developing jurisprudence under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is of particular importance to our enforcement procedures, to make sure they are strong as well as fair.

Consistent with our recent program to expand the use of tickets for minor offences, the bill provides more practical methods to serve such tickets, especially in cases involved in the use of motor vehicles.

The bill also clarifies the ministry’s authority to set operating conditions and certificates of approval for facilities which produce air emissions and for water and sewage works. This will strengthen our authority to reduce pollution.

This bill also incorporates housekeeping amendments to correct definitions and references, remove redundancies and provide consistency. These amendments are designed to ensure our legislation is as strong, fair and effective as possible and they reflect our commitment to clean up the environment.

1350

RESPONSES

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Mackenzie: I want to respond to the very generous offer of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) to workers of 20 cents an hour more or $416, I guess, a year, to bring them up to the magnificent rate of $9,800 a year, which is still well over $2,000 below the poverty level for a single person in Ontario today.

I am wondering when this minister is really going to do a review of the minimum rates and quit insulting the workers in this province. Why is he in lockstep strictly with Quebec? We have the richest province. We should be taking the lead for once in some area when it comes to labour legislation.

I think 20 cents an hour is an insult. It is not a review. It is a token, pathetic little payout that he has done once a year now for the last two years. The minister should be ashamed of himself. Because I do not want him to be out, I would like to send 20 cents across to him to help him with that increase of 20 cents an hour in the minimum wage.

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Mr. Reville: Responding to the statement today by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I should note that the minister was kind enough to share her intention with the opposition Health critics several days before the item appeared in the Toronto Star, and here we have it again today in the Legislature.

I am disappointed in the statement the minister has made. There was an opportunity, for instance, to really take a stand to indicate the government’s opposition to free trade and to prevent American health care industries from coming into Canada. Yet all this government can come up with is a preference being given both to not-for-profit, on the one hand, and Canadian proposals on the other hand. I really think that is a weak-kneed approach on behalf of the government.

It would be interesting to find out as well whether the Minister of Health subscribes to the opinion of her colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) that this legislation is designed to ensure that there will be only two free-standing abortion clinics receiving funding in Ontario.

Does the government have some plans, after all, to ensure that women in Ontario will really have access to abortion services? Can we expect to see the work of Dr. Powell come back to life? It has been clearly on the back burner for some time now.

The views that community health centres and health service organizations should vastly increase in the province are views that we share and views that we have been urging on this government for a long, long time. Yet the government’s ambitions in this regard are so modest as to be somewhat embarrassing. The views are that they want to double the number of people using CHCs and HSOs over the next five years. That will bring it to the grand total of about four per cent of the population. That is not good enough.

Mr. B. Rae: I just want to remind the minister that the last time a government expanded the health care system in this way was when the Tory party in 1970-71 brought nursing homes in under the aegis of government insurance, thereby causing an expansion of for-profit care in this province which we have been doing our very best, our level best to try to turn around in the last few years.

But the institutions that have been created in place for our senior citizens are primarily run on a for-profit basis by larger and larger corporations. I say to the minister that because of the weakness of her statement today and the weakness of the backgrounder that she has issued us, I fear that what we are going to see is an expansion of corporate medicine, rather than anything else, as a result of the statement she has made.

If it is for-profit firms that are providing laser technology, if it is for-profit firms that are providing a range of services across the board, then it is for-profit firms that this government is going to be regulating and now supporting with taxpayers’ dollars. That is something we cannot support.

I will have an opportunity, I know, to pursue this later on; so I want to give my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) a chance to say a few words about the really outstandingly vague statement made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs. Grier: Of course, we all welcome legislation that is going to be designed to improve existing legislation, but let me point out to the minister that the environmental problems in this

province have not been caused by lack of legislation.

We have had good legislation in this province. What we have not had is strong, speedy, efficient and effective action to implement that legislation and to enforce that legislation. As well as more new legislation, we hope to see more action.

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond to the statement made today by the Minister of Health. I would like to congratulate the minister on discussing this matter with her two critics about a week ago, as the critic for the official opposition has already indicated. I thought that was a very appropriate step for the minister to take.

I look at the creation of facility fees as probably condoning what has been going on in several clinics across the province over the last few years, which is really another form of extra billing. It is a way of passing off administrative costs to the public of Ontario. That actually has been going on since Bill 94 was passed in this Legislature.

I look forward to working with the minister to try to make this piece of legislation a very effective piece of legislation because I think it has the potential to do that. I will say to the minister, in all sincerity, I think the principle behind the legislation is indeed a good one.

I might remind the minister that the standards that she promised to introduce into this House with respect to abortion procedures in Ontario, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Morgentaler case, she promised to have laid before the House within a matter of weeks. I believe she said that back in February. It is now June 1988. I presume this legislation will encompass that area as well. The only regret I have is that it was not done sooner than this.

This piece of legislation should be forwarded to a standing committee during the break. I think committee members of all parties of the Legislature should have the opportunity to examine this legislation and its potential in depth, in cooperation with health professionals and others throughout the province, namely, the groups the minister mentioned in her statement -- the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Medical Association, among others.

I am sure there could be many other concerned and interested members of the public who have some very valuable points of view to express. I look forward perhaps to improving the health care system in Ontario through this vehicle.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs. Marland: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of the Environment. I find it perhaps almost encouraging that two days ago I asked this minister what he was doing with the 65 per cent increase in his administration and personnel costs.

I see here that one of the purposes behind this new bill is that several of the amendments will be aimed at a more efficient use of staff and their time. I do thank the minister for responding two days after my question with a solution of his overspending in his ministry.

I also hope that where the ministry’s powers of entry and inspection will also be made more precise, the minister will make sure we do not end up with a police state and that the enforcement will be strong but fair, as it says in his statement. There is no question that we need enforcement, but I hope it is done the way it should be in a democratic province.

I also want to comment on the issuance of tickets, especially in cases involving the use of motor vehicles. I would feel more encouraged today had the minister addressed the fact also that we should be looking at the kinds of restrictions on automobile engine designs in Canada that would be comparable to those in the United States, because it is a well-known fact that in the United States the automobile makers have far stricter guidelines for designs and emissions that come from automobile engines.

It also says that they will clarify and set out the operating conditions in certificates of approval for facilities which produce air emissions. I hope this means we are going to have new air emission standards, because one of the problems we have had with the discussion of new forms of incinerators to deal with disposal of garbage in the province is that we have an absence of air emission standards for exactly that kind of operation in Ontario.

We shall look forward to seeing the details of this bill when we have the opportunity, and if it does not address the concerns our party has in Ontario, we certainly will be adding amendments to the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act.

1400

Mr. Cousens: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I will put it to use this time, because you might not allow it otherwise. I will be making a statement in my response to the minister’s words on Bill 128 --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just a moment, please. That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses. The member has a point of order?

Mr. Cousens: A point of personal privilege. I think one’s personal integrity has been called into question by another honourable member and I hope he will be listening this afternoon when Bill 128 is debated so I will have a chance to offer a rebuttal.

Mr. Speaker: First, I would remind the member that there is no such thing as a point of personal privilege, and often members give differing points of view.

EARL’S SHELL SERVICE

Mr. Polsinelli: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 118(b), I would like to inform the House that we have with us today in the public gallery the members from Earl’s Shell station. Since Earl has been recorded so often in our parliamentary debates, I thought it would be appropriate to bring his presence to the attention of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I must advise the member that is not a point of order. That could have taken place during members’ statements.

Mr. Harris: I ask for unanimous consent to allow the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the critics of the two parties to say a few words concerning the type of advice that the Treasurer has been getting from Earl’s Shell.

Agreed to.

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer has a unique way of making sure he gets the last word in these little treasured moments. I think, though, that it is appropriate that he be given the opportunity at least to say 15 or 20 seconds’ worth. I realize it is an unusual request, but they obviously are an unusual group of people to have tolerated this Treasurer for so long. I want to say to the boys at Earl’s Shell that during the time they are in the gallery today, the government will spend more than $10 million, hire three new civil servants and collect nearly $300,000 in new taxes as a result of the last budget alone.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I know, because I met them just before lunch, that they do not agree with everything this Treasurer does, but they do represent part of the process. As humble members, we always remember to provide access and input. I do not think anybody can doubt that, while he may not have listened to the advice, the Treasurer provided the opportunity for input in the advice, and I think they do symbolize that. I welcome them to Queen’s Park and wish to say how delighted we are to have them here today.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: My friends in the New Democratic Party are gesturing to me. I was hoping they might go ahead.

I appreciate the initiative taken by my honour-able friend to give me just a moment or two to welcome my friends from South Dumfries township. He may have had an opportunity to meet them as they were walking down to have a bite of lunch with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and to advise him on some of the matters of the province. It could be that the quality of government will pick up.

I do not want to dwell on it unduly because a real story could be put forward about each of these people, but I should think Earl himself epitomizes the grass-roots strength of the group that offers budgetary advice on a regular basis as we go in and pay the rock-bottom prices for the gasoline at the pumps.

As Earl indicated, I taught him in Sunday school and I taught him so well he has not had to go back to church since. Besides running the gas station and offering conviviality to his friends as they come by, while his wife has the rural mail route, he is fire chief and he also is the chief gravedigger. Over the years he has looked after all the Liberals and the Tories who have come a cropper in our area, and if there is ever an NDPer passing through who needs his services, I am sure he will look after him too.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if I did go through, under what capacity I would be greeted by Earl, under these many titles.

I am sure all of us would want to welcome the group from Earl’s Shell station. I think everyone here knows it has become a point of reference for all of us in the House and I am delighted that the group that came here today was able to meet with the Premier. I might point out that there have been many other groups that have come, and perhaps one most notably earlier on this week, people who walked here from Hamilton, that the Premier chose not to meet. Of those who did get to meet him, we are very glad he was able to meet with this particular group.

I might add that in reading an article in the Hamilton Spectator recently, a long article about the Treasurer and his relationship with Earl’s Shell station, one of the regulars there, who I am sure is in the gallery behind me, is quoted as saying, “Whenever we talk about taxes, Bob just turns a deaf ear.” All I can say to that is that experience is one which is widely shared in this place and gives all of us, regardless of political party -- and I might say there are more and more New Democrats passing through South Dumfries township every year and we look forward to the day --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Don’t slow down.

Mr. B. Rae: All I can say is we only wish that the advice which we gave and the advice which was given at Earl’s Shell station was followed.

Mrs. Marland: I would like to ask unanimous agreement of the House to make a statement about Lou Gehrig’s disease.

Agreed to.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS SOCIETY OF CANADA

Mrs. Marland: I think just at the outset I would say that it certainly is an indication of the balance of life that we in this Legislature can have the ability to enjoy the humour and the exchange we have just had. I see that as a very positive aspect of all of us serving in this House.

I also know that all of us in this House share concerns for people within the province and within our particular ridings who have problems that are of a severe medical nature. I am speaking as the critic for the disabled for our caucus when I address the fact that during National Access Awareness Week, this week, it is appropriate that we recognize and support the activities of the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society of Canada.

1410

Tomorrow, June 3, at hospitals and shopping centres around the province, members of the ALS Society will be selling flowers to raise money for research to find a cure for this terrible degenerative disease.

The tragedy of ALS, known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is that while the victim’s body and ability to function in society deteriorates, his mind remains strong and clear.

The same issues of access to multistoreyed dwellings, appropriate funding for lifts and elevators and improved research support from the health care system are as applicable to sufferers of ALS as they are to other disabled persons.

In the late 1970s, two former members of this Legislature, Ron Van Horne and Bruce McCaffrey, served as members of the board of the ALS Society. Their work on behalf of the sufferers of this devastating disease and in support of the disabled in general provides a good example for all members of this Legislature to reflect upon.

It is my hope that tomorrow, on ALS Flower Day, the people of Ontario will join the members of this Legislature and wear the blue cornflower, a symbol of support for the sufferers of ALS and the symbol of hope that a cure for this terrible disease will soon be found.

Mr. Reville: I rise as the Health critic for the New Democratic Party to join the member for Mississauga South in extending our sympathy to those people who suffer from Lou Gehrig’s disease and our congratulations to the ALS Society for working so hard to improve the information that people have about the disease and to attempt to raise money for research to discover a cure for this debilitating disease.

I know all members of the House are wearing their cornflowers in sympathy and want to extend our best wishes to people.

Members will note from the information provided to all of us by the ALS Society that some of the research is looking at elements in the environment and in diet. I note as well that a couple of the environmental elements that are suspected in this disease relate to lead and mercury.

As the member for Riverdale, and following in the footsteps of other members for Riverdale in the past, we have had a great deal of cause in my riding to worry about lead in the environment. A great many activists have been developed in that area, and elsewhere in Ontario, who are fighting to improve the state of our environment and the health of people in Ontario.

I know that tomorrow and the next day we will be thinking solemnly about people who suffer from Lou Gehrig’s disease and will share with them their effort to combat it.

Mr. Reycraft: I am pleased to rise on behalf of my caucus to speak in support of the very fine work that is being done by the members of the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society of Canada. ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease as it is much better known, is a very complex but relatively little known disease in this country, yet one with the most tragic of consequences.

While a great many data have been collected about the symptoms associated with the disease and other matters, the fact remains that we still know little or nothing about the real cause of the disease. We do know that somehow the muscles of the body, for those who are afflicted, do not receive impulses from the brain and, as a result of that, those muscles are not used and gradually grow weak simply from lack of use. Of course, ultimately the disease ends in death, after three to five years in most cases.

We know that the mind and other senses of those afflicted remain sound. We know that much is being done now in the way of research, but there is much more yet that needs to be done. That research cannot be undertaken without much-needed funding. That is one of the objectives of tomorrow’s campaign and that is one of the reasons members in the Legislature are wearing blue cornflowers today.

Again, I want to congratulate the ALS Society in Canada for the excellent work it is doing to raise funds for much-needed research and to urge the people of this province to support its fund-raising tomorrow, June 3.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual day today. Could I ask for unanimous consent one more time to talk about Italian National Republic Day?

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

ITALIAN NATIONAL REPUBLIC DAY

Mr. Harris: It is my privilege to rise on behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party to commemorate the 42nd anniversary of the Republic of Italy. Members will understand that 42nd anniversaries have special significance for Ontario Conservatives, and to the Republic of Italy, I say welcome to the club.

It was 42 years ago today that Italy became a free and democratic republic, with an end to fascism after two decades of dictatorship. Some might say the people of Italy are still making up for lost time, changing governments every six months or so, but that is healthy; it is democracy in action. I guess my only regret is that it will be some three years before we have the opportunity to do so here in Ontario.

On a serious note, I think it is also fitting to pay tribute today to the contribution of Canadians of Italian descent to our communities here in Ontario. I am not talking about politicians; I am talking about the people themselves. It is fitting to recognize them today because while many Ontarians of Italian descent join in this celebration of Italian National Republic Day, they do so as Canadians, as proud Canadians and as valued Canadians.

