Journal des débats 1988-juin-21 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1989, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. It is signed by His Honour, Lincoln Alexander.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MASSEY COMBINES CORP.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why did this government approve the setting up of Massey Combines Corp. only to dump all the debts from Massey-Ferguson on to it when it was the weaker company and allow the money-making operations to go to Varity Corp., which is really just shooting the money out of the country?

What was the justification for allowing Massey-Ferguson to transfer the responsibility of its retirees’ payments to that weaker company, Massey Combines Corp.?

Why is this government refusing to intervene to see that a private entrepreneur willing to invest millions to continue operations in Brantford at least gets a hearing before the receivers?

Why is this Liberal government, led by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), once again selling out Massey workers and retirees by its total inaction?

Why are this Liberal government and the Treasurer so willing to sacrifice the facility and the technology -- the axial-flow combine and baler technology, the four-wheel-drive tractor and other pieces of equipment -- developed here to the United States?

Why have this Liberal government, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and Treasurer refused to respond to repeated requests by the Canadian Auto Workers to intervene on behalf of the workers? With over $200 million of public funding involved in this restructuring, does the public not have some right to answers? Why are we once again selling out the Massey workers?

ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY

Mrs. Marland: My statement is on the environment round tables. One of the key recommendations of the report of the National Task Force on Environment and Economy is that “each province and territory should form a multisectoral round table on environment and economy which should be fully operational by September 1988.”

The report was released last September and was endorsed by the Liberal Premier of Ontario (Mr. Peterson) a month later. Almost a full year has passed and we have yet to see the establishment of Ontario’s round table. Most provinces took very little time in setting up their round-table strategies.

Everyone involved in Ontario is frustrated with the unwillingness of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to fulfil his responsibility to both the economic and resource management sectors. Apparently, he is being heavy-handed in setting the terms of reference for our round table. He does not understand the meaning of co-operation. His “do it my way” or no way attitude is doing an injustice to the round-table concept.

The Minister of the Environment is attending the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers today and will have to report that he cannot meet the September 1988 deadline to set up Ontario’s round table on the environment and economy.

I am calling on the minister today to begin consultations immediately with the leaders of industry, government and nongovernment organizations to establish the terms of reference --

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

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Today, I will be presenting a petition with over 3,800 names on it on behalf of Survivors and Supporters Against Sexual Abuse. I would like to introduce several members of this group as they are observing the proceedings today from the west public gallery.

They are Karen Marciano, recent plaintiff in a civil suit that inspired the petition; Peter Miersma, Karen’s fiancé and supporter; Virginia Hodge; Patti Kuntz; and Margaret Smith, all group members and volunteers. Over the last several months, these individuals have been collecting signatures in order to persuade the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to amend the Limitations Act with regard to intrafamilial sexual assault and incest.

The dynamics of incest make it such that it is often impossible to proceed with court action within the stated time limit. It is often the case that victims block the abuse from their minds as a preventive measure against the mental pain. It may take years for the memories of events to surface. Victims have very low self-esteem, which makes it difficult for them to believe that anyone will listen to them.

It is for these reasons that incest or intrafamilial sexual abuse should be removed from the limitation period for the tort of assault, thus allowing victims to gain redress through the civil courts. The limitation period was decided in 1897, 91 years ago, at a time when, I am certain, incest was never discussed. Changing the Limitations Act now will let the perpetrators of incest know that they cannot sexually abuse a child and get away with it.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr. Wildman: I think it is significant and symbolic that the representatives of Ontario’s first nations, the Chiefs of Ontario, stand today outside the gates while we debate various affairs of the province here inside the Legislature.

Today is June 21, Indian Solidarity Day, a day in which the first nations of this country band together to ensure that everyone else in this nation realizes that the people of the first nations will not stand for the continuous erosion of their rights and demand to have those rights recognized.

In particular today, the first nations are singling out the cause of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai. It is unfortunate that this government has not taken the position that it will resolve the Bear Island land claim before there is further development in the Temagami area.

It is significant that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) would make a decision to give an approval for the extension of the Red Squirrel Road without any further hearings last Friday, without any fanfare, without even an announcement. This government has ignored the claims of the Bear Island people for far too long. It is not enough to say they will be resolved in the courts.

This government, if it really believes that Indian rights, treaty rights and aboriginal rights must be recognized, should resolve the Bear Island claim and negotiate with the TemeAugama Anishnabai as soon as possible.

1340

BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL GAMES

Mr. Jackson: It gives me pleasure to report that the 20th annual Burlington International Games will be held in Burlington, Ontario, from July 22 to July 25.

For two decades, Burlington, Vermont, and Burlington, Ontario, have in alternate years been host cities to these international games for young athletes. The concept was born during a 1968 golf game between the two respective mayors, Frank Cain and George Harrington. The next year, Vermont was host to the first Burlington International Games.

In 1969, there were 450 participants and nine events. This year, nearly 1,000 young athletes will participate in 15 events over four days.

The games are the result of intensive, year-long planning and are promoted annually through the mayor’s celebrity breakfast in June.

These young participants, all between the ages of 10 and 17, provide strong examples of high-calibre athletic prowess and a commitment to excellence. Their spirit of co-operation and friendship provides a positive model for Canada-US relations.

Each year, the host city billets visiting athletes within its community, fostering a real sense of camaraderie and family. Thanks must go to the organizers and families on both sides of the border.

To those young athletes visiting from Vermont, I extend a warm and special welcome to our province. To those athletes representing Ontario, I offer our heartfelt congratulations.

I ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in wishing the best to all those involved with the 20th anniversary of the Burlington International Games.

TENT CATERPILLARS

Mr. Black: My riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay has suffered from two plagues in the past year. The first one lasted for 42 years and ended very abruptly on September 10; the second one has been with us for the past three and a half weeks.

The Toronto press has quite correctly reported the invasion of tent caterpillars in the district of Muskoka and the Georgian Bay side of the riding. I want the province and my friends across the Legislature to know and to understand very clearly that through the co-operation of all ministers in this government, we have now rid Muskoka-Georgian Bay of the tent caterpillars.

They no longer dangle from the trees. They no longer climb the buildings. They no longer walk along the streets. Muskoka is ready and beautiful for summer vacationers.

The water is crystal clear, thanks to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). Once again, Mr. Speaker, I tell you the leaves grow on the trees in Muskoka-Georgian Bay, thanks to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

The temperature is 30 degrees. The water temperature is 20 degrees. Muskoka and Georgian Bay are ready for summer, and I want the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) and the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) to know that they can now return to Muskoka and enjoy their summer vacations.

ANTIQUE BOAT SHOW FOR ONTARIO

Mr. McLean: I want to inform the Legislature and the people here that a boat show is being held in the port of Orillia this year. It is the Antique Boat Show for Ontario.

It has moved down from Muskoka to where the country is better; it wants to come and enjoy the great hospitality we show in Simcoe East.

I want all the members to come to Orillia on the weekend of the 15th and 16th of July for this great, historic event.

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: My first set of questions is for the Minister of Health.

It has now been more than a year since this Legislature passed An Act to amend the Nursing Homes Act and more than a year since the previous Minister of Health promised that the Health ministry would be “working very hard with respect to the development of regulations to further enhance our ability to deal with difficulties.” Yet nursing home operators still do not have to file detailed financial statements with the ministry, nor do they have to post these statements in their nursing home.

Why are we still waiting for these regulations? Will the minister give her commitment that when nursing home operators are finally obliged to file and post financial statements, they will be required to do so retroactively from the date when the act received royal assent?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to use this opportunity to repeat my concern and the concern of this government for the opportunity for senior citizens to live in the community independently for as long as possible. When, however, it is necessary for them to enter an institution, be it a nursing home or an extended care facility, I am concerned that they have quality of care, quality of life and respect as individuals. The dignity of the individual is very important to me.

The amendments to the Nursing Homes Act are significant, and I believe that the bill of rights enables senior citizens to take a more active role in the daily operation of those nursing homes.

Mr. Reville: In the absence of any answer about financial disclosure, maybe I could do a supplementary in this way.

The Ontario Nursing Home Association has brought to the minister’s attention its desire to collect about $300 million more in public money. This comes just at a time when government’s own research indicates that more than half the 45,000 residents of nursing homes and homes for the aged would be more appropriately served by community-based, long-term care options. As well, the research shows that the underfunding of homemaking services means that the only alternative for the elderly and disabled is institutionalization, which carries with it its own high personal and economic costs.

Will this minister make a commitment to the House today that instead of giving even more public money to nursing home operators, she will use this opportunity and the money to actively develop a system of nonprofit, community-based care for seniors?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, I believe the legislation which was tabled recently in the House, the Independent Health Facilities Act, will give us an opportunity to expand community-based services for seniors and for all the people of this province. Technology has provided us with the opportunity to do far more in the community-based setting, and this government is committed to that in principle. When our new act is passed by this House, I believe we will have a framework to see that expansion become a reality.

Mr. Reville: The government has been singing this song for some time now. In fact, we heard this song from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in 1985, when he gave a commitment to a moratorium on the expansion of private, for-profit medicine. That commitment has been broken.

We can now identify $1.5 billion that this government, through its taxpayers, spends on commercial providers of health care services, including nursing homes, laboratories, drug companies and ambulances. The government derailed the work of the select committee on health, which was dealing with the issue of commercialization. The government still has no policy on the role of commercial providers. That was most recently illustrated by the tabling of the very act the minister mentions, the Independent Health Facilities Act.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Reville: Will the minister give her commitment now to a real moratorium this time on giving more money to the for-profit sector?

1350

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think that while the intentions and goals of my critic opposite are similar to mine and are well intended, his view is somewhat simplistic. In fact, I am proud of the record of this government. In the awarding of nursing home contracts, the number of beds awarded to the nonprofit sector is 62 to 66 per cent of all beds awarded. I believe that the nonprofit sector in this province can compete, compete well and come forward with good proposals. I have confidence in them and he should too.

Mr. Reville: To continue this interesting discussion, the battle of rhetoric and reality, with the Minister of Health --

Hon. Mr. Elston: Hear, hear. Your rhetoric, her reality.

Mr. Reville: We shall let the public be the judge of that, former minister.

Mr. Speaker: Your question to the Minister of Health?

Mr. Reville: This time I want to get a little more deeply into the commercial-institutional versus community-based-care dichotomy that the minister loves to talk about but does not like to do much about. Last year the minister told the Ontario Hospital Association, and she will remember this, “ ... for far too long the Health ministry could just as easily have been known as the ministry of illness, the ministry of treatment or the ministry of -- ”

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: “Illness.”

Mr. Reville: “Illness.” Actually, it was “institutions,” but the minister has got the little rhyme down.

She then said the ministry had made a commitment to “redirect our efforts away from simply the treatment of illness, and towards the promotion of health and the prevention of disease.”

When is the minister going to start putting some proof in this pudding?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Again, I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about what we have done and what we are going to be doing. In the expansion of alternatives, we are looking for innovative and creative approaches. We have $100 million available through the health innovation fund. As well, we have committed to doubling the number of people served by health service organizations and community health centres.

I believe the legislation I tabled will give us the legislative framework to make sure that we deliver services to people as close to their home as possible, through the provision of community-based services outside of the institutional setting.

Mr. Reville: I love the way the minister talks, but let us take a look at just what the minister did. Last year, to underpin its rhetoric, the government spent $7 million on community health centres; at the same time, it spent $5.1 billion on hospitals. To bring that down to numbers we can almost understand, that means for every $1,000 spent on hospitals the minister is squandering a whole penny on community health centres. Would the minister like to comment on that balance?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I certainly would. In fact, I am quite interested in the question from the critic opposite, because it flies in the face of the questioning and the suggestions from the leader of the official opposition some few weeks ago when we discussed the need to plan and to manage the system, to say to our hospitals that we need predictability in budgeting and that we need to work together so we can plan an effective system across this province. What we heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) was a call for open-ended funding of the system.

Clearly, if we have predictability in budgeting, we will have the resources available to use the opportunities presented to us to more evenly balance and focus our resources with the advice of district health councils in the communities as they set priorities for change and expansion. I am proud of the progress we have made. We have a long way to go. I am delighted with the change of heart which is apparent from the opposition and I am pleased to acknowledge that today.

Mr. Reville: Hospitals are under pressure in this province precisely because of the government’s failure to put into place community-based alternatives. The government has stated its goal -- and the minister has repeated it until we are almost ready to drop -- that it wants to double the number of people served by community health centres and health service organizations from two per cent of the population to four per cent of the population over five years.

Will the minister give her commitment today to revise the goal upwards and to provide the necessary funding and community development assistance which she knows is needed so that everyone can benefit from healthy alternatives to institutional medicine?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We know that at the present time the Ministry of Health’s budget is $12.7 billion, some one third of the total provincial spending, and that 85 per cent of those resources go to the institutional sector. We know that since 1984, the funding for CHCs has more than doubled. The number of HSOs has doubled and the funding for HSOs has gone from $20.8 million to $37.5 million.

We are making progress. The act I have tabled will allow community health centres and health service organizations to enhance and expand the programs they offer. I believe we will continue to make that progress with the support of everyone in this House who has the same goal I do; that is, to provide the best-quality care as close to home as possible for people at an affordable price.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health and it relates to the same subject. The minister will recall that some three weeks ago, the hospitals in this province were advised to submit to her a balanced budget for this fiscal year. She is also aware, no doubt, that 96 hospitals have been unable to submit balanced budgets as of this time.

Would the minister indicate what her intentions are, if any, with respect to funding those 96 hospitals which have reported back to her, and how she intends to deal with the problems those hospitals are faced with; namely, the funding of their deficits?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the leader of the third party knows, funding to hospitals has increased significantly over the past few years. In fact, since 1985, the increase for hospital base budgets has been 39 per cent. At this time, we are reviewing the budget requests for next year. We are working with the hospitals on an individual basis. We expect to be very successful in meeting the needs of the communities of this province, as well as the need of the Treasury to have predictability in hospital budgeting.

Mr. Brandt: That is a very lovely answer to a question I did not ask. The question I asked was with respect to the 96 hospitals in this province which have no knowledge at the moment of what the minister’s intentions are with respect to the deficits they are faced with.

I, too, want predictability in budgeting. Let me say that. I do not want open-ended funding for hospitals or any other service in the province. Naturally, one has to administrate those things on a responsible basis. The Ontario Hospital Association has predicted that if, in fact, those hospitals are not provided with any additional funding and if they have to pursue the course of action which will be required in order to offset their deficits, as the minister has requested, there will be some 1,500 beds closed in Ontario and some 1,200 people will be laid off.

I believe the minister will agree, now that we are three months into the fiscal year, that this kind of uncertainty which is presented to the hospitals is something which should be cleared up very quickly.

My question to the minister, which I hope she would respond to, is: What does she intend to do by way of sending a clear signal to these hospitals? Is she going to fund them or is she not going to fund them? If so, by how much?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, I think the message has been very clear. Perhaps if the message had been clearer over the years, we would not have the problem we have today. We are working co-operatively with the hospitals on an individual basis. We are working closely with the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario as well, to find out what the chronic, root causes are of these ongoing deficits.

We believe sufficient resources have been allocated. Where we have found that there is a program we have not adequately funded, we will make that adjustment. Our goal is to get to fair funding for hospitals so that they can provide the services needed within their community.

1400

Mr. Brandt: There is $115 million to be funded. Let me try, if I might, to get an answer from the minister which will indicate clearly to the hospitals exactly where they stand with respect to a very critical problem for them.

