Journal des débats 1988-juin-22 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

L’hon. M. Grandmaître : Monsieur le Président, j’aimerais demander l’assentiment unanime de l’Assemblée pour faire une déclaration relative à la Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Accordé.

LA FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

L’hon. M. Grandmaître : Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je voudrais souligner le fait que tous les francophones du pays célébreront, le vendredi 24 juin, la Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Cette fête a beaucoup évolué au fil des ans. Ici en Ontario surtout, de plus en plus de communautés francophones organiseront des soirées populaires et allumeront le feu traditionnel de la Saint-Jean, le feu de joie et d’amitié.

Oui, nous sommes heureux cette année, car, depuis l’adoption de la Loi 8 sur les services en français de 1986, nous travaillons avec acharnement au développement de services gouvernementaux offerts en français. Je suis heureux de constater que plusieurs ministères ont déjà mis en oeuvre des services en français destinés à leur clientèle dans les régions désignées.

Les francophones de l’Ontario ont confiance dans l’avenir et assument de plus en plus la place qui leur revient dans la société ontarienne. Ce mouvement s’inscrit dans une démarche qui allie la fraternité et la collaboration. Tous les Ontariens peuvent être très fiers de vivre en Ontario.

Merci bien, Monsieur le Président.

Mlle. Martel : Nous profitons de l’occasion, aujourd’hui, pour adresser à tous les Canadiens français nos souhaits de bonne fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Nous savons que c’est vendredi la fête nationale des Canadiens d’origine française, et plusieurs activités populaires sont planifiées dans toutes les régions de l’Ontario pour célébrer la journée.

La fête sert aussi à démontrer le dynamisme d’esprit et la vitalité de la communauté francophone en Ontario. Je voudrais souligner en particulier la grande contribution des Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes qui ont combattu pour la protection de la langue et de la culture françaises en Ontario. Il y a eu des difficultés, bien sûr, mais grâce aux efforts des leaders de la communauté francophone, grâce à tous ceux qui ont lutté pour garder le français dans leur famille, dans leur ville et dans leur vie quotidienne, grâce à leur fierté et à leur ténacité, ils ont travaillé fort et continuellement pour mettre sur pied des écoles et des organismes linguistiques et culturels.

J’aimerais profiter de cette occasion aussi pour féliciter tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes pour leur progrès. Ce n’est pas souvent que nous avons l’occasion de célébrer nos succès. Je suis fière des changements d’attitude qui ont été évidents partout dans la province au cours des dernières années en ce qui concerne les droits des Franco-Ontariens.

Il reste beaucoup à faire. De notre part, nous espérons que le français sera bien accepté partout. Nous espérons que dans les années à venir, les francophones auront enfin la possibilité de vivre leur vie quotidienne en français. Je contemple l’avenir avec confiance et je prévois le jour où nous pourrons tous accepter et partager le riche patrimoine culturel et linguistique des francophones de l’Ontario et partout au Canada.

En attendant, fêtons ce jour spécial, un jour de fierté et de célébration pour tous les francophones de l’Ontario et des autres provinces. Bonne fête !

M. Pope : Au nom de M. Brandt, le chef de notre parti, ainsi que de tous les membres de notre caucus, j’aimerais appuyer les paroles du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones (M. Grandmaître) au sujet de la fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

C’est vraiment une fête non seulement pour les gens du Québec mais également pour toute la province de l’Ontario et tous les francophones du Canada. Il faut souligner aussi les contributions que les francophones ont faites, dans chaque région de l’Ontario, à notre vie culturelle et économique. Je sais, en tant que député de Cochrane-Sud, que les communautés francophones de Timmins, de Black River-Matheson et d’Iroquois Falls ont contribué grandement à la vie de notre province depuis quelques décennies.

Il faut souligner aujourd’hui les contributions de toute la francophonie de l’Ontario, et nous sommes très fiers d’appuyer les commentaires du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones concernant la fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Alors, bonne fête à tous les francophones.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for members’ statements, last Thursday the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) raised a point of order regarding the application of standing order 88(d), which reads as follows: “The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days unless he indicates that he requires more time because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that he has declined to answer, as the case may be.”

This matter has been raised many times in the past. It is not a new matter, but I think it is important to take the time to make a definitive ruling on the point.

Members, I am sure, are aware of the theory behind the right of members to ask questions in the House. Basically, they can ask questions of ministers on any matter that affects that minister’s administrative responsibility. In the case of an oral question, there is no procedural obligation on the part o the minister to reply. However, in the case of a written question, such a procedural obligation does exist, according to standing order 88(d).