I only have to reflect on the accomplishments and the contributions made by members of the Italian community in my own riding of Nipissing to be reminded how much richer we are because of them. With the exception of a dear old friend, Rocco Lucenti, who was a card-carrying member of my party some 30 years before I was born, I do not want to begin to name names. They have left their marks in business, in our churches, in our clubs, at city hall, at the Davedi Club, on the railway and indeed in every facet of everyday life of our community. In Nipissing and throughout Ontario, we salute them all.

Again, on behalf of the members of my party, I want to pay tribute to the Republic of Italy on its 42nd anniversary. We join with all people of Italian descent in their celebrations of this very historic and very democratic event in their country.

Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that took place on this day 42 years ago, June 2, 1946, the establishment of the democratic Republic of Italy. June 2 is of great historic significance and sentimental value to our citizens of Italian heritage and to the people living in Italy, not only a country of monumental buildings, famous explorers and noted scientists, but also a trusted friend and an ally, a loyal trading partner and a committed supporter of democratic and civil rights around the world.

We recognize the important contributions Italo-Canadians have made to the cultural and economic development of Ontario and indeed of Canada. Our province has become enriched because our Italian friends on coming here brought with them their love of music, art, architecture and education.

More than that, they have strengthened the pillars of our multicultural society by adding their traditional respect for hard work and family life. We have benefited greatly from their participation in sports, business, professions and, more recently, government and law.

In appreciation of this contribution and in recognition of the special bond of friendship that exists between the people of Ontario, Canada and the people of Italy, the government of Ontario proclaims June 2 as Italian National Republic Day.

1420

Mr. B. Rae: Naturally, I want to join very much with our friends in the third party and in the government to congratulate the Italian republic on its 42nd anniversary. We are, of course, celebrating the emergence of a truly democratic republic after a very long time under dictatorship, but we are also celebrating the contribution of so many Italians to our own national life here in Canada.

On behalf of our party, I want to say how proud I am to join in the celebration and to say just these few words in Italian, so the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will listen carefully:

[Remarks in Italian]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The next order of business, I believe, will be -- or could I ask for unanimous consent to cut question period in half? No?

Mr. B. Rae: As long as we get the half, that is fine with me.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister can confirm that as a result of the act which she is going to be introducing today, commercial clinics operating on a for-profit basis, whatever health service they may be providing will be eligible under this legislation for subsidies from the government of Ontario. Is that the intention of the law which the minister is presenting today?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We know this act will allow the government to build a better foundation for the kind of quality-assured, community-based services I have been talking about for the past seven months.

Once the need is identified by the district health council or where the ministry has identified the need and asked for the advice of the district health council, the ministry goes out with a request for a proposal. We have stated very clearly that there will be a preference for nonprofit Canadian proposals.

Mr. B. Rae: I think the answer to my question is clearly yes.

If commercial firms, whether they are based in the United States or Canada, are in the field or potentially in the field for laser technology -- I do not know how many community clinics are going to be providing laser technology in treatment of diseases of the eye and uterus, how many community-based groups are going to be able to get those things together for in vitro fertilization, for cataract surgery, for bladder and heart investigations. Those are being offered on a North America-wide basis by commercially based companies today.

I say to the minister that what she is doing in effect under this act is precisely what the Tories did for our old people in 1970-71, that is, leaving them at the mercy of commercial operators in the nursing home field who had a cash-for-life guarantee from the government. What the minister is doing with respect to community-based care is ensuring a cash-for-life guarantee to commercial medicine in Ontario subsidized by taxpayers. I say that is not good enough.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important for the Leader of the Opposition to note that this act provides an opportunity for the ministry to negotiate individually with the proposer which is deemed to have merit based on the provision of quality services in a community-based setting.

The new technology that has been provided allows us the opportunity to do many procedures in the community which were previously done in hospital. The member mentions laser surgery, but there are other types: radiology; he mentioned in vitro fertilization; cataract surgery; fracture management; bladder and heart investigations.

In this act we have allowed the flexibility to respond appropriately to the best proposals that come forward and we have stated very clearly our preference for nonprofit and Canadian-based proposals.

Mr. B. Rae: I say to the minister that her preference is meaningless, given the political economy of health care in North America today. If the minister does not understand that, she is either naive or else she is in fact passing legislation which she knows full well will principally benefit corporate commercial medicine in this province.

I would like to ask the minister, given that reality, why she would not have presented legislation to this House which clearly states a principle, and that is: “We don’t fund for-profit hospitals except for the very few exceptions of the ones that were grandfathered back in the 1960s. If we don’t do that for hospitals, why would we be doing something different for community health care centres?”

When she is presented with an opportunity to bring in legislation that is clear and forthright with respect to community care, why would she not say there is no place in this province for for-profit care: not now, not next year, not in the 1990s, not in the 21st century? Why not say that today in the province? Why not say it?

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

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think we have been very, very clear. The intention of this is to establish community-based facilities and to allow the expansion of community health centres and health service organizations.

Further, I think it is very important for the Leader of the Opposition to know the flexibility of the act in seeking out those best qualified, perhaps in joint venture with community groups, because we know our hospitals have tremendous expertise that they can offer in a joint venture with community groups to move services into the communities.

We see this as an innovative and creative approach to ensuring that we have quality-assured services in a community-based setting. I would expect support from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: It really is a black day for those of us who have been fighting for community-based care on a not-for-profit basis across this province. It truly is a black day for those people --

Mr. Speaker: Question to which minister?

Mr. B. Rae: -- and this bill represents that.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I would like to bring the minister back to earth after the experience --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It was a very good article.

Mr. B. Rae: -- in the Toronto Star. Yes, What a surprise.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Widely read and respected.

Mr. B. Rae: What a surprise, I say to the Treasurer. Truly shocking.

I ask the minister whether she would like to listen to this example of one particular building: 620 Jarvis Street is a post-1975 building. The tenants received notice of a rent review applications for 8.8 per cent in 1985-86, 7.1 per cent in 1986-87, 11.6 per cent in 1987-88 and 12 per cent in 1988-89.

What is particularly interesting about this is that the tenants have still not received notice of what their rents are going to be for 1985-86. They have not received a single confirmation from the rent review tribunal of any rental increases they have been told they are going to get from the landlord.

Can the minister explain how it is possible that we now have four years of rental increases proposed for tenants in this building and they do not have notice even of the first one?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member is well aware that there is a significant backlog in the rent review offices and he knows what it is there for. The reason it is there is that this government extended protection to all tenants in the province for the first time in December 1986.

I am not happy about the situation the member describes and I would probably be the happiest person in the province if it were not there, but it is. It reflects the fact that the legislation was drafted in a unique way. It legislated us into responsibility for 1985 rents a year and a half after that time. I regret the situation, but we have put enormous resources and efforts into correcting this problem as quickly and effectively as possible.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister says, with an unusual overdose of self-reference, that no one would be happier than she if the delays were down. I suggest to her that the people who would really benefit from getting rid of the delays are the tenants of the province. The minister might want to reflect on that for a moment.

I wonder if she can explain how, through the miracle of the rent review law for which she is now responsible, it is possible that the landlord is in fact blaming economic loss when the building has been generating a positive cash flow since 1984. Can the minister explain how it is conceivable that somebody would have a positive cash flow and still be claiming an economic loss?

1430

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I do not know the details of that particular building.

Mr. B. Rae: Well, I say to the minister that the reason is that the landlord is able to claim, through her law, economic loss from amortization and depreciation, even though he is receiving a positive cash flow. In fact, what we are seeing is landlords who are making money out of a building turning around and saying, “I am still losing on this building,” even though its cash value in the marketplace far exceeds what the landlord paid for it.

I wonder if the minister can tell us what she is going to do today to ensure that tenants do not get screwed by this financial loss/economic loss conundrum and what she is going to do to make sure that tenants hear within a few weeks and not a few years what their rental increases are going to be for any given year.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Four out of five households in this province are now paying rent increases at or near 4.7 per cent. The number of people who are facing this delay know that they are going to have a decision made on the basis of a law which balances the concerns of the people living in the housing with the concerns of making sure that buildings are maintained appropriately.

Indeed, one of the things that our legislation has achieved as a result of the Residential Rental Standards Board is a significant increase in the maintenance of those buildings. Something like 500 landlords in this province have indeed improved their buildings and fixed the maintenance problems that have been there for a long time as a result of the work of the board.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the next question, I have just been advised that we have another special guest with us today in the lower east gallery. It is Governor William Schaefer of Maryland. Please join me in welcoming Governor Schaefer.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. As the minister knows, some 96 hospitals, more than half of the hospitals that have submitted their budget plans for this fiscal year, project a deficit for this fiscal year. Yet both she and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) have repeatedly and very clearly said that they will not be funding any hospital deficits in the province this year whatsoever.

Is it not rather obvious to the minister now that hospitals across this province feel they cannot provide essential health care services to the people of Ontario with the base funding she and her ministry are providing?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member opposite is wrong. That is not what we have said. The Treasurer was very clear that he will not pick up across the board all hospital deficits.

What I have been saying very clearly and what he agrees with is that our approach is to fairly fund hospitals, to achieve balanced budgets, to make sure that, where we have not approved programs, hospitals are asked to bring those programs in line with ministry approval. I have already acknowledged with St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins that, where we have approved a program and not adequately resourced it, we will adjust the base budget.

Very clearly, we are not going to pick up hospital deficits across the board but we are going to work with the hospitals co-operatively to lead us to a situation where we have fair funding for hospitals.

Mr. Eves: I gather there is a ray of hope in the minister’s answer in the Legislature this afternoon. Perhaps she is beginning to understand what the opposition parties have been hammering home for the last three or four weeks.

Just yesterday, the minister was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying: “Treasurer Robert Nixon will not back down from his warning that the government will refuse to cover any hospital’s deficit at the end of the year,” any hospital in the province. No deficit in this province will be funded. That is what he has repeatedly said.

Is the minister now admitting that she is going to have to increase her base funding to hospitals so that they can provide the essential health care services that the people of Ontario deserve? Is she admitting that in the House today?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member is wrong.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Again.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Again.

Mr. Eves: I am not wrong. I have said it repeatedly --

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have been saying repeatedly in this House that we are not going to be picking up deficits across the board, as was the Conservative practice. The Treasurer was very clear, and I think I have been very clear. We want to work with hospitals co-operatively to help them balance their budgets.

Mr. Harris: I wonder if I could ask the minister about two specific examples.

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: No, the Minister of Health. The supplementary has to flow from the answer. I have learned that much from the Speaker.

First, will the minister be funding the ophthalmology program at North Bay Civic Hospital -- brought in by her government under the under-serviced areas program -- now costing the hospital some $350,000 to $400,000 a year, which is the main bulk of its deficit this year, and serving an area from Huntsville to Timmins in the underserviced areas?

Second, what about St. Joseph’s General Hospital, which presented her with a balanced budget by cutting such items as $50,000 to implement pay equity, which she has told them to do as well?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said a number of times that we are working with the hospitals on an individual basis to help them achieve balanced budgets.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. This government has made some 30 different housing announcements in the 30 months since it took office. Some might want to judge it by its words, but we, on this side of the House, instead of judging by its rhetoric, would judge it by its record.

The most recent Gallup poll, which was released yesterday, demonstrates that the people in Ontario are losing confidence in there ever being a solution coming from this government to the housing problems. This afternoon, later on, we will be debating Bill 128, the Planning Amendment Act, which will make housing a matter of provincial interest.

As everyone in this House knows, the amendment is a paper tiger unless the province is prepared to issue a provincial policy statement on housing. Is the minister prepared to release a policy statement on housing, in conjunction with the amendment to the Planning Act this afternoon, or is this, as I say, just another paper tiger, another attempt to blame the municipalities for the current housing problems?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I agree with the member opposite that we must work effectively with the municipalities to make sure that housing gets built in this province that people of all income levels can afford. I remember very well the member opposite saying that we must deal with this pragmatically so we can attack the problem, involving municipalities with the solution.

However, there seems to be someone wandering around Markham representing himself as the member opposite. I think the member opposite should know that someone, some impostor, is walking around Markham and saying things like this: “Mr. Peterson’s move of working with the municipalities is premature” and “It is wrong to put low-income housing in an expensive area.” offer the member opposite an opportunity: I will personally go with him to Markham to try to find this culprit.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: If there is an impostor, I want --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Cousens: I asked a question that had to do with the Planning Act and I will be dealing with some of the garbage statements made by the minister when we are dealing with Bill 128.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Garbage statements?

Mr. Cousens: They are.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: Cheer away.

The problem we have is that unless --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would help if I could hear the supplementary.

1440

Mr. Cousens: The question we are dealing with has to do with an amendment being made to the Planning Act this afternoon which is adding housing to the list of the 10 priorities the province will have in the Planning Act. What we are asking the minister to do is to give some priority, some element of importance to housing by giving it some kind of significant statement which says it is really going to mean something.

Failing that, I would remind the minister that with housing now being the 10th priority, it really does not have any element of importance in the order of what she is doing. How can she justify this ridiculous public relations gimmick and also the ridiculous statements about me and Markham?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The amendments to the Planning Act today clearly state the commitment of the province to the provision of diverse kinds of housing to make it possible for municipalities to work more co-operatively with the province in this area. Later today, we are meeting with mayors of other major municipalities outside the greater Toronto area to talk with them.

In all our meetings with municipal politicians and regional politicians, we have said that the Ministry of Housing will be coming forward with a policy statement on the matter of housing down the road. In the interim, and also for the long term, the changes to the Planning Act which are being proposed today are going to make a significant difference in our work together.

Mr. Cousens: When she talks about going down the road, I know the minister likes to quote from the Book of Ruth. I think that having seen what came out yesterday from the Gallup poll. we are going to need the patience of Job before we begin to get any of the answers we need.

I would refer the minister to the discussion paper that was prepared by Comay Planning Consultants for the Ministry of Housing, a paper that the ministry refused to release publicly. According to this ministry report, housing is a fundamental provincial interest. “From this it follows,” and I quote from the report, “that the government will accept the responsibility to deal with the housing problem” rather than by trying to induce municipalities to take action themselves.

The minister knows the direct route to a solution is through a policy statement approved by cabinet. Will she admit now that to relieve the municipalities of this responsibility is something she should do, and that she, as the Minister of Housing, should begin to take seriously the control and the influence she can have to start making something happen by having a strong, clear policy statement on housing in this province under the Planning Act?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: This province has spoken very clearly about our commitment to housing. We have significant resources committed to making sure that nonprofit housing gets built all over the province. We are working actively with municipalities to make sure that we are able to work together better, to get more and different kinds of housing built all over the province to meet a variety of income needs. We are doing that very actively and consistently.

The amendments to the Planning Act today are part of that process. There are many other actions forthcoming that will move us along in this direction, and I am sure we will be able to make a significant difference in the situation of housing in this province all over the province.