Is the minister saying that she is prepared to fund budget shortfalls where, in fact, they are no fault of the hospital, where no new, unapproved services have been introduced and where that deficit has resulted directly from a demand on service of that particular hospital? In other words, where the demand has gone up and that has resulted in the hospital deficit, is the minister prepared then, in those situations, to fund those particular deficits?

I think the hospitals of this province deserve an answer.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think we have been very clear in our message to the hospitals that we want to work co-operatively with them to achieve budgets which will be satisfactory in providing a level of essential service to their communities.

Where we find that the ministry has not adequately resourced an approved program, we will be making necessary adjustments through discussions with the hospitals. Where we have found that hospitals have acted independently and started programs and added staff without ministry approval, we will expect them to make the necessary adjustments.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer will be aware that teachers have reacted rather angrily to his proposed rate hike in their pension fund contributions, a proposal I have seen referred to as the $100-million ripoff.

While $100 million may seem like small potatoes to the Treasurer, whose last budget showed he prefers his ripoffs to be in the billions of dollars, it is a substantial sum. Does the Treasurer think some of the teachers’ resistance to his proposal may be based on a concern that the Teachers’ Superannuation Commission, like the government, has lost control of its administration expenditures?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would hope the House leader for the third party is not so ill-informed that he thinks I am making the proposal that he is referring to. He may recall that in 1975, the then government decided to index teachers’ pensions and pay for those pensions with a one per cent increase in government payment, paralleling one per cent from the teachers.

Unfortunately, the most recent review of this, carried out by Laurence Coward, who is a well-respected, independent actuary, has indicated that this indexing, together with the indexing for public servants, is contributing to an actuarial deficit in the indexing account alone of something approaching $9 billion.

It is Mr. Coward’s recommendation that contributions from the taxpayers, as well as from the benefiting teachers and public servants, go up. Certainly, neither I nor the honourable member who is asking the question is indicating that is the best, or the only, solution.

Mr. Harris: For the Treasurer’s information, according to the 1987 annual report of the commission, its administration expenditures in that year were nearly 50 per cent higher than in 1986 and increased by over 100 per cent relative to 1985. Over the two-year period, salaries and wages paid at the commission have increased by 53 per cent. Spending on communications consulting services increased 10 times, from $37,000 to $362,000.

Can the Treasurer tell us what benefits the teachers of Ontario have realized and enjoyed as a result of these administrative cost increases?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Fortunately, that question is relatively easy to answer, because if the honourable member had consulted with the teachers, who are his constituents, as they are of every member in this House, he would realize that we have taken some very progressive changes in the Teachers’ Superannuation Act and regulations.

As a matter of fact, we have opened a superannuation window which makes available to senior teachers, at the age of 57, full access to the rather substantial pension that has been established over the years. In this way, it has been the policy of the government to give senior teachers an opportunity to retire early on an indexed pension based on their salaries, which have been entered into by mutual agreement, as the honourable member would know, with the school boards across the province.

The administration of this very expensive and very generous change, which we feel has added a good deal to the quality of education, accounts for, in large measure, the increases in expenditure that he refers to. Perhaps I might just add that the actual large increase in expenditure, and I believe it approaches something like half a billion dollars, is in the actuarial commitment for increased pensions.

Mr. Harris: I would point out to the Treasurer as well the fact that over the 1982-to-1985 period, when he occupied a seat on this side of the House -- a location to which I am sure taxpayers will hopefully return him at the earliest opportunity -- administration spending at the commission increased by less than inflation. We are talking about the administrative costs. During the 1985 to 1987 two-year period, the first few years of the Dark Ages in this province, certainly as far as fiscal responsibility goes, commission administration expenditures are up 105 percent. I know there were some relocation costs. If we leave those out, they are still up 66 per cent.

I would like to know how the Treasurer accounts for the difference in the growth rate of the administration costs. Does he think it could be because of his government’s lack of discipline in controlling its own administrative expenditures? Now that attitude is spilling over to all the agencies and commissions as well.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is not the case. The honourable member would realize that during the bad old Tory years, the teachers’ entreaties over those many years for improvements in their superannuation position remained relatively unchanged. One of the reasons that member’s government was defeated and ours was elected was that we could take a new and progressive view to providing appropriate service and, if I may say so, efficient use of tax dollars in this important public concern.

Mr. Wildman: Those of us on this side of the House have a little different memory of how that government got into power.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Wildman: At any rate, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on May 17 the Minister of Natural Resources announced that he was going to appoint a citizens’ advisory council that would be in charge of a model management area in the Temagami region to deal with the various competing demands on the resources in that area.

Can the minister confirm that his ministry is having a very difficult time getting anyone to agree to sit on this advisory council? Can he confirm that representatives of the tourist industry, the wilderness groups, the local planning board and also municipalities have all refused to participate?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not think I would agree with that comment. We were charged with the responsibility of setting up another committee quite like this one under Dr. Daniel. We did that and I think the reports were excellent. I was very pleased that the time frame was kept, that Dr. Daniel reported in time. Because of the sincere interest that this government has in the area the member is talking about, because of various users, we are looking to set up the kind of group that will share the concerns of the area at first hand with the ministry so that we can make, in fact, what is going to be a model area by putting in the people from that area who would help us decide how the interests of the various users should be taken into account.

Mr. Wildman: I was not asking about Dr. Daniel’s group. As a matter of fact, some of the people who have been asked to participate on the advisory council were members of the Daniel committee, and they have refused to participate as far as I am aware.

Can the minister explain how this group is going to start its work on July 1, as he promised, if it has not yet been appointed? Can he also explain why the Teme-Augama Anishnabai continue to demonstrate outside and are not anywhere involved in this process, and why the government has not moved to resolve the land claim, which should be dealt with before we move into this model-management approach?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I must share with the member, if he is not aware of the fact, that a very generous offer was made to the natives in that area. This government had taken the initiative, which had not been taken before, of setting up a cabinet committee on native affairs representative of many of the interested ministers, which meets regularly. In fact, $30 million was offered to the natives. As I say, I am a bit surprised it was not accepted. They chose to go through the court route. The member knows Ontario was supported in the courts. The natives lost the court claim and that is now up for appeal.

1410

I can only tell the member what has transpired without talking about the initiatives, because it is up for appeal. If I were also to suggest that the Ministry of the Attorney General has the responsibility to settle the land claims, that would not deter me from saying to the member that, of course it has been a disappointment that we have not been able to settle with our first citizens. We in this government are doing everything possible to do that very thing and I am hopeful.

The member sees that we settled the poisoning of the river system when that government sat on it for 10 years. It was a great initiative. We have done that. We are looking to settle some of these land claims so we can show the natives that we are indeed prepared to do that as a government that has a feeling about our first citizens.

VAUGHAN GLEN HOSPITAL

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Yesterday, the minister said she would make sure the patients of Vaughan Glen Hospital and their parents would “receive sensitive advice and assistance,” yet the whole issue surrounding the closure of Vaughan Glen Hospital seems to be one that is surrounded by secrecy and ambiguity.

After being completely stonewalled by the hospital board, the parents asked the minister if they could get a copy of the hospital’s bylaws because the board will not give them any copies. They are supposed to be public documents, but the ministry refused to give them copies of the bylaws. The parents also asked for the names of hospital board members so they could ascertain for themselves whether there is community representation on that board, as is required by the Public Hospitals Act, but the ministry told them it would not do that either.

Strangely enough, the assets of the hospital are some 32 acres of land worth over $20 million, and they were moved into a numbered company and the ministry will not reveal who the owner of that company is either. I would not refer to this as “sensitive advice and assistance.”

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Eves: Why will the minister very simply not sit down with the parents, give them some answers to their very real concerns and try to resolve this issue for the benefit of the patients and those people concerned, not just her ministry and some numbered company she will not tell us --

Mr. Speaker: Order; the minister.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, I met with a representative of the parents’ association and discussed my commitment to make sure that over the next five years the residents of Vaughan Glen are located in a sensitive and responsible way. The commitment has been made to meet and to work with the families to ensure that happens in a way that is acceptable to all the residents. I am not, however, familiar with the requests that have been made, but I will be pleased to look into them.

Mr. Eves: If the minister were truly sensitive to this issue, she would realize that the patients at Vaughan Glen consider it to be their home. The majority of these patients are children who are severely handicapped and they cannot be moved to a group home because they require constant nursing care, as the minister pointed out herself in the House yesterday.

Why is she sanctioning the displacement of these children when there is a hospital there that has assets worth $20 million? The ministry could rebuild the hospital and leave the patients where they are in their setting. They are happy there. Their parents are happy. Why will she not do it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the critic opposite has acknowledged the fact that the hospital needs to be replaced, that it is old and that it is not one which lends itself to renovation. It does require complete replacement. We have made a decision that the replacement facilities will be located in parts of this province so that people can be located as close to home as possible. We have also said that over the next five years we will work with the families and with the residents to ensure that the transfer to those facilities is sensitive and caring and that the placements will be appropriate.

SEASONAL AND PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Labour. A resident of Nepean who had found a summer job in Toronto was fired last week because he refused to be a scab worker. He had been working in the security department of CFTO and was ordered to move to the station’s mail room. This switch would have involved the replacing of locked-out workers. May I ask the minister whether there is any legal protection for summer-job students when they refuse to do scab work and what his advice would be to the young man in question?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: This is yet another incident arising out of the work stoppage at CFTO.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is not a work stoppage.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend says it is not a work stoppage. He is right; it is a lockout.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order. I would ask the minister to disregard the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is simply difficult to ignore the interjections, but I certainly will abide by your ruling.

I want to say to my friend the member for Nepean that the strike is not governed by the Ontario Labour Relations Act, nor would issues be determined in front of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Because the matter is telecommunications, it is governed by the federal act, the Canada Labour Code, and the Canada Labour Relations Board. There is an issue there that the individual, as a summer student, may well want to take before the federal labour relations board; that would be the forum where he would seek a remedy.

Mr. Daigeler: I thank the minister for this information, which I will gladly pass on to the student.

Since this case highlights the somewhat tenuous position of seasonal --

Mr. Cousens: You could have asked him in the hall.

Mr. Breaugh: You could have told the kid too.

Mr. Daigeler: Thank you -- and part-time workers, I would like to ask, as a supplementary, whether the minister has any plans to review the legal rights of seasonal and part-time workers, including their access to general employment benefits.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is a very good question from the member for Nepean. I will tell him we are reviewing in two contexts the very things he refers to: both seasonal workers and agricultural workers under a review of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and part-time workers under a review of the Employment Standards Act.

There are a lot of issues that have to be covered. A lot of issues have been brought to our attention. As we carry on our review of both of those acts, I am sure the member may have some input that will help us in that review.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister of Labour aware of the illegal lockout of lab technicians, members of Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 206 in Hamilton and Local 221 in Simcoe, workers whose high level of commitment and expertise is being rewarded by little better than sweatshop wages by Canadian Medical Laboratories and its owner, Dr. John Mull, of Burlington?

Is the minister aware that this is the same owner who refused to obey the law, an Anti-Inflation Board order to increase wages back in 1982, which required the workers to go through a long court process to force the company to pay what had been ordered to them?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I tell my friend the member for Hamilton East that I am not aware of what he calls an illegal lockout. I am glad he has brought it to my attention. I certainly anticipate that he will have something to say about it in the supplementary, but before he does, I simply want to tell him that I will look into it and, from our perspective, do a careful analysis of the situation.

Mr. Charlton: While the minister is looking into the matter, he perhaps would like to take note that, given the clear pattern of ignoring and undermining the free collective bargaining process, the clear pattern and the record of attempted union-busting, does the minister not believe he should intervene on behalf of these invaluable medical technicians to ensure that the free collective bargaining process proceeds, before it degenerates into a long, bitter battle by one obviously irresponsible, anti-union employer?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Obviously, the member knows that right in the preamble of the Labour Relations Act the law speaks about promoting employees’ ability to bargain collectively.

When he says “intervene,” though, I am not sure what he is suggesting. Certainly, within the industrial relations branch of the ministry, we are available and ready to provide conciliation and mediation assistance when the parties require it.

If, however, we are talking about an allegation that the employer is using tactics that are prohibited under the law, then he knows that the appropriate remedy is to go before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I do tell him, though, that to the extent that we can be of assistance to mediate the dispute, we certainly will be there. On the other hand, if it is a matter that has allegations in it of unfair labour practices, the appropriate forum is the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

1420

CHILD ABUSE

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. According to a current federal government survey, at least one in four girls and one in seven boys are sexually abused. Yesterday, I met with representatives of Save Our Children for Windsor and Essex county, a parent group that is concerned about the lack of support services available to children who are victims of child abuse.

There is a scarcity of both counselling and rehabilitation programs and staff for offenders and victims of this horrendous crime. I contacted the children’s aid society in London, which informed me that while the number of abuse investigations is up 100 per cent, there has been only one additional staff member hired. How does the minister plan to remedy this appalling and critical situation?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: About a year or a year and a half ago now, the ministry contacted the children’s aid societies and asked the same question: “How can we be most helpful?” We were advised that if we were to fund a full-time person at each society across the province who would be involved solely in working with abused children and their families, that would be the most helpful thing we could do, and we have done that.

Mrs. Cunningham: When we contacted the children’s aid societies, that was not the information we received. We were informed that counsellors are unable to respond to the needs of victims quickly enough to provide effective treatment. The abused children who require immediate treatment must turn to private clinics, where counsellors charge exorbitant fees for their services; $45 per hour at three visits a week is more than families can afford.

Will the minister ensure, given what he just stated, that children’s aid societies across this province deliver both affordable and high-quality treatment to all these children?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is aware, I am sure, that is one of the few services offered by our ministry which is mandated. In other words, if a family or child comes before a children’s aid society in need, that society is bound to provide that service.

As a matter of fact, one of the funding mechanisms we have in place is to have an exceptional circumstances review at the end of the year when a society comes to us and says it is in a deficit situation because it has provided more mandated services than it anticipated at the beginning of the year when we contracted with it for its budget.

There is no question that any society that has a child in need -- and there are criteria for defining what that is -- must meet that need. The difficulty that some societies have is in making a professional determination of the length of time they can provide the service.

They quite frankly say to us: “We do it for what we consider to be a reasonable length of time. We get the child out of the crisis situation back to as near normalcy as is possible, given that kind of trauma. From that point on, it is the responsibility of the parents to provide whatever additional services are needed.”

ABUSE OF THE ELDERLY

Mr. Chiarelli: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. Just as child abuse and wife assault became issues of the past two decades, many feel that the issue of abuse of the elderly is the problem of the 1980s.

As the minister knows, such abuse is often an action of a person in a position of trust, a friend or family member or care giver, and harm is not simply restricted to physical violence but can oftentimes be financial in nature. A person in a position of trust might steal or withhold money or force a senior to sell property or possessions against his or her will.

Although our government recently introduced legislative changes to protect seniors in our institutions, it is my understanding that Ontario has no comprehensive protection for the elderly who are being abused within their own communities.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Chiarelli: Has her ministry been able to assess the extent of this serious social problem and, if so, what solutions is her ministry pursuing to help protect our seniors from such abuse?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: As with child abuse and spouse abuse, it is necessary that the crime of elder abuse be discussed openly and that public awareness be raised. Therefore, as I visit with groups of seniors and care providers throughout the province, I am very encouraged to find that many groups are discussing the issue of elder abuse and are talking about the initiatives they could undertake at the community level to deal with elder members of their communities who may be suffering from this crime.