I, therefore, must find that the honourable member for Nipissing has raised a valid point of order, and I strongly recommend that ministers abide by standing order 88(d) and reply to the House within 14 days.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: This Saturday afternoon in Oshawa, the Maple Glen Housing Co-operative will officially open its project. This is one of our smaller housing co-ops, but one of our nicer ones, I might add. It consists of 15 two-bedroom, 22 three-bedroom and 3 four-bedroom townhouses.

1340

We had invited the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) to attend. I understand she will be busy elsewhere on that day, but I really would like the minister to attend one of these functions in Oshawa. We will show her a half-dozen other co-op housing projects in Oshawa, put together by a range of people in our community, from Gary Kent, who has co-ordinated a lot of the co-op housing in our area, to a fellow by the name of Lucas Peacock. Some might consider Lucas Peacock to be a senior citizen, until they meet him and he runs all over their head. He is full of very good ideas.

I want to warn the minister that before she comes to Oshawa and meets people like Gary Kent and Lucas Peacock, she should load up her purse and have Sam Bornstein carry an extra one with him, because she is going to need a lot of money to fulfil the needs of these people, who are very anxious that they help themselves in providing what is now a great tradition in Oshawa; from people who need some kind of assistance with their housing, to people who are ordinary Canadians, who just need a chance to get into good housing, to our senior citizens, who are fighting very hard to provide decent housing for themselves.

The minister will see a wide variety of good innovative ideas and a lot of very energetic people. What they could use from the minister and from our federal government is just a little bit of help.

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Mr. McCague: For the past five days the city of Toronto and the people of Ontario have been host to the leaders of the Group of Seven. The co-operation and effort by all levels of government and numerous private organizations smoothly resolved the immense logistical difficulties. The combination of efficiency by the summit organizers and disciplined politeness by the summit security officials kept the attention of over 3,000 world journalists on the leaders and our province, where it belonged.

The success of the summit was due in large part to the professionalism displayed by all the members of the summit security staff. I am sure all parties of this House will join in commending the Metro Toronto Police, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for their excellent work.

While ensuring the continued safety of all members of the summit, they maintained as low as presence as possible. When there was an illegal march down University Avenue on Sunday, the police maintained a calm discipline which quickly defused the situation. From the initial preparations until after the last of the leaders left Toronto, the summit security forces proved their world-class calibre. We would like to commend their special efforts and those of all the other organizers. Our city, those involved and all Ontarians can be justifiably proud of the example they have set for all the world.

CARABRAM

Mr. Callahan: It gives me great pleasure to rise before the House today and ask each member to look at his or her desk. They will find an invitation to the kickoff for a multicultural event that takes place in the city of Brampton on July 8, 9 and 10. The invitation, which has been extended to each and every one of the members, is clear and is set out in the brochure. It is inviting members to meet with us on June 27 between 5:30 and 7 p.m. They will have an opportunity to see many of our pavilion people dressed in their costumes. Members will also receive some of the food from the various pavilions and will be able to refresh themselves with beverages.

Carabram started in Brampton in 1983. Between then and 1987, it has gone from 4 to 16 pavilions. This year we have an extra pavilion, an Arabian pavilion. The Italian and Arabian pavilions will entertain all the members if they care to join us on June 27. That perhaps would include belly dancers. I invite members to come.

As for the statistics over the years, we started out with 1,500 people. In the last count of last year’s celebration, we had risen to 35,000 people, not only from all over Ontario but also from outside of Canada. I invite members to come. I would read all the names of the pavilions, but six seconds does not allow me to do that and I might fail to recognize one of them. I invite and urge members to come.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Mackenzie: At two o’clock today at city hall in Hamilton, the the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) will be making an announcement as to a settlement, hopefully, of the school transfer issue that has caused an awful lot of agony in our community. We do not want to make too many comments until we see all the details of this transfer, but it is unfortunate that our community has had to go through the agony and controversy that have been involved in this school transfer issue.

We feel the decision originally should have been arrived at by the boards, and now with help it seems that is the case. We do not know whether this would have happened without the arbitrator’s decision in the interim and without the decision of the additional financial help that Toronto received. How much of a factor that has been in the decision, we simply do not know.

Suffice to say that if the boards are in total agreement with the arrangement that has been worked out in the latest rounds of negotiation, we will probably accept it and be happy that we have resolved the decision.

I think there is a lesson here for us in terms of the effort that is put forth in advance of having to go this particular arbitration route. Hopefully, the rest of the province will be spared some of the problems we have had in Hamilton as a result of this.

Mr. Jackson: I would like to comment about the settlement which will be announced in Hamilton in about 15 minutes by the Minister of Education.

I understand the most important cornerstone of this announcement will be that Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, the fully viable public school in the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton, has been retained by the Hamilton board of education.