I am extremely confused, however, by the statements --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I must remind the members of standing order 24(b): “When a member is speaking, no other member shall” -- and I underline “shall” – “interrupt ... ”

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I understand very clearly that in order to do this we must work together with the municipalities, community groups and concerned people all over this province. That is the approach we are taking, and that is the approach we are going to continue to take.

I am very confused by the double signals from the member opposite. Does he or does he not think municipalities have any role to play here? It seems perfectly clear to me that both levels of government, indeed all three levels of government, have a significant role to play. The province is prepared to commit resources, to take action, to plan and to work actively with all three levels and with community groups, and that is the approach we are going to take.

TENANTS’ FIRST RIGHT TO PURCHASE

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. It concerns an apartment building in Toronto at 780 Eglinton Avenue West. This building has been sold three times in the last four years and the last time the price increased 84.9 per cent, from $3.1 million to $5.8 million.

Is this not an example of an apartment building where, if the tenants had the right of first refusal and the opportunity to put together a nonprofit corporation, they would be in a much better position now, when they are facing once again a double-digit increase in their rent in a building that has already been flipped three times in four years and, without any further protection, is quite likely to be flipped once again?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think one of the options for tenants in this province and one of the things we think might help in the provision of housing that is affordable is the opportunity for tenants to buy the building they are living in. That is one of the reasons we put $2 billion into the budget for the creation of housing through the nonprofit method.

We expect that most of that will be done by building new buildings. But one of the options there is very clearly to make it possible for tenants or other nonprofit groups to indeed purchase housing that they would like to live in or that they would like to live in with other people. That is one of the approaches we have actually built into the budget and it is certainly one option to take.

Mr. Breaugh: This is one of the reasons it is confusing to tenants in Ontario. The minister knows what the problem is and she knows what the solution is. All that is missing is the opportunity. If the tenants had the right of first refusal to get together and offer on their building, if they had a 60-day period to go to all the people who are now prepared to assist them in putting together a nonprofit corporation which could do that, this kind of thing would happen.

The minister seems to understand the problem. She seems to have provided for some of the solutions. There are only one or two small parts that are missing. Why will she not put those two small parts on the table so that it can actually happen?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: One of the reasons it is difficult to do this is because of some of the legislation having to do with transfer of ownership in this mode that the member’s party had some role in. I should say that one of the things that concerns me is the suggestions that were made in the honourable member’s press release. One of the things that tenants’ groups have been telling us is that might lead to a one-time rent increase of perhaps more than 50 per cent. I assume that is not the kind of thing the member would want to have happen.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Villeneuve: To the Minister of Education: The minister will remember his party’s promise, prior to the last election, to increase provincial funding to 60 per cent. Eastern Ontario has been neglected by the minister because this year the province’s share will drop by two per cent and the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry public boards’ share will drop by 5.6 per cent, from 48 to 42 per cent or $2 million less than they got last year. The budget talked about more money. Can the minister explain why eastern Ontario was hit so hard?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member is aware, this year’s general legislative grants, or the amount of provincial funding that flows from the Ministry of Education to the school boards of this province, increased 7.2 per cent. The member makes reference to the specific impacts of this year’s grants on boards within his own region. As the member is well aware, various rates of grants to individual school boards exist in this province through an effort to equalize the mill rate from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. He will also be aware that this year the province updated the equalization factors that are used in those calculations in an effort to generate greater equity.

There are a number of impacts on an individual board. In some cases, the provincial rate of support may actually drop to a specific board because of the particular assessment base within that municipality, and in others it will increase. I suggest to the member that he review very carefully the general legislative grant announcements that were made last November and he will appreciate that our commitment to education is increasing and continues to do so.

1450

Mr. Villeneuve: The real truth is that GLGs are down right across the province. Out of 12 eastern Ontario school boards, 10 have received reductions and two have had an increase of -- get this -- 0.1 per cent. Outside the immediate Ottawa area, eastern Ontario has the lowest per capita income of anywhere in Ontario. Is this the minister’s way of penalizing our taxpayers by reducing their GLGs and by making the taxpayers pick up more of the cost of education?

Will the minister not redress this inequity? The minister speaks of equity. Well, redress this inequity in this budget.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is wrong. The increase in transfer payments to school boards, I wish to reiterate, has increased by some 7.2 per cent. It may be that the impact of assessment shifts within board jurisdictions within his area has resulted in a reduction of grant rates, but at the same time, their revenue base may well have increased because of assessment changes.

For the board jurisdictions that have a negative Impact as a result of these changes, there are other boards that benefit. The equalization factors in Halton resulted, for instance, in a windfall for that board of an additional $600,000 and in Hamilton a $1.5-million positive shift. I merely make the point that our increase in transfer payments to boards was substantially above the rate of inflation.

ONTARIO WHEAT PRODUCERS

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Yesterday the federal Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds) announced the end of the two-price wheat policy as of August 1, 1988. In the county of Simcoe, we have over 23,000 acres in wheat and it produces 1,183,000 bushels of wheat at a value of $3.5 million. Now that we are seeing the results of the proposed Canada-United States trade deal, can the minister tell us what effect this federal policy change is going to have on Ontario wheat producers?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The honourable member is quite correct. The federal minister did announce that Canadian wheat producers will no longer be assured a set domestic price for wheat for food purposes. At present, producers receive $7 a bushel for such wheat and the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board has stated that the policy provided an income benefit of up to $45 million a year, every year, to farmers. This new policy will only provide a one-year compensation which will be far short of the income levels that the wheat producers are presently receiving. Indeed, after July 31, 1989, Canadian wheat producers will not receive any special provisions for domestic wheat.

It certainly has been my concern and that of the Ontario wheat board that such policy will no longer allow our wheat producers, both the red and the white wheat producers, to produce the amount of wheat they have in the past. We expect there will be a real downturn in the wheat production in this province.

We are starting to see the effects of the free trade agreement --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Owen: The farmers in our area have expressed their concern over this, but usually where there is a downturn, there is always held out to us a prospect that there may he an upturn. In this instance, it has been suggested to me that maybe the consumers will be the beneficiaries because of this change in federal policy. My question to the minister is, if the farmers are going to be hurt, maybe the consumers will be benefiting in this province. I would like to have the minister’s comment or observation on that.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: There is considerable doubt that the consumers will benefit from any reduction in price to the producer. As a matter of fact, in some products wheat will represent only a very small part of the cost of the final product to the consumer. The lack of significant consumer benefits has been very clearly outlined by both the Consumers’ Association of Canada and the federal government’s own studies. Both those studies indicate that the consumers will realize minimal benefits from the free trade agreement and the reduction in prices to the farmers of this province.

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Mr. Revile: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would ask the Minister of Health to step into the batter’s box.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Minister of Health step into the batter’s box?

An hon. member: Fast ball or curve?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He is probably going to throw a screwball.

Mr. Reville: I have a fork ball here.

I would like the Minister of Health to try to hold in her mind four separate themes, if I may. One has to do with continuing and increasing protestations from this government that it is very interested in community health centres and health service organizations. One other event is a statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) during a recent election campaign that the number of people served by HSOs and CHCs would be doubled over five years at a cost of about $10 million. Another event is the kind of bureaucratic speech that was given by the parliamentary assistant to the minister on May 27 in Sault Ste. Marie to --

Mr. Speaker: And the question would be?

Mr. Reville: I have one more to go yet -- the Association of Ontario Health Centres. Then there is this curious statement today about the introduction of the Independent Health Facilities Act on June 2 by the minister herself.

Is the minister expecting us to believe that somehow these events are connected, that somehow the Independent Health Facilities Act and the repetition of words like “community-based facilities” are really going to do much in the way of community health centres and HSOs?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As a matter of fact, I am really quite excited at the opportunity that this act provides us, because for the first time community health centres and health service organizations will be able to offer services and procedures which before this could only be offered in hospitals. We will have the opportunity to establish quality control mechanisms so that they can expand the services to their communities.

I am very pleased to be able to talk about this act, because it gives us the opportunity to do what we have been saying we want to do, that is, refocus from our institutional bias to our community-based services. This is the framework legislation to allow us not only to plan but to fund, to have quality assurance and to put community-based services in balance in this province as a real alternative to institutional care.

Mr. Reville: We would love to see a real alternative to institutional care in Ontario, but it worries me that the minister seems to have no knowledge of how difficult it is for a community group to make proposals in competition with the big health industry toads that are just sitting there waiting to snap up the flies she is offering them. In fact, the amount of money the parliamentary assistant has offered to communities to help develop proposals is so puny that I cannot believe it. I invite the minister to change my mind so that any community proposals will be able to compete with the health industry proposals that are, even as we speak, being tarted up for her approval.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The critic from the opposition raises a very legitimate concern of mine. I want to make sure that community-based groups and organizations have the kind of opportunities to bring forward proposals that we will be able to approve.

The process is important. It is that we will first identify the need. We will work with the district health councils where they have identified the need so that we will respond. The next step in that is to go out with a request for proposals. That is where I mentioned earlier that I would look very favourably on the kind of joint ventures which would marry up the expertise from our hospital and institutional sector with the community focus of community-based organizations. I see this as flexible enough to accommodate the kind of innovative and creative approach I have been talking about for these past seven and a half months.

1500

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. Earlier today I participated and made a presentation to a group of people on the steps of the Legislature representing persons caring for nursing home residents. They have an ongoing concern that has to do with the inequitable funding for seniors in nursing homes versus those in homes for the aged.

I stand here this afternoon exactly two years to the day when the former minister responsible for seniors’ affairs presented his book, A New Agenda. He announced in this House that he intended to introduce extended care legislation that would address this inequity. Will the current minister responsible for seniors immediately introduce this legislation and correct this intolerable situation for seniors in this province?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: And balance the budget while you are at it, please, and lower the taxes.

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: Right.

The differences in funding between homes for the aged and nursing homes is primarily historical. This government inherited three different pieces of legislation under two different ministries, which operate with different philosophies. Each of those pieces of legislation had different standards for staffing, for funding and for quality of care. This government recognizes those inconsistencies. I have been moving to develop a new, improved extended care act which would cover all providers of extended care in the province, both in nursing homes and in the two types of homes for the aged.

To date, I have appointed an advisory committee and have begun several initiatives. The first study announced was the care requirement study. That was information that we never had before on the care that is required by extended care residents. We now have that information and can move forward with a second initiative, which will be to determine differences in programming and funding, so we can now address the funding components in the new legislation.

We are also developing other initiatives in the new --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. It seems like a fairly full answer. Supplementary?

Mr. Cousens: What we are seeing are more studies and more consultants’ reports. It has been two years today that the minister finally started to look at this problem, and it is an ageless problem. Seniors’ policies are covered by more than just the two ministries she talks about; there are three or four ministries. Legislation is spread out all over the place.

I notice from current estimates that the ministry is requesting $9 million this year, a 100 per cent increase over last year’s budget. These are pretty expensive consulting reports on issues that have been known to the government for years. When is the minister going to stop consulting and start acting in the interest of seniors in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: In 1987, $14.3 million was allotted to nursing homes in the province for new quality-of-care programming. That was part of a $50-million package which went directly to nursing homes for funding improvements that year. In addition, funding improvements have been made directly to homes for the aged -- $14.3 million last year to municipal and charitable homes for the aged. During estimates this year, we will have the opportunity to discuss that $9 million, where there are services such as the access fund, the one-stop access pilot project and initiatives in geriatric training, which will go directly from the office for senior citizens’ affairs to senior citizens across the province.

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. I understand his ministry is responsible for preparing and handling the municipal enumeration notices. Recently, I received a letter from a concerned citizen who felt rather strongly that the mailed enumeration notice violates the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. He says this notice had not only the previous occupant’s name on the form but also that of his spouse and their answers to the previous enumeration.

May I ask the minister whether he has had similar concerns expressed across the province and what his reaction is to the accusation that this violates the protection of confidential information?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to advise the chair and this House that this new enumeration program is well accepted throughout the province. We have mailed out close to 4.6 million enumeration notices and we have received very few complaints. The complaints we have received were of the nature pointed out by my honourable colleague.

It is very difficult to keep track of the moves of the apartment dwellers who do move frequently in this province. This is why these errors are committed on the enumeration notice.

I can assure the honourable member that we monitor the success of this program daily. Certainly, by 1991, when the next enumeration notice will be mailed out, these possible errors will be corrected.

FUNERAL SERVICES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I want to tell him that I have here his news release of last November 19 which he provided when he was tabling Bill 27, An Act respecting Prearranged and Prepaid Funerals. I want to quote what the minister said in that release: “Door-to-door and telephone solicitations would be banned.”

I recognize that refers only to funeral services, but the commercial cemeteries, which now own many funeral homes, have waged a campaign even against that proposal for the funeral services. I want to ask the minister today, has he caved in to them, or will he get up now and repeat that commitment in this House which he gave last November 19?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There are barely 15 minutes to go in question period on a Thursday afternoon. I had been quite disappointed that almost a week had gone by and I had not had a question on the bereavement sector from my friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He can’t get on the list.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) says he cannot get on the list, but I know my friend has always had great priority in the question period briefing. I see my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) nodding and I am sure that is so.

I understand the concern the honourable member has. He will note the ban on door-to-door and telephone solicitation in Bill 27 introduced last year. I can only suggest to him that we are aware that is a crucial issue as we bring forward changes to the Cemeteries Act and more comprehensive legislation in the bereavement sector. I can only ask my friend to wait patiently and not too much longer until we bring forward a proposed package of changes to be considered by the House.

Mr. Swart: I know now why the minister started off so evasively. He did not want to say he would give that commitment. He knows very well that there is no such ban in the act. It was in his press release that he promised he would ban it and the power is in the act to do it. Now, today, he will not repeat that commitment. I suspected that was the case after his answer to me last week that the decision to ban or not to ban in all sectors of bereavement had not been decided.

I want to remind the minister that last November 19 it was a firm commitment. Is it not true that the minister has now succumbed to the pressures of his friends in the commercial cemeteries sector and his own pro commercial cemetery staff and is going to go along with them all the way in what they want?

1510

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My staff and I have been considering, along with the ministry, a series of recommendations to take forward to my cabinet colleagues. I believe we have about completed our review of these matters. They are being put into the appropriate language to take forward to cabinet.

Very clearly, the cabinet of the province will make this decision as we bring forward the first comprehensive changes to the Cemeteries Act in more than three decades and a number of other very important changes to update the whole legislation in this very important sector, which accounts for some $350 million worth of business a year and is very important to each and every person in this province.

We will be sensitive in terms of the recommendations we take to cabinet, and I am sure, in the recommendations that will flow from cabinet to this House in the form of legislation. I only repeat to my honourable friend that I am sure he will see that sensitivity when the legislation is tabled.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Can the minister explain why the printing of Lucky Match instant lottery tickets, which went on sale on May 16, has been subcontracted by Canadian Security Printers to Dittler Brothers Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I thank the member for the question. This is a matter, of course, which is decided upon by the Ontario Lottery Corp. It was a matter that was discussed thoroughly and a decision was made by them that this was the best area and the best place to get these tickets.