One report estimates that 0.3 per cent of our senior citizens are actually victims of abuse, but it is generally felt that figure is low. Interestingly, with all the recent discussion about this topic, we found that there is very little factual information on the topic of elder abuse.

Accordingly, and in following the mandate of the office for senior citizens’ affairs, I have established an initiative to co-ordinate a comprehensive response to the problem of elder abuse and I have initiated a plan which will effect several stages of strategic research. In conjunction with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Solicitor General, I will be undertaking additional research which will determine the dimensions and the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you. Supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now we are just wasting time.

Mr. Chiarelli: I know that in the city of Toronto a committee has been developed by the municipality to deal with this issue. However, in Ottawa-Carleton and other communities, the public currently has nowhere to turn. Given that this appears to be a province-wide problem, can the minister tell me what strategies are planned to reduce the occurrence of this terrible crime and can she indicate some kind of a time line when we might expect some government action so that the people in our communities will have some place to turn?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: Currently, the Ministry of Health is offering programs on counselling and identification with public health units. Emergency departments in hospitals are offering seminars on identification of elder abuse.

We are working very hard to provide support services to families, families who may be under stress as they care for a victim of Alzheimer disease or an elderly person in the family who requires assistance. We are doing that through providing day care programs, and there are several new day care programs in the Ottawa-Carleton area, including an Alzheimer day program.

We are also working on respite care and day care, feeling that if we can remove the stress from families as they care for their elder members, we can provide the type of assistance they require in order to keep their seniors in the home and free from abuse.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Education. It has now been almost three months since many Catholic school boards across this province approved their budgets, set their mill rates and filed with the minister budgets that provided for deficits in contravention of his legislation. I am wondering what the government’s position is and what the solution is to this very serious problem for Catholic school boards across the province.

Hon. Mr. Ward: School boards submit their financial statements to the ministry by April 30 of each year. They are reviewed by officials in the school business and finance branch. Those boards that submitted budgets which included deficits will be contacted by officials within the ministry, the budgets will be returned and the boards will be asked to work with ministry officials to eliminate those deficits.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would like to ask the minister if he could be a little more precise as to how these deficits are going to be erased when, for example, the Windsor Roman Catholic Separate School Board has budgeted for a $3-million deficit. Obviously, the only alternative, if he is not willing to reform school financing along the lines of the Macdonald commission and come through with commercial and industrial assessment for the separate school boards, is that they will have to cut back their staff or send out huge tax increase notices to the taxpayers this year.

Which alternative is the ministry proposing: reform for commercial and industrial assessment, massive cutbacks in service or huge increases in taxes to the Catholic ratepayers across this province?

1430

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member knows full well that the government is giving very careful consideration to the reform of the financing of elementary and secondary education. We will be coming forward with our proposals, hopefully in the not-too-distant future.

The member will also know that the funds are flowed to boards on the basis of rates of grant, which are intended to provide some equity to those boards which do not have the assessment base. He will also know that the boards have some latitude and some flexibility in terms of their expenditures. Frankly, in dealing with those boards which submit budgets with deficits, clearly they have some choices they can make on how to balance their budgets.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. We have some figures, recently available from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., regarding assisted rental apartment completions in the Metropolitan Toronto area and can now compare the figures for 1986 and 1987.

It turns out that there were 697 fewer units built in 1987 than in 1986. There were 2,257 in 1986 and 1,569 in 1987. At that rate, going down 700 units a year, within three years we will not have any units at all being built in Metro Toronto. That is certainly not a healthy housing scene.

When will the minister be announcing the specifics for starts for nonprofit units in the Metro Toronto area?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: When we made the decision after the budget announcement about the resources we were going to be committing to nonprofit housing all over the province, we made a decision to work with the groups that provide nonprofit housing to come up with a way of delivering that program in a way that suited their needs and took into account the kind of advice they wanted to give us about working really successfully together. That process is going on right now. As soon as we have completed our discussions with the various nonprofit groups, we will be hearing some announcements about that.

Mr. Cousens: In other words, the minister does not have enough people from Metro Toronto co-operating with her. I sincerely know the people in Metro Toronto are anxious to see this done. It is a nonanswer.

Let’s see what the minister has to say about the private rental units which have been built in the last three years. In 1985, there were 1,943 units built in the Toronto area. In 1986, it was down to 1,620 units. In 1987, there were 646 units. Based on the CMHC figures, we have 974 fewer units in 1987 than in 1986. This means, again, that in three years we will have zero units being built in the private sector in the Metro area.

Will the minister not agree that she has failed in creating a trusting working relationship with the private sector and that her policies have had a negative impact on the growth of rental units?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It seems to me that we are talking about two different things here. In the nonprofit sector, I would like to reassure the member that the federal-provincial program, with which we have been working for quite a while, continues to do the work of building units all over the province and he will be hearing in due course what allocations we will making in that program.

To answer his second question, the figures I have suggest that with private rental starts in this province, there are twice as many this year as there were in 1985. The direction is going in the right way. There is much more being built all over the province and I am very encouraged about that.

MASSEY COMBINES CORP.

Mr. Neumann: My question is directed to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier. The situation in Brantford with respect to Massey Combines Corp. has developed to the point where the receiver has encouraged the dispersal of the assets outside the community. Last week I addressed a letter to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Treasurer with respect to some intervention on behalf of the government to determine whether the proposal of the Park Corp. could be examined with respect to its feasibility prior to the Supreme Court’s dealing with the matter. Has this been looked into by the Treasurer or the Premier?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) is not in his place just now, but we have discussed that. I think the honourable member would be aware that everybody would like to keep the rotary combine technology -- which was developed first by White Farm Equipment then taken over by Massey -- in the Brantford area if possible.

Unfortunately, the member knows what has happened to Massey. It is now in receivership and the court-appointed receiver has recommended that that technology be sold to another corporation that has manufacturing capability, I guess in Cambridge and Guelph as well as in western Canada. The proposal that came from an American corporation did not come to me and, as a matter of fact, I found out about it as a result of a communication from the Canadian Auto Workers. Since that time, I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has given it some review.

The problem as to what is to be done before the court is that if we were to approach the court with some sort of program to assist the American corporation to keep the technology there, we would once again be financing the building of combines in addition to the $200 million of public funds that has already gone in in an attempt to keep the manufacturer of combines going in Brantford. We are continuing to consider it in light of that situation.

Mr. Neumann: I recognize all of the history the minister has elaborated on. My request deals with an opportunity, a window of time that we have to examine the Park proposal in more detail to determine whether, in fact, there is some feasibility, as has been suggested by some parties. I recognize that several cabinet ministers are involved in the aftermath of the Massey Combines receivership.

I know that his ministry has taken a lead in many of these areas. What I am asking the Treasurer is whether he could co-ordinate a meeting of the various parties that are interested in this matter to determine whether there is indeed something worth pursuing in terms of the feasibility of maintaining production in our community.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I will be glad to confer with my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and respond to that particular suggestion.

FOSTER CARE

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services on a crisis in foster care for children at risk in Ontario, of which he is well aware.

He will know that the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies in a major study, The Future of Foster Care, recently laid out parameters of this whole problem in detail for us, and we know a great deal about foster homes. We know, for example, they have much larger families than average, that they have incomes $12,000 less than the provincial average and that 50 per cent of the parents have less than a grade 10 education.

But the ministry has been unable to provide me with information as to the social and economic profile of the families from which these children come. The children’s aid say he has never asked them for that information. How can he be pretending to prepare a response to the crisis in fostering if he lacks answers to such basic questions as to how many children in care have come from low-income homes?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the member knows, one of the important aspects of the review is to appreciate the differing natures and the differing needs of children who are coming into care through children’s aid societies in the last few years. The member knows, for example, that there has been a dramatic decline in the number of children whom children’s aid societies in fact are bringing into care; that there has been a corresponding increase in the number of families the children’s aid societies are working with directly where the children remain with the family and the society works directly with the family and the children. Consequently, the nature of kids coming into foster care these days is such that they have a different range of needs.

1440

What we are doing with our foster care review is to determine, given the description the honourable member himself just gave, whether the kinds of foster families we are using today and have used for the last few years continue to be appropriate to meet those children’s needs or whether there is a better way of meeting those children’s needs. Until we know that, we are not in a position to decide whether or not we want to enhance the current program or develop one that is quite different.

Mr. Allen: It is certainly true that the problem is changing. Our society is changing and the children themselves are changing in terms of the backgrounds from which they come. Someone has called them well-trained victims going into families that are not at all well-trained to deal with them.

The minister talks about the decline of children. We do know, though, that the number of families available for fostering has been declining even more rapidly than the children in question. They get only $13.28 per day, whereas everybody who has done a study of this calculates the range of costs they incur to be between $18 and $26 a day. One knows that the funding for the CAS to provide a sufficient number of backup workers to keep the families functional and the children well on track is undermined by low grant levels.

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Allen: Most of all, we do not even know, and the minister cannot tell us, what the outcomes of foster care are for children who are in care.

Can the minister tell us in more detail what the nature of his response is going to be to this crisis and when that response will come? Can he tell us, for example, how he can deal with --

Mr. Speaker: Order; three questions are enough.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I notice the honourable member has the report on his desk. He will know that the main thrust of that report refers to the needs of the foster families themselves. I do not in any way downplay that. If we are going to get good service from foster families, we have to be concerned about their particular needs. As we have often been told, one can give only what one has himself or herself.

On the other hand, our priority concern is the one he has just mentioned: What is in the best interest of those children and what is it they need most? Therefore, what we are saying is that while the needs of the foster families are important, the special needs of the children are of greater concern to us. What we want to be sure we do is, if we are going to continue to use foster families for the kids with the greatest needs, the most intense needs, given what they have already come through we have to be sure that is appropriate. If it is not, then we have to develop an alternative model to meet the needs of these children.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I remind the honourable member that one of the presenters who came before our committee made that point very clear.

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question through you to the Solicitor General. We have a question, and since we had --

Some hon. members: We?

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: Well, the Speaker and I have a question.

Since the Solicitor General and I had such an interesting time last week about Sunday shopping, I thought I would carry on the tradition. I would like to ask her if she is familiar with the person who made this statement in these chambers back in 1979, after years and years of debate and requests in this House: when are we “finally going to get a clear and consistent policy, which is understood by all law ... officers, that” police chases “are simply not to occur?” Is she familiar with who made that request in these chambers back in 1979?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The question actually implies a policy, in place, of no chases. The whole question of whether we should have police chases was very thoroughly reviewed by a committee and a report was then submitted. It recommended the discontinuation of pursuits except where there was a known criminal activity involved on the part of the person driving.

However, this report had to be closely re-examined because of the very heavy cost implications of the report. It recommended, for instance, instead of having the power to chase, that there be helicopters everywhere available to pursue the car and keep track of it by air. This, of course, has very heavy financial implications to the province and therefore had to be reviewed.

The other that was very carefully examined was the use of --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That completes the allotted time for oral questions.

CFTO LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am hopeful you will tell this Legislature that you are prepared to enforce the press gallery’s decision that those involved in the CFTO scab effort not be allowed to use the public galleries.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for his comment. I would tell the member that this is an administrative matter and I would be glad to discuss it with him at some other time.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I will be brief: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), in a reply to a question during this question period, indicated a number of initiatives with respect to the Bear Island claim: first, that he established a cabinet committee on native affairs; second, that this was the first government to make a generous offer to resolve the dispute; third, that he was in power when a Supreme Court of Ontario decision was made with respect to this claim.

First, the cabinet committee on native affairs existed for 10 years before he came to office --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat? With respect, I would remind the member for Cochrane South --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CONDUCT IN SPEAKER’S GALLERY

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would bring to your attention that in the Speaker’s gallery there appears to be someone using a telephone. The members will know that members themselves would not be allowed to do such a thing and it strikes me as rather odd that in our gallery, in your full view, there is indeed someone using a telephone.

Mr. Speaker: I would agree with the honour-able member 100 per cent and I would ask the Sergeant at Arms to make certain it is not continued.

HOME CARE

Mr. McCague: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, in reply to a question in the House, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) said I might be aware of the fact that just last week an interministerial report with effect to homemakers’ wages was released.

There must have been a mixup in the mail, because in my mailbox today I received a memo to the Liberal caucus, in which it says, “Copies of the report” -- the one we just referred to – “and briefing material will be distributed at a caucus this morning.”

Maybe you could help me, Mr. Speaker, in that I do not have a copy of the report the minister thinks I should have been aware of two days ago.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a great question there. However, I am sure he will be able to discuss that further with the minister. Try it in the question period.

PETITIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Pouliot: I have a petition addressed:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario to support the Teme-Augama Anishnabai in their struggle to preserve the wilderness forests of the Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater region for future generations;

“Further, we ask the government of Ontario to re-examine its decision of May 17, 1988, to allow the expansion of a logging road through this region.”

1450

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a petition signed by 3,883 people, addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, begging leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas our civil law as it currently stands defines sexual molestation as assault, and

“Whereas all assault is subject to a four-year statute of limitations;

“We believe no limitation period should apply in cases of intrafamilial and/or incestuous sexual molestation since it takes an indeterminate number of years for the victim to come to know the impact of the molestation.

“Therefore, we petition the Legislature to;

“Introduce legislation that would guarantee victims of intrafamilial and/or incestuous sexual molestation the right to bring civil action against their perpetrators without time limitations.”

It is signed by the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) as well as myself.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

That is signed by some 1,227 residents of the regional municipality of Sudbury. I agree with them, and I have signed my signature as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

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

Hon. R. F. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 163, An Act to establish the Ministry of Financial Institutions.

L’hon. R. F. Nixon propose la première lecture du projet de loi 163, Loi portant création du ministère des Institutions financières.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 148, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting the Environment.

Mrs. Grier: I am pleased to have an opportunity to debate this fairly major bill, to which I am going to have a number of amendments, not all of which I promise to keep straight as I introduce them, but we plan to do our best.

It is an act that has been some time in the borning, and this is really the first opportunity we have had in this Legislature to discuss environmental issues. The act puts into place some very important principles that go a long way to making the legislation clearer and simpler to understand. I think that is something that we can all support, and let me say at the outset that I do support the legislation, although, as I say, I will have some amendments to move in committee.

The minister says much in his briefing notes and description of the legislation about the fact that it is a housekeeping bill. In fact, what it does is create many of the anomalies that occurred because of the, I suspect, rather rushed and last-minute drafting of the legislation that it seeks to amend. It therefore seems slightly ironic that we are here, in the dying days of a session of the Legislature, dealing with this particular bill and, I hesitate to suggest, perhaps creating drafting anomalies as we do so that will then require succeeding amending legislation; but I have come to realize that is the way this place works.

“Housekeeping” can be interpreted in many ways, and how you do you your housekeeping tells a lot about the kind of person that you are. You can keep a very neat, orderly and immaculate house, and sometimes it is the kind of house where the children are afraid to invite their friends to come in and play; or you can keep a very well kept, clean but welcoming house where the citizens or the public or the neighbours are free to drop in, to participate, to play their role in making your house a home or a family place.

It is perhaps that analogy that I hope to incorporate into the bill by way of my amendments, because one of the things that I think needs to happen to this bill is that there be greater opportunities for the citizens of the province to play their part in cleaning up the environment.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has acknowledged that the statement by the Provincial Auditor that there were 12,000 complaints to his ministry in 1986 indicates a desire on the part of the people of the province to play their role in protecting the environment. If they are to play that role, they have to be given the opportunities, clearly spelled out in legislation, and they have to be given the tools that will enable them to do the job.

I have said that before and so have other members of this House when we talked about my environmental bill of rights. I hope that in adopting this legislation, we can perhaps put into place some of the principles that I know the majority of the members of this Legislature have said they subscribe to, because while this bill improves the minister’s ability to enforce the law, it fails to fully enlist on his behalf the citizens who also seek a clean environment.

Therefore, I think it is important that we make sure that the citizens are dealt with fairly when they wish to participate in the process; that they have access to information about how the law is enforced and about how they can seek to ensure that the law is enforced; that they have notice of decisions and opportunities to comment on decisions made by the ministry on their behalf, and, very important, that if the government fails to act to protect the environment, the citizens must be able to move to make sure that the government does act and to make sure that the environment of the province is indeed protected.

Some of the amendments that I will move will deal with the increased ability of people to do that. I welcome the fact that the legislation opens up the powers of entry. I think that is important. We have to recognize that while it is necessary to balance the right of privacy against the public interest, it is also important to have effective regulation, and to do that we have to acknowledge that administrative inspections are important and are quite different from criminal inspections. I think the legislation goes some way to doing that. I welcome the expansion of the opportunities to provide for tickets. I think that is a good way of getting some compliance with the law and one that needs to be expanded.

Having said all that, I am a little concerned that the high-sounding rhetoric and the objectives espoused by the ministry in this legislation may well not be enacted or enforced as effectively as they might be because of the inability of the ministry to prosecute as many cases as we all feel need to be prosecuted.

In reviewing some of the budgets and the number of prosecutions that have been done by legal services, I notice that the number of prosecutions has increased but the capacity of the ministry to prosecute, as evidenced by the number of legal people on staff, has not increased. If the ministry really means that it wants to see this legislation effective, that it wants to see it enforced, then it is going to have to accompany the legislation by a significant increase in the ability of the legal branch to make the prosecutions and do the job we are calling upon it to do.

I welcome the legislation. I certainly support it in principle. I look forward to the opportunity of debating in committee of the whole a number of amendments to make it more effective.

1500

Ms. Hart: I welcome the remarks of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) and say to her and to the rest of the members of the House that one of the primary goals of these amendments is to make the job of the enforcement branch easier, to clarify the legislation so that everyone understands what the powers for enforcement are. I will not be speaking at length on this because I think we can probably most usefully get on to the next stage of these proceedings.

Mrs. Marland: Madam Speaker, I recognize that I have just gone out of sequence. As the Environment critic for our caucus, I was not aware of the fact that there was an opportunity to make general comments at the time that the bill was before the House for second reading. I wonder if I can have the indulgence of the member who is carrying the bill. Is that possible?

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Do I have the unanimous consent of the House to allow the member for Mississauga South, who is the critic with respect to Environment, to speak? Is that agreed?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Only if she is kind.

Mr. McClelland: Only if she is nice; she is always kind.

Agreed to.

Mrs. Marland: Thank you. I certainly will pay attention to the direction that has been given to me by the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), that I may speak as long as I am kind. I hope that in my role as representative for the Environment for our caucus I would indeed always be fair and kind.

I think there is not a subject discussed and debated in this House that is more important in the long term to every one of us than any subject that pertains to the environment. May I say at the outset that our caucus is pleased to have Bill 148 before the House. Most of the direction of the bill, as we will get into it through the sections and several amendments, will speak for itself and stand on its own merit. There are a few areas that have not been addressed in this bill which I wish might have been, and I will look forward to the Minister of the Environment bringing them forward in some future bill, with further amendments to the act pertaining to the environment.

Certainly, the thrust of the protection of the environment for all of us has to be the greatest responsibility we have. It is the greatest legacy that each one of the elected members in this chamber would hope to leave.

With the advancements that have now been made with technology and knowledge to protect the environment and to remedy what was being done in the past by many parties throughout the world, indeed not just in our province or in our nation but worldwide, the level of awareness about what we, as mankind, do that puts our environment at risk has certainly been elevated. With that elevated awareness, we will look forward to this minister bringing forward future bills with future amendments.

We also look forward very much to the minister re-establishing his select committee on the environment, an all-party committee we had the pleasure of being part of last year. It was a very worthwhile, productive forum meeting to deal with subjects which are not addressed in this bill before us today but which are certainly within the direct responsibility and purview of the minister.

I shall look forward to the process we are now going to take part in, Madam Speaker, and I thank you for the opportunity to make those few comments.

Ms. Hart: Both as a comment and question, perhaps, in reply to the member for Mississauga South, let me say to her and to all the members of the House that this ministry always puts the environment first. This is yet one of the steps in the proceedings to make the enforcement easier, to make sure that our environment is protected for our children and future generations. I, for one, look forward to the co-operation of the two critics from the other parties and would like to get on with making these changes, if we might.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If I can secure the unanimous consent of the House, I would ask that the parliamentary assistant be allowed to move to the front row and that staff be allowed to come on the floor of the chamber.

The Acting Speaker: Do I have unanimous consent of the House for the parliamentary assistant to move to a chair in the front row and that a table be made available for her and an assistant?

Agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

ENVIRONMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT L’ENVIRONNEMENT

Consideration of Bill 148, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting the Environment.

Mr. Chairman: At this particular moment I would like to ask that you list only if there are any questions, comments or amendments and if so, to which sections of the bill. Right now, I will entertain a list only.

Mrs. Grier: Sections 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 22, 41, 44, 47, 53, 62, 80, 81, 88, 89a, 91, 92 -- many of them are repetitive -- 94 and 97.

Ms. Hart: I have amendments to sections 1, 22, 23, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 80 and 85a.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members have any sections they want to amend?

Ms. Hart: We have a number of amendments.

We are dealing with a short period of time we have had to consider the amendments, so there may be a little scurrying between the critic and myself, for which I apologize. Also, I would ask that if we have votes -- I am not sure if there was an agreement to this effect -- perhaps we can deal with the votes at the end.

Mr. Chairman: I have received no such advice.

Mrs. Grier: I think there had been some agreement that we would stack our votes and divide at some later stage.

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to this?

Agreed to.

1510

Mrs. Marland: Just a question of clarification. Do amendments have to be listed and announced ahead of time and in the printed form, or do you accept amendments that have not just been placed by numerical order before you?

Mr. Chairman: If you will give me one second, I will consult with the Clerk.

It would be preferable if you could give us right now a list of the sections to which you would like to bring amendments, but we would obviously like to get them in a written format, either written down or typed. Do you have any? Were you planning to make some?

Mrs. Marland: I do not have them before me at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Will you be getting them later on?

Mrs. Marland: I may be, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: You may be; it is not definite, though. I guess we can proceed right now and, as you get them, we shall deal with them.

Ms. Hart: Section 1 is the definitions section. It has a bearing, I believe, on other sections. We may want to leave that until the end. I would move that it be dealt with at the end of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: You want to deal with section 1 at the end of the bill?

Ms. Hart: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent for this?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 1 shall be deferred until the end of the bill, when we finish seeing the rest of the material.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3:

Mrs. Grier: I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) The said section 6 is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) The director shall give notice of the control order to every municipality in which the contaminant is discharged and to the public in such manner as the director considers appropriate.”

Mr. Chairman: Those are not the same words that I have here.

Mrs. Grier: What has changed, I suspect, is that the one you have says “in or into.”

Mr. Chairman: No. There are many more words that are different. What I received here as the latest copy is exactly identical to what I have had here.

Read that revised motion again, please.

Mrs. Grier: I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) The said section 6 is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) The director shall give notice of the control order to every municipality in which the contaminant is discharged and to the public in such manner as the director considers appropriate.”

Mr. Chairman: I have, more precisely, “The director shall give notice of the control order to every municipality in or into which the contaminant is discharged.” Is that the one you have?

Mrs. Grier: The amendment as drafted had said “or into.” I understood from the parliamentary assistant that the amendment was acceptable to the ministry if I deleted the words “or into.” I am sorry; that perhaps did not occur on the copy you have. But I would like to move the subsection without reference to the words “or into.”

Mr. Chairman: If you do not mind, I shall read it again myself.

Mrs. Grier moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) The said section 6 is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) The director shall give notice of the control order to every municipality in which the contaminant is discharged and to the public in such manner as the director considers appropriate.”

Mrs. Grier: The objective of this amendment is very clear, I think, from the wording. It is so that there shall be public notice given of the decisions of the ministry. It is at the discretion of the director; so it does not require major public advertisement all across the province, but it does provide that in the instance where a community group perhaps has been instrumental in having the order or matter that is being addressed brought to the attention of the ministry, that group would also be given notice of the decisions of the ministry in that respect. Therefore, it is part of the approach of bringing the public into the process and opening up the process to citizens who are concerned.

Ms. Hart: We are content with the amendment as it has been read. In fact, it reflects the ministry’s policy as it exists and is a good amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4:

Mr. Grier: I move that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) The said section 7 is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) The director shall give notice of the stop order to every municipality in which the contaminant is discharged and to the public in such manner as the director considers appropriate.”

Mrs. Grier: The intention of this amendment is similar to the previous one.

Mr. Chairman: I have the old version where you still have the words “or into.” I shall remove these two words.

Mrs. Grier has moved that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) The said section 7 is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) The director shall give notice of the stop order to every municipality in which the contaminant is discharged and to the public in such manner as the director considers appropriate.”

Mrs. Grier: I think the purpose of the amendment is self-evident and is similar to the previous one.

Ms. Hart: The amendment is acceptable.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5:

Mrs. Grier: I move that subsection 5(4) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following, as subsections to section 8 of the Environmental Protection Act:

“(8) Before issuing or refusing to issue a certificate of approval referred to in subsection 8(1), the director may, by a notice in writing, require the Environmental Assessment Board to hold a hearing.

“(9) Where a hearing is to be held, the Environmental Assessment Board shall give at least 15 days notice of the hearing to,

“(a) the applicant for the certificate of approval;

“(b) every municipality in which a contaminant may be discharged as a result of an action referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b); and

“(c) the public in such manner as the Environmental Assessment Board considers appropriate.

“(10) Sections 33 and 33a apply with necessary modifications to a hearing under this section.”

Mr. Chairman: I would like to advise the members we are getting the new version of the amendment. Rather than have a dispense, once I read it, I shall read it completely and you will follow with whatever you have to make sure we have the very same version.

1520

Mrs. Grier has moved that subsection 5(4) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following, as subsections to section 8 of the Environmental Protection Act:

“(9) Where a hearing is to be held, the Environmental Assessment Board shall give at least 15 days notice of the hearing to,

“(a) the applicant for the certificate of approval;

“(b) every municipality in or into which a contaminant may be discharged as a result of an action referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b); and

“(e) the public in such manner as the Environmental Assessment Board considers appropriate.

“(10) Sections 33 and 33a apply with necessary modifications to a hearing under this section.”

Is that exactly as you have?

Mrs. Grier: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore care to comment?

Mrs. Grier: This refers to the section of the act that deals with certificates of approval. Certificates of approval are frequently used by the ministry in enforcing the legislation. In the legislation as it now stands, there is no provision for any public notice of the fact that a certificate of approval has been issued. The amendments I have placed open up the process a little bit, and I think it is important to point out that I have used the word “may” in the section relating to a hearing.

It is at the discretion of the director to require the Environmental Assessment Board to hold a hearing, and where a hearing is held, the Environmental Assessment Board shall give notice of that hearing. Again, as I say. I think it is opening up the process and I hope it will also have the support of the parliamentary assistant.

Ms. Hart: This amendment cannot be accepted. It has a number of potentially significant implications for workload. It is true that the wording is permissive, rather than mandatory, but we have not had an opportunity to consult with affected parties or to determine what would be the financial implications of the potential workload increase, so this amendment is not acceptable.

Mrs. Marland: This amendment is a very important amendment and it is a little disappointing to hear the parliamentary assistant discuss the cost factor of having this amendment go through. I would have thought that with the kind of commitment we need to the protection of the environment, the cost factor is not the primary measurement for whether or not an environmental assessment hearing is held. I would think environmental assessment hearings and full public notice would be the direction in which any government would want to go.

Obviously, if a certificate of approval is being issued or being refused, the public has a right to know. It is the public’s environment, not one party’s environment, not one government’s environment. As it says, it is not mandatory; it does say “may.” It still gives the government the final flexibility, but at least it gives some direction that we hope might be followed in the case of this legislation by a director. It is disappointing to measure the future direction of the preservation of the environment by a pure cost factor. If that were the case, there probably are a whole lot of measures in place today to protect the environment that would never be there had they been measured purely by the cost of having those measures in place.

I see this as a very important amendment, a very worthwhile amendment and one which the public at large would hope that its government would have passed.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to comment? If not, before I move it, I would like the record to show that when I read the motion in subsection 8(9)(b), I also read into the record “or into,” and I believe that your version does not have the words, “or into.” Is that correct?

Mrs. Grier: That is right.

Mrs. Grier moves that subsection 5(4) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following, as subsections to section 8 of the Environmental Protection Act:

“(9) where a hearing is to be held, the Environmental Assessment Board shall give at least 15 days’ notice of the hearing to,

“(a) the applicant for the certificate of approval;

“(b) every municipality in or into which a contaminant may be discharged as a result of an action referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b); and

“(c) the public in such manner as the Environmental Assessment Board considers appropriate.

“(10) Sections 33 and 33a apply with necessary modifications to a hearing under this section.

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry? All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that subsection 13(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by striking out “or is likely to cause” in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof “may cause, contributes to causing or may contribute to causing.”

Mrs. Grier: My purpose in moving this amendment is to clarify before the courts what is the definition of “pollution.” The words “is likely to cause” are open to a great deal of argument and are very difficult to prove. If you emit oil into the water, is it likely to cause harm to fish? In order to prove that point, before the courts, you have to demonstrate how many fish, what the volume of water was and what the volume of the contaminant was.

Quite frankly, I think the reason we have not been able to enforce our pollution laws adequately has been largely the difficulty of proving that something we all know is a contaminant is, in fact, likely to cause what the courts may attribute as harm or damage. Therefore, my amendment clarifies by saying “may cause, contributes to causing or may contribute to causing.”

It will give us, I think, increased cause for prosecution. It will clarify before the courts what is causing damage. It will take into account that it is not the volume of the body of water or the air into which the discharge is going that determines whether or not it will cause pollution or damage but the nature of the contaminant.

It will also take into account the synergistic effects of perhaps a number of different emissions at different times or in different quantities into the atmosphere or water. Therefore, I think it contributes to strengthening and making clearer the provisions of the act. I certainly think it would be an improvement to the existing wording.

Ms. Hart: We cannot accept the amendment, although it may be that at some time in the future it is something we will bring into law. Unfortunately, in thinking about it in the brief time we had, we began to appreciate that it has quite a few ramifications for other ministries, particularly the Ministry of the Attorney General, that we would like to think through a little more carefully. There are also ramifications for other parties, such as municipalities, and we should have an opportunity to consult with those parties. So this is not the appropriate time to accept this amendment.

1530

M. Pouliot: Monsieur le Président, en attendant que les nombreux sièges de l’Assemblée législative se remplissent assez rapidement, j’aimerais me prononcer sur l’amendement proposé par ma collègue et très chère amie.