Mr. McLean: That answer is not good enough. For a government that wants to keep its dollars here in Ontario, why is it having printing done in the United States, and it is agin’ free trade?

The Ontario Lottery Corp. has tied in with Sunoco for a program whereby an individual can scratch a Wintario stub and win a coupon worth $1 off a minimum purchase of 25 litres of gasoline. However, this gasoline company sells its product at a price approximately four cents higher than its competitors, so if you buy 25 litres of gasolines from Sunoco you may pay $1 more than at other gasoline stations, unless, of course, you are lucky enough to have a winning Wintario stub and then you win your gas for the regular price. But their stations may be 100 miles apart. Why was the minister not aware of this price situation before joining Sunoco in this promotion?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Of course, this was another matter which was thoroughly discussed by the Ontario Lottery Corp. This particular game was put out for tender with all of the different service stations and Sunoco was the company that won this.

I might also tell the member that prices in gasoline do vary and I do not think he will find that variance in all the stations across the province.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Dietsch: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware of the report of the 1987 test by his ministry which indicates that the levels of dioxin along the US side of the Niagara River were substantially above results of the tests from the 1985 report. The report identifies sources of polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury and mirex, which are at very high levels. Will the minister inform this House what steps are being taken to reduce the toxic loadings to the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, it is a very good question from the member, who represents a constituency which is immediately adjacent to the Niagara River and is a member who has had a long interest in this subject.

In terms of addressing the problems on the Canadian side of the river, we have a very ambitious program along the Niagara River which includes control orders on companies. It includes directives to companies on manners in which they can clean up their particular effluent and of course, it includes some very significant expenditures on the part of the taxpayers of Ontario on the upgrading of sewage treatment plants, one of them being in Niagara Falls which has gone to secondary sewage treatment with very sophisticated equipment, and also the Anger Avenue one in Fort Erie.

In addition to that, the member may recall that last year the four parties involved, federal and provincial authorities and state and federal authorities in the US, signed an agreement under which there was a commitment to reduce the toxic contaminants going into the Niagara River by some minimum 50 per cent over a period of 10 years, by 1996.

There have been discussions going on between our four parties, including our American counterparts, on the chemicals to be reduced. Of course, we have suggested that additional chemicals, such as dioxin, PCBs, mirex and mercury be included in that particular list. In addition to that, I met with the commissioner of the Department of the --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Again, it is a very full answer.

Mr. Dietsch: I can understand what the minister is up against, and I would like him to explain to this House when this international bureaucratic red tape can be cut.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Two things: My latest, very recent meeting with Thomas Jorling, the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation of New York state, produced some rather interesting results in that, for years and years, we saw a great resistance to what I refer to as the permanent solution to those toxic waste sites and toxic facilities immediately adjacent to the river. Mr. Jorling indicated in our last meeting that indeed he was interested in and wanted to pursue the permanent solution, which of course we on this side believe is the excavation of those sites.

I am pleased to tell the member and to inform members of the House that the latest round of negotiations, which took place just yesterday, found that agreement in principle was given by the United States team to include 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PCB, mercury and mirex on the list of chemicals to be reduced by some 50 per cent in the initial stage.

Whereas there had been many questions about this, particularly with our American friends, they have now agreed in principle to that. That must be ultimately ratified, of course, but we think this is very positive. We are going to continue our efforts on this side to pursue with our American friends the solutions which must come on the American side of the river if we are to have a proper quality of water.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. A couple of weeks ago, I asked the minister about his commitment to the Niagara Escarpment plan and of course received from him a fulsome reiteration that he was totally committed to the plan. As I am sure he understands, the plan says that there shall be a continuous natural environment along the Niagara Escarpment.

Having heard that, citizens and environmental groups that have struggled for years to protect the Niagara Escarpment and thought they had won that battle, were very interested in a speech the minister gave some weeks ago in which he said that tourism and recreation were not the only issues of economic development facing escarpment communities and that “flexibility” must be brought to the task of dealing with them.

He went on to say: “What is the just due of every citizen? I would say it is equal access to opportunity. And we will not have equal access if we would deny opportunities for economic progress which are compatible with the objectives of the plan.”

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Mrs. Grier: Can the minister explain how he reconciles a commitment to preservation of the natural environment of the escarpment with “flexibility” and “economic progress” along the escarpment?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It is quite simple. Flexibility means common sense, and if the plan is going to work, it must mean common sense. We go out and we listen to the people on the commission, to the people who are associated with the Niagara Escarpment Commission, to the members who represent the people along there and we make those decisions. When I referred to the question of tourism and recreation, there are great tourism opportunities that do not affect the plan and that I think can add a great deal to the attractiveness of the Niagara Escarpment.

Mrs. Grier: Another fascinating quote in that speech was a rhetorical question asked by the minister when he said: “We must also ask, ‘In what form do we want to preserve the escarpment?’ Do we want an approach which says, ‘Let the weeds grow’?”

I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but can the minister tell us whether his idea of a natural environment and beauty on the escarpment is condominiums among the weeds?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Of course not. While the member is talking about the weeds growing, we want the escarpment to be attractive to everyone. It is one of the unique facilities in this world and we are committed to keeping the escarpment in that condition. Let me tell the member that.

1520

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. J. M. Johnson: My question was for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini), but since he is not here I will ask the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. This is National Access Awareness Week: “Partners in community action with disabled persons.” June is also Senior Citizens Month. I would then think that the minister would feel compelled to ensure that every disabled senior citizen in this province had access to his own home.

Does the minister realize that we have disabled seniors living in government-supported senior citizens’ apartment buildings who are being denied access to their own homes?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: Of course, when this is Senior Citizens Month, the month of June, I think everyone across the province, both in government and in community organizations has an increased awareness of seniors and the sorts of lifestyles they live. I think that bringing the awareness through a special month for seniors gives individuals and communities the opportunity to assist seniors to remain in their own homes, and certainly access to their homes is tremendously important.

Seniors who have lived in two-storey buildings for a number of years and who may be frailer now than they were at the time they went into those buildings do deserve special consideration to gain access to those second floors of buildings.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to thank the minister for considering the part I was concerned about; that is, elevators for senior citizens’ apartment units.

In Meadow View Place in Hillsburgh, which is a senior citizens’ home, Mrs. Erma Allan could not come home for several months after knee surgery. Mrs. Claira Thompson broke her hip and was unable to return to her home for a year. I do not think that is acceptable and I think the government should be concentrating on providing elevators for those units.

The Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) announced $50 million for the disabled. I think the minister is responsible for making sure that our seniors have elevators in senior citizens’ apartment units.

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I would just tell the honourable member that I do have the opportunity, as minister responsible for senior citizens’ affairs with a mandate to co-ordinate programs for seniors across the government, to work very closely with other ministers who are involved in programs that could benefit senior citizens. I appreciate his comments and certainly want to let the honourable member know that I do take those things into consideration when I work very closely with the other ministers. The cooperation I am getting across the government is tremendous and I am very appreciative of that.

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a petition with 92 signatures on it that I have received with no address and no return signature. I give that caveat. It simply indicates opposition to the provincial sales tax and personal tax.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Mahoney: I have a petition: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, appreciate the fact that the government of Ontario will be holding public hearings regarding the issue of Sunday shopping. We request that these hearings be held in centres throughout the province, including Mississauga.”

It is signed by 30 people and I have added my signature thereto.

NATUROPATHY

Mrs. Marland: I have three petitions here:

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

“I want naturopathy to continue to be regulated in Ontario, and we ask for support of this position.

“Ontario should safeguard alternatives in health care. To this end, naturopathy should remain regulated. Deregulation would remove current safeguards for the public and might drive naturopaths from this province.”

I have three people who have expressed a similar opinion, Andrea Gopp on Tallberg Court, Susan Van Der Rassel --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. It is not necessary to read the petitioners’ names, as you are well aware.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Philip from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee’s Special Report on the Estimates Process and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Philip: This special report concludes that the estimates process in this House is ineffective and without substance.

The report makes a number of proposals for reform, including the establishment of a standing committee on estimates with adequate research backup to review the estimates of at least six ministries a year in depth. The report also deals with the relationship between the public accounts committee and the proposed standing committee on estimates.

The auditor had noted that nonapproval of any part of the budget or estimates is taken as a vote of nonconfidence in the government. The committee also shares the auditor’s concern that this weakens the Legislature’s control over expenditures and detracts from a back-bencher’s feeling that he or she has input into the workings of the government.

To address this concern, the committee has recommended that the proposed estimates committee be given the power to recommend reallocation of funding within each vote.

These proposals, if adopted, would lead to greater accountability. I urge all members to read the report.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT

Hon. Mrs. Caplan moved first reading of Bill 147, An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities.

Mr. Speaker: 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.

ENVIRONMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bradley moved first reading of Bill 148, An Act to amend Certain Acts respecting the Environment.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before moving to the orders of the day, I would just like to seek unanimous consent to make a brief business statement so the House will be apprised of what it is we have agreed to discuss today.

Mr. Speaker: I would be delighted to hear it also.

Agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to share very briefly with you the business that we will transact this afternoon, Tuesday, June 2.

The first order of business, by agreement, is the sixth order, second reading of Bill 5, followed by the eighth order, second reading of Bill 7. We will then move to the 39th order, second reading of Bill 126, standing in the name of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître). Then we will conclude this afternoon by dealing with the fourth order, the resumed budgetary debate.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Offer, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, moved second reading of Bill 5, An Act to amend the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Mr. Offer: This bill will make it easier for people in Ontario to collect money they are owed by public servants or by those who do business with the crown.

These amendments complement the bill passed by this House in 1983 and permit the establishment of administrative procedures which will allow notices of garnishment to be served on the crown. Thus, someone who has obtained a court judgement against a public servant or a government supplier will be able to use the same garnishment remedy which is available for use against all other persons.

1530

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Actually, the parliamentary assistant stole my speech. I think it comes from the explanatory notes. Our critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General is unable to be here today. I have discussed this bill with the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) and certainly agree with the intent of the legislation. I think it is appropriate that there should not be special privileges for crown employees when it comes to these matters.

We will be supporting the legislation this afternoon. As always, the opposition parties say, “Too little, too late,” and that would apply to this piece of legislation as well.

Mr. Sterling: I guess the one disappointment we have with this particular piece of legislation is the fact that it is a recognition that special proceedings are necessary when dealing with a crown employee, yet we do not allow special proceedings when we are dealing with other large bureaucratic bodies.

For instance, in this particular case, when you are dealing with a situation of an employer of some 85,000 or 90,000 employees, we say there is a special duty on the creditor to find out exactly where that debtor is working and to go and serve that particular section of the government, whereas if, for instance, a person worked for a very large corporation in Ontario, and I will not pick any particular name, a garnishment proceeding would be legal, as far as I know or think, as long as the head office was served with the garnishment papers. It would be up to that particular private corporation or whatever body that might be to make certain that the garnishment was carried out.

So we are asking for a greater onus on the private sector out there than we are on the public sector. Notwithstanding that, I and my caucus are willing to support this piece of legislation. because at the present time there are limited rights for creditors. I am thinking particularly of people dealing with family court orders, where they are trying to collect on family court orders and the present proceedings against certain employees who are employed by crown agencies cannot be garnished under the imperfect 1983 act.

We are going to support this. But what I would have liked to have seen in this act -- and I hope the parliamentary assistant would take it back to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott); I am not even going to put this to committee of the whole House to ask it -- would have been something similar to what we put in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; that is, an obligation on the party receiving the garnishment or the execution to pass that on or direct the garnishor to another source or a proper source.

What I think this act does is say that if you are served wrongly or an agency or ministry of the government is not the agency under which that particular employee falls, then they can wash their hands of it and walk away from it. That throws it back on the private citizen.

While that may be satisfactory for some, if we think about the enforcement of a debt owing to someone living in another province or another country -- I am again thinking particularly in the domestic area -- then it may be very difficult for them to track down where in fact that employee is working or what agency he is working under. What the government is asking is that the public have a greater knowledge of the structure than the bureaucrat so that it can find out who it is supposed to serve.

What I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant is for him to undertake to at least canvass the idea with the Attorney General as to whether he would be willing to put under this particular act, at a later date, a requirement on the parties served to do as is required under the freedom-of-information act, that is, refer the server to some other source or some other area where in fact he may find this particular employee employed.

Mr. Offer: First, I would like to thank the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) for expressing their support for this legislation. At the outset, I will say to the member for Carleton that the suggestion which he has made with respect to canvassing that at the Ministry of the Attorney General shall be taken back to the ministry.

In response, I would like to indicate that this particular amendment deals with a situation in which members or crown employees have been dealt with in a manner inconsistent from that in which other debtors are dealt with and treated. In fact, I believe it is fair to say that the perception by the public is that this is an unjustified privilege, and this particular amendment is designed to do away with that which has happened in the past.

With respect to the concerns which have been raised primarily by the member for Carleton with respect to why this is really necessary, we have to realize that the size and complexity and the lack of centralization of the government hiring and purchasing distinguishes the crown situation from that of individuals and companies in the private sector.

We believe that this particular amendment comes to grips not only with what is viewed by the public as being an unjustified privilege to crown employees but also meets the very real situation in that the complexity, size and decentralization of government still must not be viewed as a burden in not being able to have this type of amendment. That is what this amendment is designed to achieve and we believe, through the members’ support, will in fact achieve.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

1540

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT / LOI SUR L’ARBITRAGE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL

Mr. Offer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, second reading of Bill 7, An Act to implement the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

M. Offer propose, au nom de l’hon. M. Scott, la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 7, Loi portant mise en application de la Loi type sur l’arbitrage commercial international adoptée par la Commission des Nations Unies pour le droit commercial international.

Mr. Offer: Arbitration is a common way of settling commercial disputes. However, an ongoing concern among parties to such arrangements is whether the decision will be final or whether the losing party will be able to persuade the courts to review the decision.

This bill implements the United Nations model law on international commercial arbitration, the result of several years of work by about 55 countries, including Canada. It will strictly limit the power of the courts to intervene in an arbitration decision in international commercial transactions. This will make Canada a desirable place to have such arbitrations take place.

The bill also establishes rules for the conduct of international arbitration, although the parties of course will be free to agree upon changes to most of the rules if they so choose.

It is important to emphasize that no one’s rights are being affected. No one is forced to agree to have the disputes handled by arbitration, but this bill will ensure that when such a decision is taken, there is a high degree of certainty and finality to the process and decision.

Mr. Sterling: I would only indicate our support for this particular act. Our federal Parliament passed this act in May 1986 and it was proclaimed in August 1986, and therefore I think it is important that the provincial government, in dealing with any matters within our exclusive jurisdiction, follow suit.

I only find it passing strange that we are going through the same argument with regard to another number of pieces of legislation in the federal Parliament and would only add that this one is not causing a constitutional confrontation for some reason. This is an example where governments can get along, can in fact pass legislation when there are two areas of jurisdiction involved.