Ce qu’on nous a dit simplement, c’est que ce qu’on propose présenterait à la Chambre un véhicule, un mécanisme qui rendrait le fonctionnement du projet de loi plus efficace. Plus efficace parce qu’il nous donnerait les outils pour aller au fond du problème. Si plusieurs amendements ont été présentés et le seront dans un avenir rapproché, j’aimerais attirer l’attention de la Chambre sur celui-ci puisque celui-ci, plus que tout autre amendement, touche au coeur du problème qui nous est présenté.

Je comprends très bien quand l’adjointe parlementaire nous dit: «Pas maintenant», mais en principe ça voudrait dire oui. Mais peut-être que dans l’avenir, on devra se pencher sur l’amendement qui a été proposé par ma collègue.

Écoutez, il y a peut-être quelques minutes, Monsieur le Président, une heure tout au plus, cette même personne nous disait: « Chez nous, avec la majorité qui nous entoure -- mais ça, elle ne l’a pas dit -- l’environnement passe avant tout. » Écoutez, il s’agit d’être sincère. Moi, je l’ai crue. À chaque mot qui se disait, je me disais: « Tiens, c’est ça. »

On parle justement de la nature, d’aller au coeur du problème et d’offrir encore une fois un véhicule ou un mécanisme. Cela vient d’être fait. Maintenant, c’est à elle de répondre positivement à ce qui est tout à fait normal pour le bon fonctionnement de la législation.

Je suis certain, Monsieur le Président, en terminant, que ma bonne amie conservatrice, qui semble être très bien préparée, comme elle l’est toujours, voudra s’exprimer peut-être plus longuement sur l’amendement qui a été proposé.

Mrs. Marland: I do not understand the parliamentary assistant’s concern, on behalf of her minister, with the word “may.” As a matter of fact, I think if they had done their research, they would have discovered that the word “may” was in the original Environmental Protection Act and also is in the federal Environmental Protection Act.

I wonder why there is so much concern with having it in our own Ontario statute. It is not overly powerful; it is not in its citing -- as the parliamentary assistant said, she felt that the Attorney General may have some concern with it.

I think anything that clarifies provincial statutes makes those statutes more workable, and it is our responsibility to pass legislation not just for the sake of words, but for the sake of a workable process. If the statute is more workable because it is clear, then if it is clarified, I think the parliamentary assistant would want to have the use of “may” there.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: To clarify as to when the vote will take place, is it understood that the vote on any stacked sections of the bill will take place at 5:45 today? Is that correct? We had not specified that before. The vote will be stacked to 5:45.

Mrs. Grier moves that section 13 of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(3) Any person may commence an action in the Supreme Court of Ontario for a contravention of subsection 1 without having to show any greater or different right, harm or interest than that of other members of the public or any pecuniary or proprietary right or interest in the subject matter of the proceedings against,

“(a) any person who has contravened subsection 1; and

“(b) any minister responsible for regulatory, fiscal or proprietary control of the activity that resulted in or contributed to the discharge.

“(4) Subsection 3 applies without any requirement that the person commencing the action allege or establish that there had been an infringement of an approval, permit, licence, standard, regulation, rule or order established by or under this act, the Ontario Water Resources Act or the Pesticides Act.

“(5) In an action commenced under subsection 3, where it has been established that the activity of the defendant has caused or contributed to causing an adverse effect, the court may grant either an interim or permanent injunction, order the defendant to remedy any damage caused by the activity, award damages, impose conditions on the defendant or make such other order as the court may consider necessary.”

Mrs. Grier: Let me say at the outset how glad I am that the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston) is in the House at this point, because I am quite sure he will recognize the wording of the sections that I have moved as an amendment. They are taken from an environmental bill of rights which was first drafted by, I think, the honourable Stuart Smith some time ago, revised by other members, such as the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), and then put into cogent and cohesive form by the member for Bruce.

When I came to this place in 1985, I was moved to plagiarize the legislation that had been submitted for first reading by the member for Bruce and turn it into an environmental bill of rights, which has since had second reading in this session and in the previous session.

In that second reading, there was support from members on all sides of the House for the principle that the old issue of standing ought no longer to be an issue in the protection of the environment, support for the principle that a citizen who feels that the minister, the ministry, his opposition critic or whoever is not doing enough to protect the environment can therefore commence a prosecution. The current situation is that if you wish to commence such a prosecution, you have to prove damage to yourself or to your property. What this amendment does is remove that section of the Environmental Protection Act and place, in fact, citizens’ rights, to make them full and equal partners in the battle to clean up our environment.

This is not, as I have said, a new issue. It is one that was widely canvassed by all of the environmental groups before both the 1985 election and the 1987 election. It is interesting to review the questionnaires that were returned by all members of this House, or most of them, prior to both elections. In the one prior to the 1987 election, the vast majority of the members who were subsequently elected to the government side of the House supported the principle of an environmental bill of rights.

When we then had the debate on second reading of my private member’s bill, I was very interested that the parliamentary assistant and other members of the government supported the principle of an environmental bill of rights, thought it was a very good idea -- it had, after all, been one which their own esteemed member had espoused -- but they felt that a private member’s bill was not the way to go, that special legislation was not the way to go, that it would be much more appropriate to amend all of the statutes which referred to the environment and put it in place at that time. That time is today.

1540

We have before us a major piece of legislation, a major housekeeping, cleaning up, removal of anomalies, strengthening of the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Pesticides Act. We have a window of opportunity to amend this legislation, a window of opportunity which is not likely to occur again, because we all know, despite the best intentions of the government, how infrequently the environment is debated in this Legislature, how infrequently we have an opportunity to say from all sides that we support strengthening the legislation.

Who knows how long it may be before we have an opportunity once again to enshrine in the environmental legislation of this province the rights of the citizens of this province to play a full part in protecting the environment of the province? That is what this amendment does and I look forward to its receiving in this forum the wide support it has received on the hustings and in private members’ hour.

Ms. Hart: I appreciate the member’s bringing to our attention the fact that this -- in fact, it is almost the exact wording -- was voted on previously in this session. As I understand the standing orders, that may give us some difficulty in voting on it now.

Be that as it may, I spoke in that debate and I recall raising a concern which I am about to raise again; that is, that this part of the private member’s bill changes the whole common law of negligence. Negligence throughout the commonlaw world requires damage before a suit can be based upon it. This section, a very substantive amendment, has come in the course of these amendments in the last few days. It has not been widely consulted. At the very minimum, for the court administrators, this could result in a great deal more litigation which would obviously require more court time, more judges, more personnel. There are significant ramifications of this amendment, and for those reasons it is not acceptable.

Mrs. Grier: I would point out to the parliamentary assistant that in subsection 10(5) of my amendment it clearly states, “In an action commenced under subsection 3, where it has been established that the activity of the defendant has caused or contributed to causing an adverse effect, the court may grant either an interim or permanent injunction, order the defendant to remedy any damage caused by the activity, award damages, impose conditions ... .”

It seems to me that the whole intent of the amendment and of the environmental bill of rights is to take effect when it has been established that damage has been caused. The difference is: To whom was the damage caused? Was it caused to the person commencing the action or to some other party?

I think the fact that we may be changing the law on negligence is perhaps an asset. If the law on negligence is not working to protect the environment, surely it is our mandate to protect the environment. Let’s change the law on negligence.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that Mrs. Grier’s amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any amendments to section 11?

Mrs. Grier: I dispense with that motion. I have no problems with section 11.

Many of the motions that follow are similar to the ones for which we have established the lack of willingness of the government to support my amendments. I therefore see no reason to prolong the afternoon by calling for debates on each and every one of them. Perhaps we can go through and then sort out those which are repetitious, because we are dealing with three different pieces of legislation, or those which establish a new right for the public. I think the section 11 one can be dispensed with.

Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.

Section 13:

Mrs. Grier: I think the first amendment I have to section 13 is a repetition of the “may result” as opposed to “is likely to result,” so I will not move that one. I would like to move the second amendment, which is to subsection 13(3).

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that section 13 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) Section 17 of the said act, as re-enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1983, chapter 52, section 6, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) The director shall make all reports submitted pursuant to an order under subsection 1 available for public inspection at reasonable times.”

We have reviewed the member’s motion and we have had to rule it out of order because it is amending something that is not proposed to be amended in the original act before us.

Mrs. Grier: Mr. Chairman, section 13 of the act is amended by section 10 of Bill 148. No, I am sorry. I am wrong; you are right. It is section 17. I am sorry.

Mr. Chairman: That is right. Subsection 17(1) is being amended. What you are proposing to do is add some more to it. If there is unanimous consent of the House at this moment, we can deal with yours right now, but if there is not, we cannot.

Mrs. Grier: I will seek unanimous consent of the House, because what I am doing is merely ordering a document be open for public inspection.

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to deal with this motion at this moment by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore?

Agreed to.

Mrs. Grier: As I have said, the intent of this amendment is merely to ensure that not only the polluter but also the public have available the information that will enable them to follow closely what the ministry is doing and to monitor the actions that are taken. My amendment merely allows that it be available for public inspection at reasonable times, and I would submit that is a reasonable amendment.

Ms. Hart: This amendment will not be accepted because it is already covered by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and it is already covered by the ministry’s own policy.

Mrs. Marland: To give the answer that it is already covered by the freedom-of-information act might perhaps have had some relevance two or three months ago. But recently one of my colleagues, the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), sought information from another minister under the freedom-of-information act. The information he required amounted to a bill in excess of $700. While we have the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and one would think that the access to information from any of the government ministries was a privilege for members, we have yet to see that resolved. The absurdity of any member of this Legislature having to pay any amount of money, let alone something as substantial as $700, is an indication that if the freedom-of-information act does not work for members of the Legislature, I pity the poor member of the public who wishes to seek access to information. I think the necessity to have this amendment speaks for itself.

1550

Mr. Chairman: Do any other members wish to comment? Are we ready to vote?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Sections 14 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 22:

Mr. Chairman: The parliamentary assistant has an amendment to section 22.

Ms. Hart moves that subsection 33(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 22 of the bill, be amended by striking out “or 32” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “32 or 35”.

Ms. Hart: This is because of a subsequent amendment. It just brings the act into conformity.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Grier: I have a further amendment.

Mrs. Grier moves that subsections 33(5) and (6) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 22 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(5) The Environmental Assessment Board may award costs at any time during a hearing before it and upon the conclusion of the hearing.

“(6) The Environmental Assessment Board may order by whom, when and to whom costs are to be paid.

Mrs. Grier: The legislation provides that the Environmental Assessment Board may award costs at a hearing before it. That is certainly welcome and something that we support. The problem is that many hearings go on for a very long time. Many individuals and citizens groups do not have the wherewithal to sustain those hearings without having some interim funding. The purpose of my amendment is really to add the word “when,” as is in the last line of the amendment, “The Environmental Assessment Board may order by whom, when and to whom the costs are to be paid,” the intent being that on application of the parties, the board has the discretion to award interim costs if it should see fit.

Ms. Hart: This amendment is not acceptable. As the members of the House know, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the cabinet are considering a policy for intervener funding. It comes very close to that when you are talking about interim awards of costs, and the amendment is premature.

Mrs. Marland: I really think that if the government is serious and sincere in giving true public access and opportunity to take part in these hearings in a realistic way, and it is seriously considering an extension of intervener funding, then there is no reason on earth why it cannot support this amendment. All this is saying is that it can be done at any time. What point is there if a group or an individual can make only partial representation at a hearing because of the duration of the hearing or an interruption of the hearing or whatever the circumstances are that make it impossible for those individuals or that individual to continue the representation? It is like saying somebody is a little bit pregnant, I suppose.

The point is that either one can do something wholly and successfully or one might as well not be doing it at all. If we are talking about finances being an impediment to the public having, either individually or collectively, input into this whole process, then if costs were going to be awarded, why would it matter when? It does not necessarily mean that the costs are going to be any higher; it is just going to make the whole opportunity more realistic.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay”.

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that clauses 33a(l)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 22 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(a) on a question of law or mixed fact and law, to the Divisional Court;

“(b) on all other questions, to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

Mrs. Grier: For the purposes of those who have forgotten the act since they read it when it was first introduced, let me explain that the act provides for an appeal to the Divisional Court or to the cabinet -- to the Divisional Court on a question of law and to the cabinet on questions of fact; read politics.

The intent of my amendment is to provide that where it is a question of mixed fact and law, the option should be there of going to the Divisional Court. That is what is said in clause (a) of my amendment.

Ms. Hart: I have appeared before the Divisional Court on many different statutes and I just cannot think of a single one that deals with the question of mixed fact and law. The Divisional Court is a statutory court. It deals with appeals under statutes on questions of law and jurisdiction. This would be a very great departure and, for that reason, the amendment is not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say “aye”.

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 23:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that section 23 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“23. (1) Subsection 35(1) of the said act is amended by striking out ‘minister’ in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof ‘director.’

“(2) Subsection 35(2) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“(2) Upon receipt of notice from the director, the Environmental Assessment Board shall hold a public hearing with respect to the subject matter of the notice.

“(3) Subsection 35(4) of the said act is repealed.

“(4) Subsection 35(5) of the said act is amended by striking out ‘minister’ in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof ‘director.’

1600

“(5) Subsection 35(6) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“(6) The Environmental Assessment Board may order that the bylaw referred to in subsection (1) does not apply to the proposed waste disposal site and the bylaw shall thereupon be deemed not to apply thereto.”

We have a problem with that. We have to rule it out of order. If I may read from Beauchesne, it says, “An amendment may not amend sections of the original act unless they are specifically being amended in a clause of the bill before the committee.”

If I look at section 23 of the bill, it says “Subsection 35(4) of the said act is repealed.” Therefore, it only concerns subsection 35(4), and the parliamentary assistant has tried to bring forward many other things. We can deal with this and go forward with this if we have unanimous consent.

Ms. Hart: Might I ask for unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman?

Agreed to.

Ms. Hart: This was a drafting oversight in the original bill. It merely brings all three acts into conformity so that the board is carrying out the same functions for all three acts.

Motion agreed to.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 24 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 41:

Mrs. Grier: I move that subsection 41(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(2) Section 121 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(3) When the director does anything referred to in clause (1 )(b), (2)(b), (c) or (d), the director shall give written notice together with written reasons therefor to the municipality in which the subject matter of the notice is located and to the public in such manner as the director considers appropriate.

“(4) Any person may, by written notice served upon the director and the board within 15 days after the service of the notice referred to under subsection (3), require a hearing by the board.

“(5) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply with respect to a decision of the Environmental Assessment Board that is implemented by the director in accordance with subsection 33(4).”

Mr. Chairman: My wording is a bit different cosmetically from yours, even though mine says “Revised NDP motion” here. For example, in subsection (4), “Any person may, by written notice served upon the director and the board within 15 days after the giving of the notice referred to in subsection (3) ... .”

Mrs. Grier: Your version is the correct version. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. There have been so many amendments to this. Your version is the correct version.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. In that case, as it is different, I shall read it completely without dispensing.

Mrs. Grier moves that subsection 41(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(2) Section 121 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(3) When the director does anything referred to in clause 1(b), 2(b), (c) or (d), the director shall give written notice together with written reasons therefor to the municipality in which the subject matter of the notice is located and to the public in such manner as the director considers appropriate.

“(4) Any person may, by written notice served upon the director and the board within 15 days after the giving of the notice referred to in subsection (3), require a hearing by the board.

“(5) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply with respect to a decision of the Environmental Assessment Board that is implemented by the director in accordance with subsection 33(4).”

Mrs. Grier: Under the act as it is now proposed to be, notice has to be served on the applicant or the holder of an approval. The intent of this motion is to make sure that the municipality and the public are also advised of the decision. Again, it is an opening up and an involvement of the public in the operations of the Ministry of the Environment.

Ms. Hart: The thought in this one is a good one, but we cannot accept it for this reason. The director must retain some discretion about the notice. Very often notice is given, but there are thousands of approvals given every single year, some for very minor matters, and so it is felt there must be some discretion by the director to decide what merits public notice and what does not. Also, there is a potential for a very great increase in the number of appeals. For those reasons, the amendment is not acceptable.

Mrs. Marland: I think this amendment is asking only that the municipality be notified; so I do not see that it does involve a whole lot of additional notification. It is not asking even that the ministry advertise, which I recognize would be expensive; it is asking for a 37-cent stamp -- that is what it is asking for -- and it is asking that the clerk of the municipality be notified.

It is then putting the onus on the municipality to decide whether it feels it is minor in nature, as the parliamentary assistant has said. Certainly, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) and I recognize that a great number of notices might be involved if every single person within a given area had to be notified of an approval. We are not asking for very much in this amendment, but simply that the clerk of the municipality be notified.

Obviously, every application is going to be within one municipality; so I cannot see why something that is almost a simple housekeeping matter, as this is -- the argument that it may leave the process open to a larger number of appeals is an argument I fail to recognize.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mrs. Grier’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

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

“41a. Section 122 of the said act, as amended by the Statues of Ontario, 1983, chapter 52, section 17, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(1a) Any person may, by written notice served upon the director and the board within 15 days after the giving of the notice referred to in subsection 6(2) or 7(2), require a hearing by the board.”

Mr. Chairman: There again, we regret to have to declare this out of order because section 41 implies adding only clause (d). What you are proposing is doing something different again. So there again, I shall ask to have the indulgence of the House, unanimous support to deal with this. Do you want to seek this?

Mrs. Grier: I suspect it is not going to have support; so I will not bother seeking it in that case.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other amendments to section 41?

Mrs. Grier: Yes, Mr. Chairman, section 41b, which is an amendment that is before you, the long one on the Environmental Appeal Board.

Mr. Chairman: May I describe to you that there again, you are proposing to amend section 123, which is not concerned whatsoever by section 41. There again we drop it.

Are there any more amendments to section 41?

Shall sections 42 and 43 carry?

Sections 42 and 43 agreed to.

Section 44:

Mrs. Grier: In view of the position being taken by the ministry, I will withdraw that amendment.

Section 44 agreed to.

Sections 45 and 46 agreed to.

1610

Section 47:

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that section 145a of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 47 of the bill, be amended by striking out “crown” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “prosecutor.”

Mrs. Grier: The intent of this section is to provide that a counsel or agent acting on behalf of the crown may require that a provincial judge preside over a proceeding. My amendment merely provides that that request need not merely be made by the crown but can also be made by a prosecutor.

I am assuming, let me say to the parliamentary assistant, that such prosecutor represents someone who has obtained standing and has proved direct personal damage. I would not suggest that might be any Joe Citizen who merely wished to have something referred to a provincial court judge and, therefore, I hope it will be acceptable to the ministry.

Ms. Hart: As I understand it, in order to bring a prosecution under any of these acts, you do not have to prove damage; you merely lay the information or serve the summons, whichever way it goes. But be that as it may, this is an amendment that is not acceptable, in our view. It is premature. It has some ramifications for the Attorney General and also for the courts which must be dealt with and consulted widely about before it can be brought in.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any more amendments to section 47? The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, did you not have another one?

Mrs. Grier: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, in view of the positions being taken, that most of my proposed amendments as far as section 80 -- and I just have to revise that one -- are not likely to be acceptable, so I will withdraw those.

Mr. Chairman: Fair enough. We had the same problem with your amendment to add section 47a. It was out of order.

Section 47 agreed to.

Sections 48 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 51:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that section 51 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following as a clause forming part of section 1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act:

“(ta) ‘waters’ means a well, lake, river, pond, spring, stream, reservoir, artificial watercourse, intermittent watercourse, ground water or other water or watercourse.

Ms. Hart: This amendment is merely made for clarity. All of the descriptive terms for water are included within the Ontario Water Resources Act and it was thought that if we used “waters” and defined it, it would be clearer and the courts would not make a distinction among the terms.

Mrs. Grier: I welcome this simplification of the wording and I am happy to accept the amendment suggested by the parliamentary assistant.

Motion agreed to.

Section 51, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 52 to 55, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 56:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that subsection 10(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in subsection 56(1) of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

“(aa) entering any place to ascertain the quality or quantity of water, the reasons therefore, and how any impairment thereof may be prevented, eliminated or ameliorated.”

Ms. Hart: This amendment is proposed because of the difference in terminology between the two acts and to make them consistent.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that subclause 10(1)(c)(i) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in subsection 56(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out “certificate of approval, provisional certificate of approval, program approval” in the third and fourth lines and inserting in lieu thereof “approval, requirement, direction, report, notice.”

Ms. Hart: Again, it is merely to bring several acts into conformity.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that clause 10(1)(d) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in subsection 56(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out “certificate of approval, provisional certificate of approval, program approval” in the third, fourth and fifth lines and inserting in lieu thereof “requirement, direction, report, notice.”

Ms. Hart: The same reason applies.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that subclause 10(1)(e)(iii) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in subsection 56(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out “certificate of approval, provisional certificate of approval” in the second and third lines and inserting in lieu thereof “permit, licence, approval, requirement, direction, report, notice, agreement.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 56, as amended, agreed to.

Section 57:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that section 10i of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 57 of the bill, be amended by striking out “certificate of approval or provisional certificate of approval” in the first and second lines and inserting in lieu thereof “approval, requirement, direction, report, notice, agreement or order.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 57, as amended, agreed to.

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

“57a. Section 11 of the said act is amended by striking out ‘waters’ in the fifth line and inserting in lieu thereof ‘water.’”

We also have problems with this amendment. We have to rule it out of order, because section 11 of the act is not being amended by the bill. We can move forward with this if you seek unanimous consent.

Ms. Hart: Might I seek unanimous consent?

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Section 58 agreed to.

Section 59:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that subsection 15(3) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 59 of the bill, be amended by striking out “water or watercourse” in the third, fourth and fifth lines and inserting in lieu thereof in each instance “waters.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 59, as amended, agreed to.

1620

Section 60:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that section 60 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“60. Section 16 of the said act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1986, chapter 68, section 23, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“16(1) Every person that discharges or causes or permits the discharge of any material of any kind into or in any waters or on any shore or bank thereof or into or in any place that may impair the quality of the water of any waters is guilty of an offence.

“(2) Every person that discharges or causes or permits the discharge of any material of any kind, and such discharge is not in the normal course of events, or from whose control material of any kind escapes into or in any waters or on any shore or bank thereof or into or in any place that may impair the quality of the water of any waters, shall forthwith notify the minister of the discharge or escape, as the case may be.

Ms. Hart: It is really just to bring the act into conformity.

Motion agreed to.

Section 60, as amended, agreed to.

Section 61:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that subsection 17(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 61 of the bill, be amended by striking out “into any water or watercourse” in the second and third lines and inserting in lieu thereof “into or in any waters.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 61, as amended, agreed to.

Section 62:

Mrs. Grier: In view of the loss of the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, I withdraw this amendment.

Section 62 agreed to.

Sections 63 to 79, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 80:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that subsection 61(2) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in subsection 80(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out “together with” in the 13th line.

Ms. Hart: The words got in by accident.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that subsection 61 (2b) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in subsection 80(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out “6(3)” in the last line and inserting in lieu thereof “6(4)”.

Motion agreed to.

Section 80, as amended, agreed to.

Section 81:

Mrs. Grier: Withdraw.

Mr. Chairman: Withdrawn.

Section 81 agreed to.

Sections 82 to 85, inclusive, agreed to.

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

“85a. Subsection 75(1) of the said act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1986, chapter 68, section 42, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) Every director or officer of a corporation that engages in an activity that may result in the discharge of any material into or in any waters or on any shore or bank thereof or into or in any place that may impair the quality of the water of any waters contrary to this act or the regulations has a duty to take all reasonable care to prevent the corporation from causing or permitting such unlawful discharge.”

Ms. Hart: Mr. Chairman, before you make your ruling, I might ask for unanimous consent.

Mr. Chairman: I think you are getting to know why. Is it agreed?

Agreed to.

Ms. Hart: It is merely to bring the act fully into consistency.

Mrs. Grier: Let me just say how delighted I am to see that the government is prepared in its own amendments to accept the word “may.” “Every director or officer of a corporation that engages in an activity that may result in the discharge of any material into or in any waters ... .” I regret it was unable to accept that wording when I moved the amendments, but I am happy to support its amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 85a agreed to.

Sections 86 and 87 agreed to.

Section 88:

Mrs. Grier: I withdraw my amendments to sections 88 and 89.

Section 88 agreed to.

Sections 89 to 91, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Grier moved that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“91a. (1) Section 20 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(3a) The director shall give notice of the stop order or the varied or confirmed stop order, together with written reasons therefor, to the municipality in which the emergency exists and to the public in such manner as the director considers appropriate.

“(6a) Any person may, by written notice mailed to or served upon the director and the board within 15 days after the giving of the notice referred to in subsection 3a, require a hearing by the board.

“(2) Subsection 20(7) of the said act is amended by striking out ‘to whom a stop order is directed’ in the first line.

“(3) Subsection 20(10) of the said act is amended by adding at the end thereof ‘and shall give notice of the rescinding order to the municipality referred to in subsection 3a and to the public in such manner as the director considers appropriate.’”

There, again, we shall have to seek unanimous consent, because section 20 of the act is not being amended by the bill and you are seeking to amend section 20. Shall you seek unanimous consent to deal with this?

Mrs. Grier: I seek unanimous consent and I continue to move this amendment in view of the acceptance by the parliamentary assistant of the amendments I first moved to subsection 3(2) and subsection 4(2).

Mr. Chairman: I presume that means yes.

Unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mrs. Grier: This yet again is requiring the director to give notice of a stop order to the municipality and to the public and, as I say, is in line with the acceptance by the ministry of the earlier motions I had moved which also gave such public notice. I hope this one will be accepted, too.

Ms. Hart: In some discussions with the member, we had said that the amendment was acceptable if she would delete subsections 2, 3 and 4, but I see she has read the amendment in full so we will not be supporting this amendment.

Mrs. Grier: I am not quite sure of the process, but perhaps if the parliamentary assistant could be clearer as to what amount of public notice the ministry would be prepared to accept, then I will be happy, if I can, to delete those sections that offend in the amendment.

1630

Ms. Hart: What I can say to the member is that if the amendment she moves includes subsection 91a(1), subsection 91a(3a) and what is now numbered subsection 91a(5), then the amendment would be supported; otherwise, it will not be.

Mrs. Grier: I wonder if we are looking at the same copy, given how many times these have all been around. I think that is part of the difficulty, if we could just pause for a moment. I did not read a subsection 91a(4) or 91a(5).

Mr. Chairman: Maybe I should read it myself for the benefit of everyone. I shall read it again if you do not mind, and members can compare it to what they have on their desks.

Mrs. Grier moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“91 a(1) Section 20 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(6a) Any person may, by written notice mailed to or served upon the director and the board within 15 days after the giving of the notice referred to in subsection (3a), require a hearing by the board.

“(2) Subsection 20(7) of the said act is amended by striking out ‘to whom a stop order is directed’ in the first line.

“(3) Subsection 20(10) of the said act is amended by adding at the end thereof ‘and shall give notice of the rescinding order to the municipality referred to in subsection (3a) and to the public in such manner as the director considers appropriate.’”

Is that what the members have on their desks?

Ms. Hart: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies. I was reading from the wrong copy.

If I might begin again, the amendment of the member would be acceptable if it omitted from within the amendment subsections 91a(6a) and 91a(2), so that the total amendment would start with subsection 91a(1), would include subsection 91a(3a) and would include at the bottom of the paragraph subsection 91a(3). Otherwise, it will not be accepted.

Mr. Chairman: Subsection 91a(3) would, I guess, be renumbered as subsection 91a(2), since you would eliminate the current subsection 91a(2).

Ms. Hart: That is right.

Mrs. Grier: We take whatever crumbs fall from the table. I am happy to move deletion of those two paragraphs.

Mr. Chairman: Do you wish to withdraw this amendment?

Mrs. Grier: Withdraw this amendment and move another one?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, please.

Mrs. Grier moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“91 a(1) Section 20 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

Mrs. Grier: It may be that subsection 91a(3), the last paragraph, may need to be renumbered in accordance with the other sections of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Fair enough.

Motion agreed to.

Section 91a agreed to.

Section 92 agreed to.

Section 93 agreed to.

Section 94:

Mrs. Grier: I withdraw my amendments.

Section 94 agreed to.

Sections 95 and 96 agreed to.

Section 97:

Mrs. Grier: I withdraw my amendments.

Section 97 agreed to.

Sections 98 to 101, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We shall go back to the first section, as agreed.

Section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Hart moves that clause 1(1)(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in subsection 1(4) of the bill, be amended by adding at the end thereof “as defined in this subsection.”

Ms. Hart: It appears that in the bill “municipality” has been defined in two different ways, and it was for clarity that this was added.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

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

GASOLINE HANDLING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 133, An Act to amend the Gasoline Handling Act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am pleased to introduce for second reading amendments to the Gasoline Handling Act, amendments that will help prevent underground storage tanks from leaking. The legislation applies to tanks at private outlets, which include those buried under farms, transportation companies, factories, institutions and municipalities.

Although it has been illegal to install unprotected tanks for the last 13 or 14 years, since 1974, older, unprotected ones could leak automotive fuels into our soil and waterways if preventive measures are not taken. The bill that is before the House today for second reading requires that tank locations be identified and it prohibits suppliers from filling tanks that do not meet our safety and registration requirements. Anyone contravening the act faces penalties of up to $10,000 in fines and/or a year in jail.

The legislation will enable the government in this province to meet its 1991 deadline for having all underground steel tanks and associated piping protected from external corrosion. In turning our attention to tanks at private outlets, we are complementing initiatives already well under way for upgrading tanks at retail outlets and removing abandoned tanks.

Without such protection, automotive fuel could leak into the ground water, contaminating Ontario’s drinking supplies and waterways for great distances. This fuel could even travel through sewer systems or enter buildings through basements. Then all it takes is a small spark for vapours to burst into flame or explode. In one of the worst Ontario incidents to date, an entire sewage pumping station was destroyed by gasoline from a leaking underground storage tank.

Medical research has found that prolonged exposure to gasoline vapour may harm people, animals and vegetation. Even minute quantities of leaked fuels can cause serious taste and odour problems in water supplies. In the soil, automotive fuels can interfere with plant growth and reproduction. On shorelines and beaches, it can threaten wildlife, waterfowl and vegetation.

1640

In addition to a multitude of concerns -- safety, health and environmental -- there are heavy financial costs to tank owners who may have to clean up a spill, a far more expensive job than upgrading or removing a tank before the trouble occurs. That is what this bill is all about.

Because the tanks are buried, most people are not aware of the threat they pose at private outlets, but I hope and believe my colleagues all see the importance of these amendments to the health and wellbeing of the people of Ontario. In order to meet the 1991 deadline, we must begin identifying tank locations as soon as possible. That way, we can get on with this important phase of the very comprehensive program the government has undertaken.

Mr. Swart: I rise to participate in the debate and to say immediately that one cannot object to this bill; it meets a very real need in our society.