The other thing I would like to point out is that this is an example that whenever you are involved in free trade or trade arrangements, be they multilateral with other countries or bilateral with one country, as with the free trade agreement, you are subjecting yourself in this particular case to a court or a process which may not be based here in Ontario or Canada. Once you realize that you are transferring yourself from a domestic market into an international market, you give away a small piece of what we would call sovereignty. That is basically what this piece of legislation does.

Therefore, I find it passing strange that this government, in many of its arguments, has worried so dramatically about the loss of sovereignty it is going to give away under the bilateral trade agreement and the legislation that is involved with the United States, whereas we have not heard any cry about the fact that foreign arbitration awards would not be able to be attacked by a litigant here in Ontario through our Canadian courts.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly, we have also reviewed this legislation and will be supporting it. I must say that I think the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) is stretching it just a bit to talk about this bill in the same terms as the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that if this bill had any implications along the same line as the federal legislation to implement the trade bill, our party would not be supporting it and there would be a little more discussion in the Legislature this afternoon than there is on Bill 7.

We will be supporting this bill because all the implications the member for Carleton seemed to indicate about this bill are not, in fact, going to occur and therefore we feel we can support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any other honourable member wish to comment on the remarks just made by the member for Windsor-Riverside? The member for Carleton for two minutes.

Mr. Sterling: I would just like to say, Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Madam Speaker, it is not the first time.

The Acting Speaker: Would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Offer: Just to reiterate, this particular act, first, encourages international commercial arbitration and, second, it is designed to keep the courts out of the arbitral process until enforcement, and their discretion is strictly limited. It has no other bearing on any other issue, but rather on those two very specific and very real purposes, both of which are met in a very concise manner in this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi passera à l’étape de troisième lecture.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Before we continue, I have had an opportunity to review the remarks that were made by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) on Wednesday in this House. The determination as to whether the words used in the House are offensive or disorderly rests with the Speaker, and the Speaker’s judgement depends upon the nature of the words and the context in which the words were used. I appreciate the co-operation from the member for Cochrane South. I have reviewed my decision on that day as well, and I appreciate the co-operation of all members in keeping orderly conduct in this House.

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 126, An Act to assist Ontario Residents to save for the purchase of a First Home.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The Ontario Home Ownership Savings Plan Act of 1988 is designed to implement a program announced by the Treasurer (R. F. Nixon) in his budget of April 20 of this year.

The Ontario home ownership savings plan provides tax credits to assist eligible Ontario residents to save for the purchase of their first homes. These tax credits will be made available to individuals with net incomes of less than $40,000 and married couples with net incomes of less than $80,000. Tax credits will be allowed up to and including the 1997 taxation year.

I will be proposing amendments to Bill 126 that will ease the administrative burden of financial institutions and ensure the timely release of OHOSP funds for purchasers of new condominium units. Copies of the proposed amendments will be distributed to honourable members.

1550

Ms. Bryden: The purpose of Bill 126 is presumably to provide tax credits for people saving to buy their first home. The bill, as the minister has told us, provides for a maximum refundable 25 per cent credit on contributions up to $2,000 a year for individuals or up to $4,000 a year for couples. The maximum credit is available only to persons earning less than $20,000 a year and completely disappears if individual income exceeds $40,000 a year. The bill allows contributions to the Ontario home ownership savings plan, otherwise known as OHOSP, for up to five years. The government estimates that OHOSP will benefit 150,000 families and will cost taxpayers $50 million a year.

This bill is just too useless to be taken seriously, and no amount of amendments could make it a valuable tool for assisting first-time home buyers.

To give just a couple of examples of the bill’s futility, the average resale house in Metropolitan Toronto costs now about $224,000 and requires an annual income of over $66,000 to finance, assuming the purchaser first comes up with a down payment of nearly $35,000. Yet the maximum credit is available only to individuals earning less than $20,000 a year or families earning less than $40,000 a year.

For families at the upper end of the income scale -- from $60,000 to $80,000 -- who are eligible for tax credits and can barely afford an average-priced home in Metro, the tax credits over the five-year period would be rather minimal. For example, if a family earning $60,000 a year finds a home for $200,000 -- this assumes house prices will freeze in Metro for the next five years -- the family’s tax credit will be $2,500, if it is fortunate enough to be able to save $4,000 a year. This $2,500 saving not only represents a meagre 1.25 per cent off the sale price, but it also represents only five per cent of the $50,000 down payment required for the $200,000 house.

Moreover, there is no indexing of the income limits in the bill. Like so many other tax credits introduced by this government for a variety of purposes, without indexing, the credit is soon eroded, as inflation raises dollar incomes but does not raise real incomes. Very shortly, the bill will be even less effective and even fewer people will qualify.

The bill will do nothing to help prospective first-time home owners acquire a house, since most of those eligible could not meet the down payment and mortgage obligations in the major housing markets in the province, even with the tax credit. They have already been priced out of the market.

The plan is estimated to cost taxpayers $50 million a year. This may be low if administrative costs balloon in efforts to stop the kind of tax evasions, ripoffs and fraudulent applications which plagued previous subsidy schemes of this nature at both the provincial and federal levels to first-time home buyers.

I was a researcher here during one of the early Progressive Conservative plans of this nature. Evidence came out after the plan was in effect for some time that many people had signed a statement that they had never owned a home before and the statement was completely false, but the minister had very little facilities for checking those statements and so they just accepted the applicant’s word. Others used the plan -- it was not a credit at that time; it was a tax savings plan -- as really a tax evasion method or as a method of shielding income from tax.

I am afraid that if we look at this piece of legislation and its origin, we really see that it is a pie-in-the-sky election promise -- which came from the Liberal Party during the last election and, I think, from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) -- that a first-time home buyer’s tax credit would be a great thing and a great way to help people obtain their own homes.

Then a rather unusual situation occurred in this House. A month or two before the budget was due to come down, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) was allowed to announce to the press that such a plan was going to be in the provincial budget due in a couple of months. As we all know, nobody is supposed to know what is going to be in the budget before the budget comes down, so this was a rather unusual announcement. Presumably, it was okayed by the Treasurer and by the Liberal government.

It was really a desperate attempt by the Minister of Housing to produce something concrete as the answer to the growing housing crisis, something more concrete than what she used to call long-term strategies, which was her answer to any questions such as “What are you doing about housing?” in the first six months after the new government came in. Now we are not sure what the answer is because the long term is beginning to approach and we still do not see what the strategies are.

I am also concerned about the fact that the prospective home buyers, who are supposed to be saving $2,000 to $4,000 a year, are currently tenants. Unfortunately, these current tenants will not be able to save as much money as they would have hoped because of the Liberal government’s new rent review law, which is forcing tenants to pay rent hikes of two, three or four times the rate of inflation. Many of them have not had their rent review applications processed, so they do not know whether to pay the rent demanded by the landlord and cut their income very low and leave no savings for participating in this plan, or whether to pay their current rent when they may face a huge hike once the rent review process evaluates the landlord’s application and makes an award. Tenants really have no disposable income to put into this because they have to keep their disposable income for potential rent increases which appear to be at a very alarming rate, far beyond the rate of inflation.

A more effective strategy would be to spend the money on new nonprofit housing and to bring in an effective property speculation tax. In fact, the administrative costs required to enforce a property speculation tax would be far less than the $50 million which this plan is estimated to cost at a minimum. It would do a great deal more to end the escalation of the housing crisis which is now going on in Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Brampton and major urban centres.

1600

We in this party consider this policy approach a farce. As I have said, we wish the government had chosen to spend its money on new nonprofit housing and to bring in an effective property speculation tax. Since they have resisted our suggestions to do this so far, we had to decide whether to vote against the bill or try to amend it.

We concluded it was not amendable because it is so ill-conceived. We decided we should perhaps reluctantly support it because it might benefit a few first-time home owners in some parts of the province where housing prices have not risen at such an extreme rate as they have in the major urban centres or where some people who are having trouble finding the down payment for a house might conceivably qualify in some parts of the province.

We have decided that in the event the Liberal steamroller insists on backing up the minister in this ill-conceived initiative, we will not oppose the legislation, in the hope that it will indicate we are sympathetic to the needs of the first-time home owners, but we would have liked a different solution to their needs.

Mr. Harris: Let me say the good things first. I want to applaud the minister for bringing in a bill that expires in five years. This program, which is a new expenditure program, has a built-in sunset clause already in it. I recall that this was the same minister who was wearing another hat last year, I believe before Christmas, when I moved an amendment to one of his bills -- I forget which -- to put a sunset provision in it. I applauded him at that time for accepting the amendment and I applaud him this time for anticipating I might move a similar amendment if he did not have it in his legislation.

I point that out because I have commented on sunset provisions on new programs that very often are brought in with a specific purpose or intention. Sometimes there is a very laudable goal at a certain economic time in a province’s history, and when that economic situation changes, there is no need for the program any longer. It quite properly should receive a review, and if that is the case, that program should not carry on.

As well, very often, very well-meaning ministers and very well-meaning drafters of legislation attempt to put a bill together to address a certain problem and it does not work as it was intended or it causes more problems than it solves. We all have seen examples of that. We have all been victims of that. Well, maybe not “we all,” but those of us who have been involved in government as well.

I think it makes a lot of sense. I condemn the Premier and the Treasurer for rejecting the prebudget proposals I brought forward which would have required a mandatory review of new programs that are brought in and a look at existing programs and spending mechanisms we have in place now, and I condemn the Liberal members of this chamber who voted against my private member’s resolution suggesting that this should be the case.

I cannot remember whether the minister was in the chamber during my private member’s bill. He probably had to stay out because his colleagues were opposed to it. This minister is the only one who has shown the good sense, in my view, to say, “Yes, we should take a look at this in five years and see if what the opposition is saying now is true, that it is really not going to do very much, or the situation may have change in that time and the program should be changed, modified, scrapped or whatever.” I applaud that part of the bill.

I think the fact that the Minister of Housing is not in this House while this bill is being debated is very reflective of what this bill will accomplish for housing in this province. I do not blame her for being too embarrassed to be in the House while this bill is being debated even though it is a bill which, while it is a revenue bill, let’s face it, is a housing bill. It is brought in to help solve one aspect of a housing problem. I want to associate myself with some of the remarks the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) made. She would probably concur with me that the Minister of Housing is probably a little too ashamed and embarrassed to be in this House to lend her support to the minister who has to carry this rather abominable piece of legislation.

We will not oppose the legislation, primarily because I think it will be of some assistance, but mostly in those areas which do not need it or need it far less than those areas which do need help. My colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and I spent a considerable period discussing whether we should support or oppose this bill. He informs me, on behalf of his constituents, that there may be some people in his area, mainly due to the low income of a number of people, lower house prices and less economic activity there, who may be able to benefit from this program. For that reason alone, I am going to support the legislation.

But let me say there will be some people in the riding of Nipissing -- l am not so sure about the city of North Bay proper any longer, where house prices have risen rather significantly, but not near the Toronto problem -- certainly in many of the smaller communities in the riding of Nipissing, in some of the rural areas and perhaps in North Bay itself to a lesser extent, who may be able to take advantage of this program.

We will not oppose the legislation, but I would like to say that in those areas where the real housing crunch is, where the real problems are, this bill is virtually useless and will do nothing to provide assistance there.

If you are the Minister of Housing or if you are interested in solving housing problems, I am not sure it makes a lot of sense to the public, and I do not know why it would make a lot of sense to the members of this chamber, to tackle the area that least needs help first as opposed to the area that needs most of the assistance, where the problem is the largest. The logic of that escapes me. Perhaps it is logical to some.

I do not expect the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) to try to sell this too much. He has a job to do. The Treasurer, the Premier and the Minister of Housing got together and foisted this on him and he has the unfortunate task of having to carry this thing forward. My sympathies go to him.

1610

Perhaps the sunset clause he put in is an admission on his part that, “Look, the thing’s not going to work, but I have to carry it anyway.” At least in five years they will have look at it again and not carry it forward.

Mr. Villeneuve: Is that the reason?

Mr. Harris: I have already applauded him for that. I did not get into too many of the reasons.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: What did you have for lunch?

Mr. Reycraft: John Crosbie.

Mr. Harris: No, I missed John Crosbie at lunch today. I had an enjoyable lunch. I met with him and had a little chat with him, but two minutes before he was to get up to speak I had to rush back and be here in this Legislature, so I missed the speech. I am sure it was excellent.

I want to talk about a whole bunch of things the government could have done that would have been far more meaningful. When we are talking about affordable home ownership and the problems -- particularly in the Metro Toronto region, but all over -- we should look at some of the things this government has done that have driven the price of housing out of sight.

Somewhere in here I have a little section on the land transfer tax, if I can find it, something that we talked about when the massive increases in land transfer taxes were brought in in 1985.

Somewhere here it tells me exactly how much that has added to the price of a home --

Mrs. Cunningham: It is $3,200 in Metro.

Mr. Harris: -- in Metro. So the average home in Metro, as a result of budget increases this government has brought in, just in the land transfer tax increase, costs $3,200 more than it did before 1985.

That was the 1985 budget. Let’s talk about the 1987 --

Mr. Polsinelli: You might explain how it costs $3,200 more.

Mr. Harris: You increased the taxes that much so that when the home sells, that is what the increase is.

Let’s take a look at this budget. The one per cent increase in sales tax on the cost of constructing a new home: $2,000.

Oh, yes, here is the bit on the land transfer tax. Let me correct the record. It is $355.60.

An hon. member: That is quite a difference.

Mrs. Cunningham: I thought you were talking about the increased cost of a house because of higher sales tax.

Mr. Harris: Let me, in the interests of making sure that everything I say is entirely clear and understood, indicate that $355.60 is the increase on the average new home in Metro as a result of the increases in the land transfer tax. The one per cent increase in the sales tax adds $2,000; the impact of an application of the eight per cent retail sales tax rate now on ready-mixed concrete and asphalt, $900.

So the total cost increases from those three things alone -- the eight per cent is brand-new on all concrete, on premix, on asphalt; it was zero before and now it is eight per cent -- are $900 on an average $200,000 house, and that is the average price that is now being used in Metro. So it is $3,255.60 as a result of budget increases alone.

It would have made more sense, in my view, to not have applied those taxes than to bring in this program. That would have benefited all areas of the province. It would have made a significant benefit for home ownership here in Toronto.

Before government members pat themselves on the back too much about this program which is going to help home buyers, it does not come anywhere close to correcting the imbalance of the cost increases that those three budget changes have made. That does not count sales tax costs on furnishings, that does not count equipping their new home; that is just the home itself.

The other thing that is interesting is this government’s opposition and determination -- on some days, anyway -- to try to thwart the free trade deal. The federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has estimated implementation of the agreement would result in a saving of between $5,000 and almost $8,000 on the cost of establishing a typical household. Does the government think this program is going to compensate up to $8,000? If you put that in with the tax increases, now we are up to $11,000 in measures that this government purports to support.

I do not want to be too repetitive. I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine has pointed out the fact that the program really does not apply in Metro Toronto. It just does not make much sense there and I think government members would acknowledge that is the case. I say to the minister if, five years from now, house prices drop in Metro Toronto by $100,000 a home -- and the way this government is carrying on, a major recession may be around the corner -- then at that time we may say: “Let’s keep this program going. All of a sudden, it’s relevant.” However, only time will tell what comes forward with that.

The program is irrelevant in the areas that really need the help. It in no way comes close to compensating for the massive tax increases and what that has done to the price of housing. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry tells me that. What is all that stuff?

Mr. Villeneuve: The administration fees.

Mr. Harris: Administration fees, yes.

Mrs. Cunningham: That’s the amendment.

Mr. Harris: Oh, all right. We will talk about that when we get to the amendments. Where was I? I have lost my train of thought. It must be Thursday.

The program comes nowhere close to making up for other changes this government has made which have contributed to the very high cost of housing. That is not talking about some of the other things the government has not acted on. The federal government, we understand, is taking a look at real estate fees. I do not know if there is a problem there, but it is $13,400, I am told, on the average house in Metro Toronto -- not a bad fee. I guess five years ago, maybe less, the average price was $100,000. That fee, then, has doubled.

The speculation going on -- which the New Democratic Party has certainly raised far more than our party because, philosophically, it is opposed to anybody making any money -- in the case it brings up, is a fair example. We know that speculation has increased substantially. I guess the only area in which I concur with the New Democratic Party is when the government gets into the speculating business itself.

I do not think that is what governments are for. I think that is wrong. I do not think government should be speculating in the land market. I have some difficulty with the blanket remedies the New Democratic Party proposed, but I have some sympathy when it talks about the government itself speculating on all of its own land.

1620

We will not oppose this bill. I have already indicated that I think the best feature of it is that we will get another crack at it in five years. The announcement and the fanfare and what not have got them through the election. They have their 94 seats.

I really suspect that this bill will not cost us $50 million a year. I doubt that the uptake unit will be that significant but if it is. the people who have been ripped off by the tax-grabbing Premier and the Treasurer will maybe get a little money back.

It would have been far cheaper if the government had just left the money in their hands instead of having the cost of collecting the money and taxing, and then having the cost of bringing in this program and the cost of administering this program. But since the government will not leave the money in their hands, I will not be opposed to giving them a little bit of money back.

In closing, I wish that I thought the program would be more successful than 100 per cent of thinking people think it is going to be. I really do wish that. I suppose from that point of view I ought not to be critical of the government exploring every possible avenue of assistance that might be there, and I do not; I encourage that, but I think it has missed the mark on this one. I think there are far more effective ways of helping people with housing problems. The sooner this government gets down to helping those who truly need help, instead of having universal programs, the sooner we will get far more efficient delivery of assistance into the hands of those who truly need the help.

I know that the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) will have some cogent and far more precise arguments than I, as she has studied this bill with great intensity over the last couple of weeks. I look forward to the comments that she may have on the bill as well.

Ms. Bryden: I am very glad that the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) appears to see through this bill as much as we do and that it really is no solution at all to Metropolitan Toronto, as he says. Nor is it a solution to a great many other of the major housing markets in this province. That is one reason why we would have hoped that the government would have just let the idea quietly die and would have brought in some much more effective policies for dealing with the housing crisis.

I remind the member for Nipissing and the House that the demands for a land speculation tax are coming from all sources, not just from the New Democratic Party or not just from people like himself who are concerned about the government participating in land speculation with some of its surplus land in Metropolitan Toronto and other areas.

Demands for a land speculation tax are coming from the churches who are concerned about the effects of bad housing on the poor. They are coming from those who are trying to help the homeless who really have no place to live and have nothing but very bad hostel accommodation. Some of the hostels try to do the job but they cannot provide a home for people because it is only very temporary. Those trying to help the homeless point out that the housing situation is making it impossible for people to build stable relationships and to get stable jobs in the community.

It is a very serious social problem. A land speculation tax would go a long way to preventing that social problem escalating the way it has been with the disappearance of rooming houses and the turning over of what would have been affordable housing, but is no longer available to the middle-income and lower-income people who wish to better their housing.

Mr. Harris: I want to thank my great friend and colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine for her kind remarks and indicate to her what a pleasure it is for me to sit in this chamber with her and to pass on our very like-thinking comments on this particular piece of legislation.

Mrs. Cunningham: We have spent some time looking at Bill 126 and compliment the government for its intentions, but we really feel that it is, unfortunately, an intention to fulfil an election promise and not one that is seriously aimed at helping families purchase their first home. It is another bill that I personally would place in the Band-Aid-approach category.

Having said that, I hope that more people than I feel will benefit from this bill will, in fact, do so. We will be most interested in looking, somewhere down the road, if this bill is passed, at the success rate of it. I certainly wish the government luck in finding people who can qualify and who eventually will be able to use this bill to help them purchase that first home, especially for those people who are in the category of needing assistance with affordable housing.

I would like to make a few remarks with regard to the bill and with regard to the amendments, if that is in order.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): There have been no amendments placed to the bill in any respect at this time. Would you just please address the bill itself.

Mrs. Cunningham: OK. I would like to start by saying that the bill was put together, I think, in order to help young families and in order to help those people who are in fact purchasing their first home. Unfortunately, at most, the Ontario home ownership savings plan program proposed by Bill 126 can be seen as one small step in dealing with affordability in home ownership.

For example, under the plan. the maximum a couple could accumulate would be $20,000 in savings, $5,000 in tax credits, plus the net interest earned on the plan deposit. If the couple lived in the Metro area, this would still leave them well short of the $42,564 required to make a 20 per cent down payment on a house selling at the April average resale price and well below the $53,293 required for a 20 per cent down payment on the average-priced new home. The fact is. assuming a 20 per cent down payment, a one-year mortgage at 10.25 per cent and mortgage payments limited to 25 per cent of gross income, a family with an income of $35,000 could afford to buy a $100,000 house. Unfortunately, homes in that price range are simply not available.

Further, while the plan is targeted to the low-income and middle-income groups, it is these very groups which have the greatest difficulty in accumulating savings and would have the greatest difficulty in meeting the high carrying costs of home ownership, particularly if they have to use high-ratio financing.

Certainly nothing in the bill addresses any of the identified factors that I have just talked about which have contributed to the dramatic increase in house prices. Moreover, as long as house prices increase at a rate faster than the ability of people to save -- and of course this is the real concern in our province today -- any form of a savings plan will be of limited use.

From this point of view, the plan is largely a token one, in that it will do nothing to reduce the upward pressure on house prices caused by a range of factors and will do little to help consumers cope with the impact of those factors by making it easier for them to save towards the purchase of a house.

The program is the only one proposed in the 1988-89 budget which will be of benefit to the middle-income persons and families in the province and does provide some measure of assistance, no matter how marginal, to persons saving for a first home. We were disappointed that this is the only proposal in the 1988-89 budget.

1630

In addition, the program will have more of a financial impact in communities outside of Metropolitan Toronto where housing prices tend to increase at a more moderate rate and the affordability problem is not as severe. I am sure, when we look at this a year from now, or a couple of years from now, we will see a few small gains outside of Toronto.

It should be noted that, during the debate on Bill 126, other policies of the Liberal government, as explained earlier today in the debate, have made it more difficult for people to buy a house. We are specifically talking about the increase in the land transfer tax, the increase in the sales tax and the application of the sales tax to asphalt and poured concrete. They have all significantly added to the cost of buying a home.

My colleague has previously talked about the exact number. The total cost increase, looking at these three policies of the government, quite frankly, is the number that he stated, $3,255.60. Further, new home buyers will incur additional sales tax costs on furnishing and equipment, as he has already stated. I think that was the greatest disappointment to families who are struggling these days. The little bit of extra money they may have had for new furnishings or something to enhance the quality of their lives was certainly eaten up in the great tax grab.

In sum then, I guess the best one can say in support of the bill is that it will modestly enhance the ability of people to save for the purchase of a house and will thereby help to mitigate the negative consequences of a number of other Liberal government policies.

I will close by simply saying that we have created categories in this party for the policies of the government and this one would go into the category of the Band-Aid approach, rather than looking at the real problems in housing across this province and coming up with a feasible, responsible plan that will take us far beyond the turn of this century and be something that we can all be proud of in the future.

At the appropriate time, I would like to talk to the amendments that I understand will be placed at some point.

Ms. Bryden: I appreciate the previous speaker, the member for London North, pointing out and reminding us that the new home buyer does face very sizeable increases because of the increase in the sales tax, which amounts to almost 15 per cent, and that it will affect housing materials, furnishings, appliances and a lot of things that are required when you move into a new home. That is a pretty substantial deterrent to new home buyers and further prices them out of the market.

The past increases in the land transfer tax by this government have been remarkable and it is going in the opposite direction. The government has not reduced that. It appears that the main interest of the Treasurer is in grabbing the money where he thinks it is easy to get but not looking at the people who are really being hit by his $1.5-billion tax increases. They are the people who are the most desperately in need of affordable housing. He is making it impossible for them to obtain down payments or to ever hope to own a home.

I think we have to think of this legislation in the context of that need, that this legislation will give back a little credit to a few people who might qualify, but it will not really help the majority of people who are hit by these huge tax increases on all their housing needs.

Mr. Elliot: I would like to comment on the speech in a most favourable fashion too, because of the fact that the speech recognized that this is a modest improvement on the situation.

I would like to highlight, in addition to that, that I think the attitude which goes with saving is something all of us as legislators should be concentrating on just a bit. I taught mathematics for 28 years, and in our area you can buy a modest house in the range of $100,000. Mathematically, I can show that with a saving attitude, if a two-member family saves properly, that family can save, over a five-year period, approximately 40 per cent of the value of that type of house. If they do that, they can sustain that house on the other part of the income. They can plan their family and do a very satisfactory job.

I think the problem with attacking a bill like this one, which is really aimed at instigating an attitude of saving into the population out there, is that it is really a bad thing to do. Too many of our young people, in my experience, have an attitude of spending rather than of saving. I think it is the responsibility of all of us in this Legislature to document the fact that we support saving. I think it is really wrong to ever stand up and say that we in a Legislature like this can assure people that, without doing anything, they can buy homes or anything else. Too often, we tend to do that by attacking unfairly good legislation such as this, which certainly points in the proper direction.

Mr. Harris: I too, like the member for Beaches-Woodbine, am delighted and pleased -- what were the words she used? Very supportive, whatever it was; it was very positive -- in regard to the remarks the member for London North made.

I want to comment also on the remarks the member for London North made, as those remarks prompted remarks from the member for Halton North (Mr. Elliot) about the attitude of saving and budgeting that he feels is so important to instil in young people and that he feels young people do not have. I take a little exception to blaming young people.

If they watch the government of Ontario, if they watch the Premier, if they watch the Treasurer, if they in any way pay any attention and follow the example of this government, that would be the reason why they do not save any money. This government spends far more than it brings in, year after year. It continually goes back to the well to increase taxes. My only hope is that young people do not pay attention to how this government handles its money, if in fact the intent is that they should be saving a little more as opposed to going out and borrowing money all the time to achieve some of the tangible things they want.

I do want to comment as well that while they may be able to achieve $40,000, I think it would take pretty good investment to do that over five years. The house will surely have gone up significantly more than that and they will still be behind the eight ball.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other questions and comments? If not, would the member for Beaches-Woodbine respond? My apology. The member for London North.

Mrs. Cunningham: The member for Beaches-Woodbine would have made a more significant response, but I will give it a good go. She was very articulate earlier today and I approved of everything she stated.

I just have a couple of remarks. I would like to thank the member for Halton North for his compliments. I think it is important that when there is a small step made, it is acknowledged, and I intend to do that this afternoon.

I share his concern about savings and that we should be supporting families and young people as they save. I can only say that one of the greatest disappointments of the budget was that it did not encourage young people to save, not only for down payments on homes but also for future education, for families, and certainly for furniture and other meaningful items for the household. I think that should be of concern to the government; certainly it is to our party.

1640

He mentioned the price of $100,000. In looking at the numbers around Toronto, and certainly in London, $100,000 is a house that could only be afforded by people who are jointly earning an income of $35,000 or more and who could possibly benefit in a very small way, if this is in fact their first home, from being a participant in this plan. I think the real problem with the figure of $100,000 is that there are very few homes available, certainly in Metro Toronto, where the problem seems to be the greatest.

I do support saving and I hope that this plan will encourage it. I hope the government in the future will take other measures that will encourage young people to save. Sales tax is not one of the ways.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am very surprised at the comments of the member for Beaches-Woodbine and also the congratulations from the member for Nipissing. The member for Beaches-Woodbine uses the words, “a useless bill,” “not to be taken seriously,” “it is a farce,” “it is ill conceived.” Yet she is a member of a party that has been harassing this government to create more housing to give low and moderate earners a chance to own their own homes.

I think this bill does that very adequately. It is a start. It is not a miracle bill, but I think with the assistance of the ministry and the Minister of Housing -- there is not a week that the Minister of Housing does not stand up in this House and announce a new program or continue to improve housing programs. She has to be congratulated for the work that she is doing.

I think the member is absolutely right when she says very few people in the city of Toronto or in Metro will be using this program. I would like to remind the member for Beaches-Woodbine that there are other communities in this province besides Toronto. There are other communities that have to be looked at.

There is southern Ontario, northern Ontario and eastern Ontario. I can tell members that people from these areas have been phoning our telephone centre in Oshawa asking us when this bill will receive royal assent. Young people are interested in this program. I can guarantee members that we will spend $50 million and, hopefully, next year we will be able to improve this program.

The member for Nipissing has pointed out that he does not think we will use this kind of money, but it is committed money and we intend to go through with this bill and to provide young couples and individuals with the opportunity of owning their own homes.

I think the member for London North compliments at least the intention of this government for initiating such a program. I think she understands that we do have low- and moderate-income earners in this province. We have to look at their needs and those of young families who are starting in life. This is a starter home program.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It’s not for low-income earners.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Maybe the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) does not really appreciate this kind of program, but he should, because he knows very well that it is very difficult for an individual who is making between $20,000 and $40,000 to own a home in this province, especially in Toronto. That is the only thing I agree about with the member for Beaches-Woodbine, that it is difficult for a person living in Toronto earning $20,000 and expecting to buy a home in Toronto. But there are other communities to be considered.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine keeps talking about a land speculation tax. I do not know if she was a member back in 1977, but from 1974 until 1977 she was in this House when the Tory government, the Conservatives, introduced a land speculation tax and it did not work; it did not work.