I suppose a question one should legitimately ask is why, when the amendments were put before this House, I think it was in 1982 -- and I know the people over there cannot answer for that -- they did not at that time include this technique of identifying those private tanks, which often can be the ones most likely to leak because frequently they do not get the attention and the expertise that those people who operate the commercial outlets do.

It is clear from this bill that the declarations that these tanks are in a fit condition have to be made by January 1991 or it will be illegal for anybody to fill these tanks. It is also clear that by October 31 of this year the director must be notified of any tanks that were filled in 1987, and there is a deadline, January 1 of the coming year, for tanks that are filled up to September 30, 1988. I do not have any objections to those and I do not have any objections to the timing. But I will invite the minister to get up when I am finished, in about one minute from now, and state why he has limited the search for the location of those tanks back only to the year 1987.

It seems to me that there probably are numbers of tanks, scores of them, perhaps even hundreds of them around this province. Farms abandoned by their farmers may have half-full tanks sitting there that may have been filled in 1985 or 1986, and we will not be able to find those tanks through these deadlines. Any of the tanks that are being used at the present time, of course, will be located by this technique, but why would we not have used this legislation to have located tanks which may have been abandoned and may still be half-full of gasoline or some similar product? Why not go back further?

I do not have any exact date in mind, but it just seems to me this is the opportunity, that we should be doing that. Granted, perhaps those older tanks are not going to be filled again, but they could be put back in use again. Why limit this to the year 1987? Although I do not have an amendment prepared, I say quite frankly it might be wise to go into committee to change that date, a very minor amendment, if it is desirable to locate those tanks that were filled prior to that time and have now been abandoned. Unless the minister can convince me otherwise, I think it is desirable to locate those tanks.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Does any other member wish to participate in the debate? If not, the honourable minister in reply.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I thought the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) was going to have something to say on this.

I am not sure in response to the two questions from my friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). The answer to the first question is that I do not know why this was not handled in 1982. The member has raised a question of putting the onus on suppliers, in effect, to report to the director by October of this year for all 1987 usages of these storage tanks and by January 1, 1989, I believe, for those usages in the first nine months of this year.

Very clearly, it was our expectation, and I say that to my friend, that usage over the last 21 months would be appropriate and would identify the vast majority. I have asked my officials to take a quick look at going back any further, but we could get into problems. I am advised one of the problems would be that transporters and suppliers would not have records any further back.

I acknowledge what my friend is saying, that it may leave us with a very small number of tanks with gasoline in them. I do note for my friend that by January 1, 1991, such tanks may not be used. It is not a perfect solution, but this takes us a very long way forward and certainly will get us virtually all of those underground tanks in the province, save a handful where there is some small amount of gasoline, and yet the tank, in effect, as my friend points out, has been abandoned.

I am not certain that even with an amendment, if we went back to 1982 or 1975, we would necessarily find those tanks in what my friend acknowledged in his own remarks could be abandoned farms or some kind of abandoned property. I am not sure we can pin a date. Certainly, we think by going back the 21 months that we will appropriately identify thousands and thousands of these storage tanks that we can ensure by 1991 do have the proper outer protections.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

PREPAID SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 26, An Act to regulate Prepaid Services.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As members in the House are aware, many consumers in Ontario have suffered, some quite recently, financial losses when fitness clubs to which they have made upfront payments have closed their doors. There is also a growing concern with modelling, diet, talent and similar clubs which require members to prepay for services.

While we cannot prevent these kinds of companies from going bankrupt, we can soften, and this bill attempts to soften, the financial impact on consumers by imposing a limitation on the terms and the lengths of these contracts. We can help those consumers also to be protected from any high-pressure sales tactics, and that is what this bill attempts to do.

It will limit potential losses for consumers by restricting the contract length to one year and by requiring that instalment plans and monthly payment options be offered. In addition, initiation fees cannot be greater than double the annual membership fee and consecutive contracts or contracts for similar activities are prohibited. Although these clubs can still sell memberships before the club opens, this bill will require them to hold these funds in trust until five days after the club actually opens for active membership.

1650

To curb high-pressure sales tactics, the bill will provide for a five-day cooling off period as well, during which the fees must remain in trust. Clubs will be prevented from automatically renewing memberships, something which has bothered a number of consumers quite a bit in the past. Renewals will be permitted only if members have been notified in advance and reminded of their right to refuse.

Since the bill was introduced last November, certain amendments have been made, and I will be proposing these in committee of the whole.

First, to allow for possible mail or banking delays, club operators will have 20 days instead of 10 to issue a refund to the customer after cancellation of the contract. The second amendment deals with the membership contract. Only the services purchased by the customer must be listed on the contract, along with the price for each service in the instalment plan chosen by the customer. These two amendments are essentially housekeeping in nature but will clarify the intent that we had in introducing the bill.

We are acting on behalf of not only the 125,000 Ontario consumers who lost out when their health clubs went under but also the growing number of consumers who are prepaying for similar services. This legislation responds to a specific issue while at the same time catching other problems with prepaid contracts in the same net. However, in taking this approach, we have been careful not to capture transactions -- prepayment of theatre tickets, for example -- that have not traditionally, up to this time, in any way presented difficulties for consumers.

The failure of about 25 fitness clubs since January 1987 demonstrates the need for this legislation to pass as quickly as possible. It is our role to protect consumers from some of the losses that have resulted from contracts that require large payments for services that may never be received. I want to urge all members to support this important new consumer protection legislation.

Mr. Swart: I would say immediately that a bill to provide protection for those individual members of clubs and those customers who prepay services in a variety of organizations has been long needed. The reasons put forth by the minister are valid. Some 40 fitness clubs have folded in the last four years, and in most of those, some of the members have lost money, some of them substantial amounts of money.

We in the New Democratic Party have been pushing for this kind of legislation for many, many years, and we are glad to see that the bill is finally being dealt with. Although we think it is not totally adequate and will be moving some amendments to it, nevertheless it is a bill that will provide substantially more protection, substantially more than nothing, for those people who are members of these clubs.

I might say that I was involved in the issue as the critic for the New Democratic Party, and I raised it in this Legislature, when Vic Tanny’s closed down some seven years ago. I might also add that it is the only time in this Legislature when I have at least been formally notified that I was going to have a suit brought against me if I did not make a retraction. The day after I raised it in the Legislature, the Toronto Star had an article about it. I was out of town; I could not be reached, and the Toronto Star withdrew its comments and apologized. When I was contacted by the Vic Tanny’s representatives the next day, I said I certainly was not going to withdraw my comments, that what I had said was correct and, in fact, I had more information to provide. Although that pressure was kept up on me for another week or 10 days, eventually they backed off and I never did apologize, nor would I apologize for comments which I had made that were correct.

So this is not something new. It is something, quite frankly, that should have been dealt with by the government of the day at least back at that time when the major health club, Vic Tanny’s, folded. We know that just this last winter and spring two clubs folded, the one in Brantford -- and people there lost a substantial amount of money -- and then the Sheppard Club in North York. It is essential that we have this kind of legislation on the books.

This bill provides for a five-day cooling-off period after a contract is signed, and certainly we would agree with that.

It provides for a maximum contract length of one year, and we would agree with that.

There is prohibition against assigning of sequential or concurrent contracts unless the services are distinctly different from those in the first contract. Again, that is necessary.

It provides a limitation on initiation fees to an amount not to exceed twice the annual membership fee. We think twice that limit is totally unreasonable. The initiation fee should not be any greater than the annual membership fee, because it is just another way of getting around the prohibition on upfront money. We will be moving an amendment to that.

There is a provision that moneys received for services which are not yet available -- in other words, if you sign up before the club opens -- will be put in trust. It also provides that all operators must make available at least one monthly instalment plan to their members as well as the yearly membership fee or anything up to a yearly membership fee.

The renewal of contracts, which seems only reasonable in any transaction, is permitted only with prior notification to the member, who is given the right to refuse the renewal. It seems a bit of a condemnation of the commercial legislation in this province that, up until this bill is passed, somebody can renew a contract without even contacting you about that renewal.

As I said, we feel there are some shortcomings in this bill, and we have submitted certain amendments to the minister. I do make some apology to him and the critic for the Conservative Party that I did not have them to him sooner, but I think they are pretty straightforward and can be dealt with.

Those amendments will include a new section that all fees paid in advance be deposited into a trust account and paid to the operator only as they are earned. If you take out a year’s membership in one of these fitness clubs, that money will be put in trust and paid to the operator only on a monthly basis.

We also will be moving an amendment to provide that all contracts in effect on the day the bill receives royal assent will be deemed to expire one year following that day. We limit these contracts in here to one year, but there are certain fitness clubs today, as I understand, that have contracts for three years or perhaps even longer periods of time. It seems reasonable that if we say a person should not be tied in, then we need not make it retroactive, but one year from the time this legislation passes they will have the right to determine whether they want to stay with that fitness club or terminate their membership.

I believe at one time, at least -- and my understanding is that there are none today -- you could have a life membership in some of these clubs. If there are any left, I do not think it is fair to leave those people hanging out to dry.

We have already stated that we believe the maximum initiation fee, which this legislation sets at double the annual membership fee, is unreasonable and just provides another opportunity for the fitness clubs, if they wish, to decide that everybody must pay this high membership fee and get that money in, and they can fold afterwards.

I think it is significant that the club which folded in Brantford -- I believe I am correct in saying this -- operated for only two months. If some club decided it was going to have an initiation fee that was double the annual membership fee -- which could be $500, perhaps even up to $1 ,000 -- got all those funds in and then folded immediately, a lot of people would be ripped off in that regard.

1700

We also want to make it clear by another amendment which we will put to this bill that “monthly instalment plan” means 12 equal monthly payments and that service charges for such a plan cannot exceed 15 per cent of the annual membership fee.

It is all very well, on the one hand, to say that any of these clubs must provide for a monthly payment plan, but again, if they are going to charge two or three times as much for the monthly payment plan as they do for the lump-sum payment for a year’s membership, then they are not really serious at all about having a monthly payment plan. If it is going to have any meaning, it must be that they are not going to be permitted to charge excessive costs for the payment plan if it is on a monthly basis.

With those qualifications and with the intent to amend this bill when it goes into committee, we will be supporting this bill on second reading.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions with respect to the remarks made by the member for Welland-Thorold?

Mr. Wildman: Ditto.

Mr. Runciman: I just indicate that our party will be supporting the bill and the government amendments.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: In moving second reading, let me just indicate that I know my friend the member for Welland-Thorold thinks this matter is long overdue. I am certainly pleased that this, along with other important new protection for consumers in Ontario, will be debated in this forum and, I hope, brought to third reading while my good friend the member for Welland-Thorold is still here. Certainly we all acknowledge his contribution over the years on behalf of the consumers of this province. As he will appreciate, we acknowledge it a little more loudly as he takes his departure than perhaps we did in the other years.

I say only that I do note his comments on the amendments. I will have some comments on his proposals as he brings them forward individually in committee of the whole House.

I would suggest to my friend, though, in anticipation, that he may want to look at his amendment to section 8 of the bill. In effect, he has two different matters he is trying to amend in one, and he may want to split them, because I may want to support one of the amendments.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

PREPAID SERVICES ACT

Consideration of Bill 26, An Act to regulate Prepaid Services.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that subsection 2(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(3) Subject to subsection (4), this act does not apply to a contract in force at the time this act comes into force.

“(4) Any contract in force on the day this act comes into force may be cancelled by the customer at any time after one year after this act comes into force upon the customer giving the operator one month’s written notice of cancellation.

“(5) If a contract is cancelled under subsection (4), the operator shall refund to the customer the unearned portion of payments made to the operator by the customer under the cancelled contract.”

Mr. Swart: Very briefly, I think it is pretty obvious what we are attempting to do in this amendment, and that is to provide for the option of a customer, who may now be tied into a contract that is more than one year in length, being able to cancel out of that contract upon due notification when this act is proclaimed.

I will just say it seems this is reasonable. I do not know how many people there are -- I was not able to find out -- who are tied into longer contracts, but I understand there is at least one fitness club and perhaps more with people tied into three-year contracts. If they are tied in, of course they are in some danger if those should fold. If the principle is sound that nobody should be tied in for more than one year, then I suggest this amendment should be passed by this Legislature.

It is not really a case of making this legislation retroactive. It is really making the whole purpose of this bill operative at the time the bill is passed, and therefore I hope this amendment can be accepted by the minister to provide a degree of equality to all members of fitness clubs.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Regrettably, that is exactly the view we would take of this; that is, that the amendment is essentially comparable to making the legislation retroactive. One of the concerns we would have in doing so -- I am sure my friend would share it, although I am sure he stands foursquare in continuing to support his amendment -- is that in our view, and I know the member would not want to do this, it could jeopardize the industry.

They have acted on the basis of certain financial expectations that are based, in some cases, on contracts now in place that run for a period longer than one year. Certainly, putting this new onus on them of cancellation after one year after the legislation takes effect could, I think, in some cases jeopardize the industry. The member points out that we have had a number of failures over the last few years. I do not think we want to do anything that would jeopardize the industry and add to them, so the government will not be supporting the amendment.

Mr. Runciman: I share the minister’s views. As a matter of principle, we have a great deal of difficulty in this party with retroactive legislation. Although the member feels it is something other than that, we share the view that it is indeed retroactive and also echo the minister’s views that it could put some firms in jeopardy.

Mr. Swart: If I could reply to those two comments, I would just state that of course it can put some clubs in jeopardy. I guess the decision we have to make is whether we want to put the club in jeopardy or leave these people in jeopardy. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, it is the people, the members who have suffered over these last years because we did not have protective legislation, and I come down and opt for the side of the members and the customers.

1710

Sure, there is a possibility that it can mean that some fitness club might fold if it lost a lot of members. On the other hand, if it is operating a good business, I think the members would want to stay there and the numbers that would opt out would be very small. It seems to me that if these members are getting the service they will stay there; and if enough of them are going to opt out that the club is going to fold, then perhaps it should fold.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Swart’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Wrye moves that clause 4(1)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out “available to” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof “contracted for by.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye further moves that clauses 4(1)(c) and (e) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(c) the price of the services contracted for;

“(e) if payment is to be made by instalment, the number of instalments, the amount of each instalment and the total additional cost, if any, for payment by instalment; and ... .”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Subsection 4(1) describes the information which must be on the contract between the operator and the customer. The way clauses 4(1)(b), (c) and (e) now read could be interpreted as meaning a cumbersome amount of changing information must form part of the contract.

The proposed amendments make it clear that only those services the customer has purchased, the price of those services, the method of payment and the particulars of the instalment plan chosen by the customer need form part of the contract. I again note that it is the contract we are talking about in this case, and that is why the wording has been changed.

Mr. Swart: I have no objection to this. I believe it improves the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that subsection 7(2) of the bill be amended by striking out the word “twice” in the second line thereof.

Mr. Swart: It is perfectly obvious what we are attempting to do here. At the present time the subsection says, “No operator shall charge an initiation fee that is greater than twice the annual membership fee.” If the word “twice” is eliminated, it will simply read, “No operator shall charge an initiation fee that is greater than the annual membership fee.”

It seems to me perfectly rational that if we and the government have decided by this legislation that nobody should have to pay for a membership fee for more than one year, why should anybody have to pay an initiation fee which is equal to two years? In fact, what the person then could be paying would be a three-year fee or an amount equal to a three-year membership fee.