I find this bill does not answer all our housing needs in this province in spite of our long-term strategy. We are committed to 30,000 units and this, as I said, is a step in the right direction, as pointed out by the member for London North. We will continue the work and improve our housing crisis in this province.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine also commented that a $500 tax credit is pie in the sky. Imagine what a $30,000 or a $35,000 earner will think of that comment. It is not pie in the sky. It is a program well intended to fit the needs of young people in this province. I can tell the members on behalf of the Minister of Housing that we will continue as a government to respect our commitment to more housing and more quality housing in this province.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN ACT

Consideration of Bill 126, An Act to assist Ontario Residents to save for the purchase of a First Home.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments or amendments to parts or sections of the bill and, if so, to which sections?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Madam Chairman, is it possible with the consent of the whole committee to have my people join me at a closer, lower chair?

The Deputy Chairman: Is there unanimous consent of the committee to have the staff of the honourable minister be here in the House?

Agreed to.

1650

The Deputy Chairman: To just which sections are you proposing the amendments, please?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have seven amendments. Subsection 1(1) is the first one; then section 2, paragraph 3; section 2, paragraph 17; clause 5(5)(aa); subsection 5(7); subsection 9(9), and clause 19(1)(d).

The Deputy Chairman: Are there other comments or amendments to be made and, if so, to which sections or parts of the bill?

Ms. Bryden: I wish to comment on section 19 when we get to it.

The Deputy Chairman: Do you have any other amendments?

Ms. Bryden: No.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other members who have any other amendments?

Section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moves that the definition of “depositary” as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

‘“depositary’ means a branch or office in Ontario of,

“(a) the Province of Ontario Savings Office, or

“(b) a financial institution that is a member of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or of the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corporation.”

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Very briefly, this amendment was necessary to make sure that all financial institutions could participate in this program and that all could participate in this plan as long as their deposits are insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. or the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp. It is housekeeping.

Ms. Bryden: I would, by way of preface, like to congratulate the minister on providing us with an explanatory note for each of his amendments. I was in the standing committee on general government this morning when we got 20 amendments from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) without any explanatory note, and we got them at 10 o’clock in the morning when the clause-by-clause debate started. The Minister of Revenue not only gave us a little notice but he gave us an explanatory note.

I recognize this amendment as something that was mentioned in the briefing session which the minister had with the opposition critics on his revenue bills. I think I suggested that the bill seemed to have forgotten that we did have a Province of Ontario Savings Office. It has branches quite widely spread throughout the province. I thought it would be very convenient for many people to use in applying for the credits provided for in the act -- that is assuming the act went ahead.

I am glad he has included, really, all financial institutions because clause 1(1)(b) covers, I think, all banks, credit unions and other kinds of deposit-receiving institutions, because they are all covered by the regulations of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp.

I congratulate him on having accepted my proposal. I think a lot of people will find it convenient, if a lot of people are beating a path to his door with applications.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moves that paragraph 3 of section 2 of the bill be struck out.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Again, it is to simplify the administration of the plan for qualified citizens in Ontario, so it is really a housekeeping amendment.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moves that paragraph 17 of section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“17. The terms of the plan provide that any receipt,

“i. for a contribution of the plan, issued by the depositary after the date on which the planholder has received, or has been deemed by this act to have received, any assets of the plan or the use or benefit of any assets of the plan, other than in accordance with section 5, or

“ii. for a contribution made to the plan after the 31st day of December of the fourth calendar year ending after the end of the calendar year in which the plan was entered into by the depositary and the planholder,

“shall be in a form substantially different from the form of receipt required to be filed with the minister by a planholder claiming a tax credit under the Income Tax Act with respect to contributions made to an Ontario home ownership savings plan.”

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Paragraph 17 of section 2 will make it possible to allow depositaries to issue instant receipts for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

Section 5:

1700

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moves that subsection 5(5) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

“(aa) In the case of an agreement to purchase a proposed condominium unit that may become a qualifying eligible home, consent to the release of the assets of the plan to the planholder, but the date of release of the assets of the plan shall be not more than 30 days before the date when a deed or transfer of the unit acceptable for registration is to be delivered to the planholder unless the minister is satisfied that,

“(i) the planholder is required, under the agreement to purchase the proposed condominium unit, to take possession of or to occupy the proposed condominium unit before a deed or transfer of the unit acceptable for registration is delivered to the planholder, and

“(ii) the total amount the planholder has paid or is required to pay forthwith to the vendor of the proposed condominium unit under the agreement is equal to or greater than the value of the assets of the plan.”

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Just to let members know what this is all about, we have included condominiums, as members know, and condominiums are not always registered when you move in. This is to clean up our bill, as the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) would say.

Ms. Bryden: I would just like to comment that the number of amendments which the minister is bringing forward indicates that the bill was somewhat ill thought out and does require a certain amount of clarifying. That is why I think I called it pie in the sky. It was really an election promise that had not been thought out at all, and the attempts to put it into legislative form in draft have not been entirely successful because of the fact that it was conceived without a clear idea of what it was trying to achieve. I think the number of amendments indicates that.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(7) For the purposes of subsection 12(1), where the assets of an Ontario home ownership savings plan have been released under subsection (5) to a planholder who has entered into an agreement to purchase a proposed condominium unit, the planholder shall be deemed to have acquired ownership of the proposed condominium unit and the proposed condominium unit shall be deemed to be an eligible home on the date the planholder is entitled to immediate vacant possession of the proposed condominium unit.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 9:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moves that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(9) The terms of an Ontario home ownership savings plan may permit a depositary, on a transfer, payment or release of the assets of the plan, to deduct any fees or charges payable by the planholder to the depositary in connection with the operation or administration of the plan from the assets of the plan remaining after the deduction of any amount required to be deducted under subsection 2.”

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This is to allow depositaries to deduct fees related to the administration of the plan.

Ms. Bryden: I have a question. Will the administration fees or charges be subject to review by the minister and possible approval? We have recently heard about the banks charging all kinds of fees and administrative charges without any control over them and without even notifying people of any changes in them. It seems to me that this is a carte blanche section giving the depositary the right to charge whatever it likes and to get its money, because it can pick it up from the deposits before it refunds any money.

I wonder if there should not be some protection for the participants in the plan against administrative-fee increases, charges that seem unreasonable, and whether the minister should not have to approve any administrative fees and charges and any increases thereof and see that the participants in the plan are notified.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The member for Beaches-Woodbine is absolutely right when she claims that some of our financial institutions do charge excessive fees, and I can guarantee her that these fees will be part of our regulations.

Also, I would like to remind the member that at the time that an individual or a couple buys in -- if I can use the term “buy in” -- to the plan, these fees are negotiable and they can shop around. This is why we have included all financial institutions, and they will know exactly what the fees are before they get involved in a plan.

Ms. Bryden: The minister says these will be covered by the regulations. In what way? Will there be any fee that is to be charged that would have to be submitted to the minister for approval? Will any changes have to be submitted to the minister for approval and will there be in the regulations a requirement to notify all the planholders of any changes in the fees, as well as to notify them when they take out the plan what the administrative fees and charges are? I think that is the minimum we should have, and perhaps an annual reporting from the institutions as to what fees and charges they are making.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The fees will be made at the time of the closure, so the individual or the couple will know in advance what those fees will be.

1710

Ms. Bryden: You said you could shop around.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Well, yes, I am giving you the opportunity to shop around, but at the same time, they will be disclosed at the time they enter the plan. When they open a plan, these fees will have to be disclosed. This is why I say you can shop around, and if you find those fees too excessive, then you are free to shop elsewhere until you are satisfied that the fees are satisfactory to you.

Ms. Bryden: This does not require that they must submit their proposed fees and charges to the ministry for approval. It seems to me you need some sort of ceiling on what they are going to charge. Often, shopping around in the banking world does not mean very much competition. They compete on other bases, but I do not think that is enough control over the fees to protect the consumer. I would like to see the minister agree to put in the regulations that they must submit their fees and charges to him for approval once a year or something like that.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: We do not intend to limit those fees. Again, we will leave it to the market. I will repeat, this is why I am inviting you to shop around because these fees are not the same. If you are not satisfied, well, then we invite you to shop elsewhere because bank fees are all different.

Ms. Bryden: I would just like to comment that the federal committee studying banking fees is recommending that there should be some sort of control over some fees, and some limitations. I think we should be looking at that too and I would commend the minister to study the report of that committee.

Mrs. Cunningham: I would also like to speak to subsection 9(9) and the amendment. I would hope the minister would take into consideration an addition to the amendment. We are very concerned that this amount the depositary can charge on a transfer, on a payment or on a release of the assets of the plan be capped or clearly understood at the beginning.

I am sure, given the response the minister made to the previous question, that he also is concerned somewhat about this.

The planholder must be protected from costly administration fees. This clause is particularly open-ended. In looking at this earlier this afternoon, I was somewhat suspicious that, certainly, the depositaries were concerned enough to request an amendment to the plan so that they, clearly, would be allowed to charge a fee. In looking at this, I think we should be equally concerned for the planholder and either cap it with some words or offer some protection that the fees should be agreed upon at the onset of the plan by the planholder, or at least approved by the minister, either at the onset of the plan or on an annual basis.

We have all been warned, and the consumers are very much aware in this province, of the exorbitant charges by some depositaries. The minister underlines some. The federal government is looking at bank charges at this time and I would ask the minister if he would entertain a few words to be added to this subsection 9(9). I have a couple in mind, or perhaps he has thought about it during our speaking. I am sure he is just as concerned, given his response to the previous question.

The Deputy Chairman: I am going to remind the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) that if she wishes to amend this amendment, it must be done in writing. You have not done that, so I will wait for the comments of the minister with respect to that.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I appreciate the concern of both members about administration fees, because I do realize that some institutions are known to charge excessive fees, but I think the member for London North will realize that we cannot, as a provincial government, regulate bank fees. This is a federal responsibility. We can only regulate trust companies, but I can guarantee you that we will monitor these fees and include them in the regulations, if need be.

Mrs. Cunningham: I do not have any written amendment here, and I am not feeling very comfortable. I will repeat my concern about the fact the bill is even including this section on the administration fee -- there was some lack of trust somewhere, I think by the depositary, or we would not even be looking at this today.

Someone has suggested, and certainly it has not been ourselves, that this needs to be part of the bill, but I would say that I think the planholder should be further protected by an additional phrase at the end of this subsection and it should read something like, “The fee is to be agreed upon by the planholder at the onset of the plan and approved by the minister.”

I am just putting it in the record of the proceedings this afternoon. I hope that monitoring means just that and I am assured by the minister that he is as concerned as we are with this subsection.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I know that the member’s intentions are good, but again I would like to remind her that we cannot regulate bank fees; that is a responsibility of the federal government. Again, we cannot assume -- or maybe we can assume; whatever way you want to take it -- that those fees will be excessive, but before these institutions come on stream we will have an opportunity to look and possibly ask for their co-operation in charging reasonable fees. At the present time, this is all I can offer the member for London North.

Mr. Velshi: I must mention to the minister that I am agreeing with both speakers, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and the member for London North, in this case. While we are not able to regulate banks, if we are able to regulate trust companies, then I think we should set a ceiling with the trust companies because that would prevent the banks from going higher than the trust companies with those fees.

We are talking about a couple here who are evidently both in the workforce, who would have to take leave from their workplaces at the same time and visit different banks, and probably they would have to take off a whole week to visit three or four institutions. By the time they are finished, they will be so confused they will not know what they started with. We have all experienced that and I request the minister to reconsider this particular subsection.

I think it is very important. If we are not able to do the banks, let’s go with the trust companies on this one.

Motion agreed to.

Section 9. as amended, agreed to.

Sections 10 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 19:

1720

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moves that clause 19(1)(d) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(d) increasing or decreasing the percentage referred to in subsection 9(2) in all circumstances or in prescribed circumstances, and prescribing circumstances where no amount is required to be deducted, withheld or remitted under subsection 9(2).”

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Clause 19(1)(d) simply gives the ministry greater power in varying the percentage to be withheld and remitted under subsection 9(2).

The Deputy Chairman: Would any honourable member wish to comment with respect to clause 19(1)(d)?

Ms. Bryden: Generally on the clause, but not on the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Would you wish to comment at this time with respect to clause 19(1)(d)?

Ms. Bryden: If that is in order.

The Deputy Chairman: Do you wish to comment on it as amended or before it is amended?

Ms. Bryden: It does not make any difference.

The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps, if it is agreed, you can comment on it now.

Ms. Bryden: I have sat on the standing committee on regulations and private bills for a number of years. Part of our job was to review regulations that came in as to whether they were within the powers of the act. We occasionally ran across cases where regulations had been passed and made retroactive. The committee took the view that this was a no-no, unless it had been specifically covered in the regulations that had been issued that in certain cases one could make retroactive regulations.

I see now this clause in there that apparently any regulation can be made retroactive if the Lieutenant Governor in Council says that, by regulation. This is a very broad power and I think it should be discouraged in regulations sections unless there are some very specific cases where it should be used.

The sort of example that came to the regulations committee was that a welfare payment was supposed to have been changed in the first of the month. The regulation authorizing that change did not get drafted and through the works until, say, two weeks later, mainly due to the laxness of the staff in getting that regulation through on the date it was supposed to be in effect. The committee felt that was a very bad practice, that the ministry should plan its work better, have its drafters ready and get the regulations through in the time they should be there.

That is only one example of what is in this regulations section that I find objectionable. I have not looked at a lot of the more recent legislation, but certainly in the past, the regulations sections were not as broad as they are these days. I think we are giving the government and the ministries too much power by the regulations sections, such as clause 19(1)(a) which says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by regulation. may define “any word or expression used in this act that has not already been expressly defined in this act.”

“Any word” could be the subject of a court challenge. So if somebody challenges some action of the ministry, he or she could simply put through a regulation defining that word in a way that the court might not be able to say a challenge was available. It seems to me that is usurping part of the powers of the courts. The legislation should be drafted much more precisely and a clause like that should not be there. It should require an amendment to the act if the ministry finds that some word or expression needs definition.

There are a couple of other sections in there that bother me too, namely, clauses (f) and (g), which prescribe information to be obtained from planholders by depositaries in connection with or for the purposes of the act.

What is the confidentiality of this information? Are the planholders protected by any law that shows that the information that is required to be obtained will be protected as to its confidentiality? To what use will that information be put? Again, I think the act should be more precise about what kind of information is to be obtained from the planholder so that we can see exactly what they are being asked to divulge of their personal affairs and what right they have to object if that information is used for any other purpose.

Clause (g) is somewhat similar, “requiring any person to make information returns respecting any class of information required by the minister in the administration of this act or in determining compliance with this act.” That is a very broad clause. Again, it does not say what kind of information the minister is going to require. It just says “respecting any class of information required by the minister in the administration of this act.”

If the minister needs information to administer the act efficiently, he should spell out in the legislation what kind of information he needs and what confidentiality there will be to that information so that we are not dealing with a power where the minister can ask for any sort of information and can put it in any sort of a file and possibly divulge it to other people.

I hope that when future bills come before us, the government as a whole will start to observe the principles of limiting the regulatory power and being much more specific in the kind of regulations that are permitted under the act. I think maybe the standing committee on regulations and private bills should be considering this sort of problem as well.

I just want to urge the government to consider this and perhaps even to refer the whole question of the scope of regulations to the regulations committee.

Mr. Philip: The regulations committee has an excellent report which it is going to be presenting in the House. I hope the minister reads that report because it does deal with that issue. If the minister and the member for Beaches-Woodbine then stand behind that committee report, I think we may have some solution to dealing with some of the problems we have had in the ministries, where even the minister does not realize what some of his deputies and people under the deputies are doing to people in this province, without his knowledge or the knowledge of other senior elected people or the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I thank the honourable members for their advice. I will certainly read that great report and I will certainly learn a lot from it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

Section 20:

Ms. Bryden: I would like to ask a question. When this bill was originally proposed, I think it was supposed to come into effect January 1, 1988. This presumably now brings it into effect September 1, 1988, at the latest, or with royal assent earlier. Have there been many applications received by the ministry since January 1, 1988, and are they being held pending passage of the bill? Have the people been given any indication that these applications will get any preference? What sort of response has the minister had to the bill so far in the way of actual applications coming in, possibly in the hope that it would be made retroactive or that it was a misunderstanding as to whether it was in effect.

1730

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As the honourable member pointed out in her previous remarks, she accused the government of announcing this program before the budget was deposited in the House. At that time, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) did refer to a start date of September 1, 1988, with no retroactivity. This is why it is September 1, 1988.

Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.

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

BUDGET DEBATE

(CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Owen: I rise to make some remarks with regard to the budget itself. While I have had the opportunity since the election to make many statements and to raise many questions, this is what can be construed as my maiden speech; so I would also like to take the opportunity to make a few remarks about the area I represent.

With regard to the budget itself, I can recall in previous years that the government at the time would promise certain things in our area election after election. For example, we were in need of a new courthouse in Simcoe county. I can recall that for three elections in a row the government would promise the same new courthouse, and by the time the next election would arrive, the voters would have forgotten it was promised the previous election. Finally, after three elections and three promises, we got our courthouse.

I can recall that in three different elections in more recent times, Barrie was promised a new Royal Victoria Hospital. It is only now that the new hospital is being built. I was always surprised, after each election when these promises would be made, that the government of the day had not made any provisions to pay for what it was promising. They made no attempt to budget for the particular projects they were promising. I can reassure the House that in this instance with this kind of budget we are not only able to say that this is what we plan to do, but the effort is being made by this government that we will not only promise to do these things but will back it up with the funding.

Like everyone else, I have also received a number of complaints and criticisms of the budget. What I have said to the people who have called is: “You have said that you want and need more school spaces. With this budget, we are able to give you the additional school spaces.” The people have said they wanted better and improved health care and a new hospital. With this budget, we are able to give the improved space and we are able to give the new hospital.

I have had complaints since the last election about the quality of repair of our highways. With this budget, we are able to address the problems of repairing and updating the highways. I have had complaints with regard to housing and the need for affordable housing. With this budget, we are able to address that problem.

When I explain to the people that they are going to have their needs met, I have found, out of the probably couple of hundred letters and phone calls I have received, there were only two people who finally said, “I would rather not be out the extra money for taxes and I would rather not have the improvements.” The rest of the people who have addressed this problem with me have said: “If you explain it like that, I can understand it. We have to pay for what we are going to get.”

I would like to point out that since 1985, when this government was first formed, 463,000 new jobs have been created in Ontario. I would like to point out that this government has invested $7 billion in capital projects in the past three years and it has been addressing a serious backlog and is now attempting to service growth as this province demands and needs.

This government, through this budget, is able to address the reduced revenue we are receiving from the federal government. We project the reduced revenue will be to the tune of approximately $1.5 billion. We are having to face up to it, and with this kind of a budget we are able to do just that.

We need to provide assistance to those in the lower-income brackets. We need to make our tax system fairer. We need to improve the assistance to those who need help with Ontario health insurance plan premiums. With this budget, we are able to do just that.

All of us have heard the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) again and again reiterate what seems to be one of the features of which he seems to be most proud in that it is the lowest net cash requirement this province has required in 19 years. Again, the Treasurer has reminded us in the province many times that we still have the third-lowest personal income tax rate in all of Canada.

With regard to the type of area I represent, we have introduced $900 million for school capital programs. We have to raise this kind of money through this kind of a budget if we are to be sincere and follow through on the promises of last year’s election, where we are trying to reduce class sizes for grades 1 and 2 and to introduce computers and other better learning materials in the classrooms.

In our area, I would like to report that the moneys which this government, through this budget, is going to be providing to the public school board amount to $8 million. In my own riding, there are three schools which were desperately in need of substantial additions. I have had people come to me and tell me their children have been kept in portables from kindergarten through to grade 12 or 13. That is a situation which is not tolerable and this government is endeavouring to address that problem. We will be having in my own riding additions to Forest Hill, Sunnybrae and Assikinack public schools.

In addition to that, our separate school board has been allowed $8.5 million for school construction. St. Ann’s elementary school in Penetanguishene has had a desperate situation. It has had crowded and rundown conditions for many years. The parents have complained again and again. Finally, we are able to address that problem with $2,440,000, because we have this kind of budget.

1740

In Orillia, Samuel-De-Champlain elementary school will finally be constructed, to the tune of nearly $3 million.

A new elementary school for the separate school board will be constructed in Alliston at $2.5 million. Alliston is another area where we have great and rapid growth in the south end of our county. We are addressing the problems of that rapid growth and a new school will be provided.

Of course, previously we had announced assistance to LeCaron school in Penetanguishene. It is going to be assisted to the tune of over $5 million. Without this kind of budget, without this commitment by this government, we would not be able to address these needs.

In the past, Ontario has looked at school budgeting of $70 million a year. It meant that as it was flat-lined out year after year, with inflation, less and less was being achieved by way of capital expenditure. This government has said this is not acceptable. This government is saying we can only meet the backlog of demand by addressing it, and we had to do it with this type of tax increase.

I would like to comment on the programs we are introducing at the post-secondary level because in our county we have Georgian College, one of the community colleges. Since 1985, the operating grants by this government to universities have increased by 25 per cent and to the community colleges by 35.5 per cent. That means that colleges like Georgian College, in Barrie, are benefiting substantially.

This government has committed itself to capital expenditure at this level, as well. We have introduced and committed ourselves to 47 new projects representing $300-million worth of construction across the province. Again, we can only do this sort of thing and make this sort of commitment with this sort of budget.

We have had difficulty at all levels of post-secondary education with a faculty which had to be renewed, and we have had to address that problem. We now have a commitment that 500 new, younger faculty, particularly women, will be added to the workforce at these faculties over the next five years. It is hoped and expected that by 1989 there will be 268 new faculty in place, and we fully expect that women will take up at least half of the new appointments.

All of us have had complaints about the Ontario student assistance program. Again, this budget has tried to address some of the difficulties we have experienced with that program. OSAP has seen an increase of an unprecedented 34.2 per cent in the past three years.

We have had opportunities to see increased funding in research, for our libraries, and for the centres of entrepreneurship, again, showing our commitment.

With regard to health care, our government has made a commitment to a new Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie. The new facility will have 363 beds. The old hospital will be utilized in part for chronic care, and we have a commitment there of 140 beds, in that direction. This is going to be a cost to this government of $60 million, which is estimated to be about two thirds of the cost. We fully expect that construction will begin by the spring of 1990 and we hope, all going well, the construction will be completed by 1992.

I know that some hospitals have had difficulties with regards to their ongoing financing, but I am happy to report that The Royal Victoria Hospital in my riding finished 1987-88 with a $200,000 surplus. They have followed the guidelines, the direction and the assistance offered by the ministry with good effect.

I have always had a concern for the disadvantaged. Before I was a lawyer, I received an education and worked in the field of social work. I have been concerned that, with increased taxes, the less fortunate in our society might be further handicapped or punished. But, again, the Treasurer has addressed this problem. He has seen that the new property and sales tax credit programs will deliver $444 million in tax credit benefits to over 1.8 million low-income people of Ontario.

He has seen to it that sales tax credits are set at $100 per adult and $50 per child, more than doubling the total benefits under this program for low-income households. He has seen to it that the new $40-million Ontario tax reduction programs will eliminate provincial income tax for 350,000 low-income tax filers. He has seen to it that the Ontario health insurance plan premium assistance program will be enriched, and, as a result, an additional 30,000 individuals will no longer pay premiums in 1989.

I would like to comment on the fact that the leader of the third party has again and again, in and outside the House, criticized the budget by saying that it is wrong, when we have prosperous times, to raise the taxes. I say to the leader of the third party that the time to raise taxes and to address these problems is when there is prosperity across the province. The time to deal with these issues and to introduce catch-up programs is when we have full prosperity and full employment across the province.

If we waited until there were more difficult times -- and of course the economy is always on a roller coaster -- and then tried to do it on the backs of the poor or the old who are already hurting, I would say his assessment of economics and the needs of this province were not in touch with the realities of what economics should be doing.

We cannot do everything, but I am proud to be part of a government that is saying: “We are in a position to do something. Now is the time to do it. We have the resources to do it. Let’s address these problems.”

I would like to make a few comments, if I may, about the area which I represent. When I was first elected, in September, the portrait of the only Premier who ever lived and worked in our county was absent from the halls. That was Ernest Charles Drury. As I tried to find where his portrait was, I found out that it was having some restorative work done on it. Ernest Charles Drury was the Premier of this province from 1919 to 1923. When school groups visit the Legislature, I always make a point, before or after they are photographed, to show them, at the top of the stairs, the photograph of Mr. Drury.

Of course, I ask them which party he represented. Most of them do not know. When I mention the initials UFO, they quickly tell me that they did not know there were unidentified flying objects back in 1919 to 1923. But, of course, Mr. Drury represented the United Farmers of Ontario at that time. Mr. Drury was born in 1878 and did not die until 1968.

1750

When I first moved to Barrie, Mr. Drury was the registrar of our courts and the sheriff of our county. I can always remember that Mr. Drury was courteous to everyone, particularly to the younger lawyers. I noticed that if a person was called to the witness stand or charged with any offence, he always showed a certain deference and gentlemanly quality towards these people. In fact, at one point, one of the judges made an observation to me that he thought Mr. Drury showed more concern for the poor people who were charged before the courts than he did towards the bench or the more established lawyers.

Mr. Drury had an eloquence that he never lost in his later years. He could express himself in an almost Churchillian fashion. He had a booming voice that I think could fill canyons. I remember visiting him in the hospital when he was close to death. I was always welcome to visit him. He seemed always to take an interest in my work and what I was doing in the community. I remember that even in his last days he could recite whole sections of plays of Shakespeare to me, and in a marvellous, grand fashion of delivery. If he had not followed his career in farming and politics, I think he could have followed a very exciting career in the theatre.

Interestingly, I believe Mr. Drury is probably the only person who has ever been Premier in this province or in any province without really being elected. He did not run in the election of 1919. He had run in the federal election in 1917 as a Liberal and had been defeated. In 1919, he chose not to run. The United Farmers of Ontario was elected and it had no leader. He was on the committee that went around trying to find someone to be leader and Premier of this province. He went to people like Sir Adam Beck and they all declined, I think in part because they realized that it would be a minority government. There were 11 Labourites who were going to support them and they realized that there were going to be political problems for whoever finally decided he would be the leader of the party and Premier.

Finally, after quite a delay, Ernest Drury agreed to be the leader of the party and Premier, but he did not have a seat and there was no seat made available for him in Simcoe county. He looked around, and finally the member for Halton agreed to relinquish his seat and allow Mr. Drury to run. The Liberals and Conservatives chose not to run anyone against him. There was a candidate who really had no support and did not represent any party who said, “I am going to run just for the kicks that are involved.” Essentially, Mr. Drury was elected in a by-election without opposition, and I am not aware of that happening anywhere else in the country.

Mr. Drury served well as Premier. He was a very caring, humanitarian person, and he introduced a reforestation program which members will see all through the province. He introduced social legislation such as mother’s allowance. I might not be right on this, but my recollection is -- and there are a number of teachers sitting in the Legislature today -- he introduced the first teachers’ colleges.

He was defeated in 1923, as was his party.

His father, interestingly, was Charles Drury, who was the first Minister of Agriculture in the government of Oliver Mowat.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I remember it well.

Mr. Owen: Yes, right.

As a matter of fact, many of us recalled his father a few weeks ago downstairs when we were observing the opening of the 100th birthday of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Also interestingly, sitting in his government was Harry Nixon, the father of our present Treasurer, who also served a distinguished career for many years.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: He also worked at Earl’s Shell, by the way.

Mr. Owen: I somehow think that Earl’s Shell service station was not known or valued quite so highly from 1919 to 1923.

I realize the time has approached for me probably to move an adjournment, but I would like to say that when I was first elected, I drew to the attention of the Legislature that all through this downtown area we have buildings named after premiers. It just so happens that all these buildings are named after Conservative premiers and after Liberal premiers, but they have all been observed right from the very beginning, from Macdonald right up to Frost and Drew.

I would submit that the government seriously consider naming one of the buildings after Ernest Charles Drury, who made sizeable and considerable contributions to the furthering of Ontario.

I would also like to point out that my riding, my area, represents all kinds of people. Right beside me where I live and across the street are people who are grandchildren of Mr. Drury. They represent a heritage and a respect for the past. On the other side of me is an Irish family which came over just a few years ago. So it shows that this province accepts and embraces all people, both those with great traditions in history and roots and those who are newcomers.

But I see the time is passing and I would offer a proposal of an adjournment at this time and welcome the opportunity to make my concluding remarks at a later time.

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

Hon. Mr. Conway: A fine historical discourse. I commend the honourable member’s speech to all. It is not time for comments yet, the chief government whip advises me, so I am here to read the business statement for the week upcoming.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Pursuant to the standing order that allows me to do that, I am going to announce that on Monday, June 6; Tuesday, June 7, and Wednesday, June 8, we will deal with second reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Philip: And a fine debate it will be.

Hon. Mr. Conway: And a fine debate it will be, I say to the Etobicoke landlord.

On Thursday morning, we will consider private members’ ballot items standing in the names of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson). On the afternoon of Thursday, we will continue with the second reading debates of Bill 113 and Bill 114.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I might, because the hour is late, I want to take this opportunity on behalf of myself and my colleagues to wish a very good summer to our distinguished group of pages who are leaving us today after a number of weeks of great industry.

I just want to say I have spent some 13 years in this assembly and I have seen many classes of pages come and go. Over the 13 years I do not remember, I say to the table, a group that has been quite as lively as this particular group. They have added a certain spirit that I think honourable members would do well to emulate.

On behalf of all here assembled, I want to thank the young ladies and gentlemen for their wonderful contribution and tell them that we will long remember their spirit. We wish them well in their summer holidays and in the great future that we know awaits them all.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

2 juin 1988