Again, it is my understanding that there are not many clubs that charge initiation fees at the present time. It is an annual membership fee. This is just a way for some clubs to get around the kind of upfront payments that will be and can be in jeopardy. They are trying to get around the prohibition of those upfront payments. If there is only one fitness club in an area, nobody has any choice; clubs can exact that kind of tribute, which can be in jeopardy.

Certainly, I have some reservations about saying they can charge an initiation fee equal to one year’s fees. I moved this amendment the way it is in the hope that it would get through this House, because I believe it is unreasonable to permit and to charge that kind of initiation fee.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can see that my friend is trying to be reasonable and I know he had some views on initiation fees in the past which were even stronger. Regrettably, we are not going to be able to agree to the amendment.

With the proposed change, and there is no magic as to the amount, we think that limiting the amount to twice the annual membership fee will limit the exposure of members, which, as the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) points out, has been too great in the past.

The problem in limiting the initiation fee any further is really twofold: first of all, we would provide no recognition of the capital investment by operators; and second, and perhaps more important, I think it would have the likely effect of driving up the overall membership fees over a longer period of time, and I think that would be most unfortunate.

There are certainly cases, in this case as in any other, where there is an initiation fee, and a substantial one, to the operator. We will want to take a very careful look, but we think that in limiting this number to twice the annual membership fee, the exposure of consumers is reasonably limited. Thus, we will not support the amendment.

Mr. Runciman: We think the government’s position is reasonable.

Mr. Breaugh: Forty-five years of the same stuff.

Mr. Swart: Yes.

I would just like to say that I do not accept the arguments put forward by the minister, nor do I think the people of this province will accept the arguments put forward by the minister. Many of these fitness clubs are not starting up. They do not need the capital investment. They have been in operation for 10 or 20 years. Most of them got away from it, but a few of them still charge this initiation fee.

Now we are going to permit to them to charge initiation fees which are double. They do not need any new capital. If that is the way they are going to get capital in any event, it is a pretty risky business. I would think that they would be able to get capital from other sources, as they should, rather than upfront payments from their customers.

I just suggest that, once again, I see this as a matter on which the minister is leaning towards the side of the fitness clubs instead of the customers, the members. I think what he is permitting to be done here is even worse than the last one.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments? If not, are we ready to vote?

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 7 agreed to.

Section 8:

Mr. Swart: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, in the hope that we can get at least one amendment through, I would like to move this in two sections, if I may.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 8 of the bill be amended by striking out “payments on a monthly basis” at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof “equal monthly payments over the term of the contract.”

1720

Mr. Swart: I think what we are attempting to do is very obvious. It says “payments on a monthly basis”; it does not say “equal monthly basis.” They could say, “You have to put up three quarters of it in the first month and the rest of it is spread over the remaining 11 months.” I think this is simply better wording and says what I think the government intended to say in this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The government is pleased to accept this amendment.

Mr. Wildman: In that case, I will follow the lead of my friend the member for Welland-Thorold but I am very concerned about it.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments? If not, are we ready to vote? Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: I would like to move that section 8 be further amended by adding thereto the following:

“(2) In a plan for payments, the total amount paid by instalments should not exceed the membership or initiation fee, if applicable, by more than 15 per cent.”

Mr. Chairman: You have some words in there, sir, that I do not have on my sheet here. Would you please read it again?

Mr. Swart: This is the correct one. I found in my files more of these resolutions than I thought were there, and it is obvious some are old ones. I have the right one here. I believe I can send you a copy.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 8 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) In a plan for payments, the total amount paid by instalments shall not exceed the membership or initiation fee, as the case may be, by more than 15 per cent.”

Mr. Swart: We feel rather strongly that if you are going to have a workable prepayment monthly plan, you should not permit payments to be set at some excessive level. In fact, if they wanted to put in a monthly payment plan and the total fees were $500, they could charge $100 a month, up to $1,200. They might not like the idea of the monthly prepayment plan; they may want to get the money up front.

So we suggest that the total amount to be paid in under a monthly payment plan should not exceed their rate set on a yearly basis by more than 15 per cent. That allows them some additional money for the cost of collecting that payment every month and for the interest they will not get.

I am not wedded to that figure. If somebody thinks that is not enough, we would probably go for 20 per cent. But that seems a reasonable figure. It seems reasonable that we have to have some figure in there to prevent them from setting up a monthly plan that is going to be prohibitive and that nobody will use and by which, in effect, they will circumvent the intent of this act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The government does not support the amendment, but I am interested and curious. My friend suggests perhaps another figure. I am wondering if my friend may want to speak a little longer while I check to see whether the amendment might be supportable if we had another figure. Perhaps my friend would like to go into a little bit of additional argument.

Mr. Swart: I would do anything to prolong this so that the minister may hopefully be able to get some consent on this.

Mr. Chairman: Almost anything.

Mr. Swart: Yes; “almost anything” would be a better term. I have to say that this figure was picked out of the air by the government, like a lot of the other figures that are in this bill in particular. The 15 per cent figure may not be the one that should be used; it could be less. Certainly, that would take care of any interest that would accrue at today’s interest rates.

I realize there is some job collecting this and they have to send out notices to the people or have somebody there to bug them when they come in to get this monthly payment. However, I do not think it is reasonable to leave the option open for the fitness club to charge any fee it likes, which may have no relationship to the yearly fee.

I want to say here -- I am going to keep the minister sitting down for at least a minute or two after giving me the option -- that the majority of the fitness clubs do not attempt to exploit the members. I want to make that clear. Most of the legislation we pass in this House on most subjects is legislation for the minority of the operators among the population, as with those who speed on the roads. We only need legislation for those people who seem to be natural speeders on our highways. This is the same sort of thing.

We are not trying to penalize the legitimate companies, which are in the majority, but those who would try to exploit this. I think that is the whole purpose of this legislation; it has been the bad operators. Therefore, I hope the minister is smiling because he has a favourable answer to this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I was intrigued when my friend said he was not completely wedded to the 15 per cent number. Quite frankly, we were not prepared to support the amendment at the 15 per cent number because, again, I go back to the argument I made on an earlier clause we were discussing in clause-by-clause in committee of the whole. The member will note that operators must make these instalment payment plans available, and at 15 per cent, quite frankly, it would threaten the viability of some companies over a period of time.

I have discussed with my staff whether we ought to have a number at all. Certainly, I am intrigued and inclined towards a number, because otherwise an instalment payment plan could be made so outrageous that, as my friend I think points out, it would not be viable to any customer.

We believe that a figure of 25 per cent would be a much more reasonable figure. Most of these companies send out these contracts; they are in the 24 per cent or 25 per cent range now in virtually all cases. We think to be viable for companies, and we do want these various clubs to continue to operate for the consumers, that would be a reasonable number. I hope my friend can accept that. As I understand it, the wording would remain the same otherwise, that it should not exceed 25 per cent.

It has the dangerous potential of driving that up and making the maximum the minimum, but my friend does point out that without that, we have no number. We cannot accept it at 15 per cent.

Mr. Runciman: I think this whole exercise with respect to this amendment is a bit of a joke. Talk about flying by the seat of your pants. The minister runs out and consults with his advisers and comes back and says, “Well, I think maybe 25 per cent is OK.”

This is a bill that is going to have an impact on a lot of businesses in this province and we are having the minister and the critic for the official opposition both admitting they really do not know where they are coming from with respect to these figures and then trying to pass this kind of thing here today. To me, it is quite irresponsible. This is Big Brotherism in the extreme in respect of the government’s involvement. The critic for the official opposition says that most companies are not exploiting. I mean, how protective do we have to be of consumers? I think that most of them out there are mature individuals who, indeed, if most companies are acting in a responsible fashion, have options available to them and can shop around.

This is a convoluted piece of business. Both the minister and the critic have indicated they are flying by the seat of their pants in respect to the figures. I think we are going overboard. Let’s go with the original bill and not get into this kind of foolishness.

1730

Mr. Wildman: I was not going to participate in this debate, but I was provoked into it by my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman). Surely, that is what this place is about. It is an assembly of elected members who are here to debate and discuss legislation. We are in committee so that we have a give-and-take to try to improve legislation.

To say that a proposal made by any member of the House, whether he or she be a member of the opposition or the government party, that might be accepted by a minister as a result of the arguments put forward is to “fly by the seat of our pants” is to denigrate the whole process.

Surely, the reason that we are here is to look at the legislation seriously; if it is supportable, to support it; if we think it can be improved, to put forward amendments. If an opposition member proposes an amendment and says that he is not wedded to a particular figure because he does not have access to all of the research that a minister’s staff would have, and if a minister then says: “We will look at this. It makes sense, but we do not think the figure is correct;” and consults with staff, who then propose a more appropriate figure -- to say that is not a good process is to misunderstand the process. Surely, that is what we are all about.

I think my friend the member for Welland-Thorold has a record of concern for the consumer and of wanting to protect the consumer. He has indicated he is not wedded to the 15 per cent figure; the minister has indicated another figure. I am sure we can reach some accommodation, and I think to suggest that is not the way things should operate is to misunderstand the process.

Mr. Swart: I am prepared to accept the 25 per cent figure. I think it is better to have a ceiling in there, even if it is 25 per cent, although 15 per cent, in my view, may be more appropriate. I think it is better to have that figure in there.

Of course, I concur with the comments of my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). That is the purpose of this place. In fact, when I heard my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville get up, although I had some very strong reservations, I realized why we had more accord with a certain party two and a half years ago than we did with that party. At least there was some compromise.

I want your direction, Mr. Chairman, on how we proceed. I am willing to move an amendment to the amendment, if that is in order.

Mr. Chairman: I do not think that is necessary. If you are agreeable, we shall --

Mr. Swart: Yes, I am agreeable to having the 15 per cent figure at the end of my amendment changed to 25 per cent.

Mr. Wildman: There is just one comment I want to make. I do regret very much that this discussion has broken up the budding alliance between the member for Leeds-Grenville and the minister.

Mr. Chairman: Are we ready to vote? That being the case, since there have been some changes, I will reread it in its entirety, and I would like members to pay attention please.

Mr. Swart moves that section 8 be further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) In a plan for payments, the total amount paid by instalments shall not exceed the membership or initiation fee, if applicable, by more than 25 per cent.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

Section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Wrye moves that section 10 of the bill be amended by striking out “10” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “20.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Very briefly, the section provides for a refund to be made within 10 days where required by the act. I think it is fair to suggest that the realities of the marketplace indicate that although a customer’s cheque may clear on the day of issue, not-sufficient-funds cheques are sent back to the operator by regular mail. The proposed amendment to extend the refund period to 20 days obviates the possibility of an operator refunding against an NSF cheque and allows a more reasonable time to administer the process.

Mr. Swart: I am willing to accept this. I want to point out that this is twice now that I have accepted the minister’s change in figures. The arguments he makes are valid. It is true that length of time should be in there.

Mr. Runciman: We will be supporting it as well. We are being consistent; consistently fair.

Motion agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Section 11 agreed to.

Section 12:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 12 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(2) Every operator shall place, in the trust account set up under subsection (1), all payments received from customers.

“(3) No operator shall withdraw funds from a trust account except as they are earned on a month to month basis.”

Mr. Swart: The intent of what we are endeavouring to do here, I think, is perfectly obvious. By this method, there can be no ripoff of the customer’s funds if they have to be set in a trust fund over the year, even though they may pay in $500 as a membership fee for the year and $1,000 as initiation fee. If that $1,500 is set up in a trust fund and an operator can only draw out one twelfth of that money each month, it will eliminate any possibility of any customer having an amount of money he has paid lost to him.

I would point out, too, in proposing this amendment, and I am sure the minister is listening to this, that it is copied to a very substantial degree from his prepaid funeral services bill, where if you prepay funeral services, the money cannot be taken out. It has to be set up in a trust fund until it is actually used. What better proof could we use of the need but a bill that has been tabled by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye)?

It just provides additional protection to the consumer to prevent the kinds of things happening that have been happening with the fitness clubs. The minister says there have been 25 in the last four years that have folded and people have lost their money. This would prevent that from happening. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There are some differences here and the government will not be supporting this amendment. There are major differences between the Prepaid Funeral Services Act, 1987, and this act. Certainly, I think the key subsection 3 that says they can only be withdrawn as they are earned on a month to month basis really fails to understand and reflect the marketplace and the fact that in these various clubs that are covered under the legislation, the activity in terms of membership can vary quite wildly from month to month. Sometimes, just as in a lot of other business enterprises, the real profit is taken in a very short time of the year. As it is with most retailers, when it is taken around Christmas, so it is with most of these clubs.

We think this amendment (1) would again threaten the viability of some of these clubs and (2) would in any case provide, for what is often a fairly small business, a very confusing and bureaucratic set of rules which would be entirely inappropriate to the situation.

1740

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments? Are we ready to vote?

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry? All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 12 agreed to.

Sections 13 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

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

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 52, An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The purpose of these amendments is to prevent any access to a consumer’s credit file without his or her knowledge. The new provisions we are proposing would require that the prescreening of credit files or any derivative thereof be treated as a consumer report and that affected consumers be notified before any unsolicited search could be conducted.

As members may be aware, information collected by consumer reporting agencies can be valuable to companies that wish to prescreen prospective customers. Although the practice is not a problem in Ontario now, it is in some other jurisdictions, and we want to prevent such a situation from happening here.

Our existing legislation requires the consumer be notified when a search is to be conducted following a consumer’s application for credit and also when any benefit has been denied on the basis of the credit report, but there is currently no statutory requirement that a consumer be notified when an unsolicited search is carried out on a credit file. That means the consumer would not only be unaware of the search of his file but might be denied credit without his knowledge.

The proposed amendments will ensure the integrity of consumers’ credit files by requiring consumers be notified before any unsolicited search is conducted. In this way, consumers will know that the reports are being done on them and have the opportunity to ensure that the information in their credit file is correct. The consumer’s right to know what is being reported about him and to whom must be guaranteed. I hope all members will support this important consumer protection legislation.

Mr. Swart: Once again, we have to support the principle of this bill, in fact enthusiastically. I think it is fair to say that we in this party have been leaders in endeavouring to prevent the dissemination of sometimes faulty information on people being used against them for credit and in many other ways.

This certainly becomes, we all agree, more important in the computer age, when information can be sold and can be spread very easily. Anybody should have the right to know ahead of time and to refuse permission for anybody to look at his or her credit file.

There is a young woman here in Toronto who has contacted me on occasion over the last year. She has had false information on her files and has been unable to get credit because of this false information. She got it corrected, but for some reason or other, some of the banks and the other financial institutions will still not give her credit, even though that information was false. The purpose of this bill, to further tighten up the option for people to get private information on you, is something I think we all recognize as desirable.

Mr. Runciman: I just indicate that we are supportive of the legislation and have no difficulty with it.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Minister, we are very close to 5:45 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank my friends for their support and move second reading of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

ENVIRONMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 148, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting the Environment.

1757

Mr. Chairman: Order please. We have five votes to take.

The committee divided on Mrs. Grier’s amendment to section 5 of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 22; nays 60.

Section 5 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mrs. Grier’s amendments to section 10, which were negatived on the same vote.

Section 10 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mrs. Grier’s amendment to section 13, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 13 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mrs. Grier’s amendment to section 22, which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: As we approach the adjournment hour, I will take the House into the following confidence and indicate that tomorrow, this being a short week, we will proceed, as time permits, and not necessarily in this order. with third reading of Bill 107, and then, again not necessarily in this order, second reading of Bill 22, Bill 124, Bill 159, Bill 68, Bill 153, Bill 84, Bill 85, Bill 141 and Bill 142.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

21 juin 1988