I think it is important that it be recorded that it took the combined efforts, the hard work of students, teachers, trustees and politicians on the floor of this Legislature, to get this government to honour its commitment under Bill 30, so that we are now retaining viable schools in Ontario in the public system.

I understand the settlement will result in an expense to the government of several million dollars involving four new schools and also that this settlement will only displace approximately 400 students.

I think it is important to note that when the issue was raised in this House -- this government was asked to intervene last year before the acrimony could ensue between young people in the Hamilton district -- this government chose not to get involved.

It is unfortunate this has happened and it is unfortunate that the Minister of Education himself has chosen not to come and speak in this House on the subject, but rather to make the announcement which has been known since early this morning.

AIR-INDIA DISASTER

Mr. Velshi: Tomorrow is the third anniversary of the tragic crash of Air-India flight 182 off the east coast of Ireland.

All of us were stunned by the loss of innocent lives; that tragedy was even more profoundly felt with the outrageous deaths of whole families, including children.

I wish to take this opportunity to express on behalf of all members of this Legislature our deepest condolences to the families and friends of all those who lost their lives.

Commemoration services will be taking place across this country and elsewhere throughout the various communities affected by this horrible disaster. Our prayers and our thoughts are with them at this time.

I would like to extend an invitation to all members to attend a commemoration ceremony at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow on the front lawn of this Legislature.

CFTO LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Reville: I think it is important for me to draw to the attention of the House the presence again today in the Speaker’s gallery of Tim Sheehy from CFTO. He is here with a camera today.

I know the House has been advised by you, Mr. Speaker, that you have an administrative responsibility only for the Speaker’s gallery; you allot the camera positions on the request of the press gallery. The House knows the press gallery does not want to connive with this union-busting and is of the view that CFTO scabs should not be in this place. Perhaps we should ask the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) whether she can recommend to the Legislature some kind of treatment for scabs.

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Mr. Cousens: I would like to compliment the federal government for the excellent job it did in promoting through the summit not only our country, but also our great city of Metropolitan Toronto and Toronto itself.

There is no doubt that through the promotion of this city and its beauty, the people and everything that make it a great place to live, it is going to be known more throughout the world because of this summit taking place in our community than would otherwise have been the case.

I am very proud to have seen what they did with this city. They have left no bad tracks. In fact, what they have done is present our city the way it should be to all people.

1350

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

PROCEDURES IN THE CHAMBER

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for ministerial statements, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that one member, during his statement, referred to an item that was placed on all members’ desks. I believe we have guidelines for that, and I would suggest that before any members do that, they clear it through the appropriate office.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

MULTICULTURALISM

Hon. Mr. Phillips: We in the Legislature are, of course, all aware that we live in a society that is becoming increasingly more diverse. As a government, we are committed to responding to this diversity so that all of us may benefit from the substantial wealth of cultural, economic and social advantages that it offers us.

As a government, we demonstrated our commitment a year ago, when after extensive consultation with our cultural communities, the then Minister of Citizenship and Culture, the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Oddie Munro), proclaimed this government’s multiculturalism strategy. Today, I am pleased to report to the House on the achievements of the first year of our strategy and to look ahead to the next year.

The strategy represents a new direction in our thinking about multiculturalism. What it does it to proclaim that multiculturalism is very broad in scope. It embraces all cultural groups, and the commitment to cultural diversity is a government-wide commitment. This is contained in our strategy. While the Ministry of Citizenship will continue to play a crucial role in ensuring the implementation of that strategy, all ministries share in the commitment to the goals of the strategy.

During the first year, we have made substantial progress. It is fair to say that virtually every ministry has initiated significant initiatives in the area of multiculturalism. I might say that we have at least 60 different initiatives that have been undertaken across the government in the first year. All of these reflect the development of a unique partnership between government and the over 100 different cultural groups that we are blessed with in this province.

The benefits that flow from this partnership can be seen in a few examples of some of the initiatives that I would like to share with the House.

One was initiated by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), with a policy on race and ethnocultural equality, the goal of which is to ensure that we have an educational system that truly ensures equal educational opportunity for all children. The policy deals with issues such as streaming, culturally sensitive school curricula and a diverse workforce.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) is preparing, in five languages, a newcomers’ guide and video on local government to ensure understanding and to facilitate the access of our multicultural communities to local government; and the ministry’s programs anticipate that every citizen, regardless of his background, will feel comfortable and will be allowed to participate fully in our local political system.

We in the Ministry of Citizenship established a very significant task force to review the whole area of certification requirements for Ontario professions and trades in things such as engineering, medicine, welding and masonry.

In addition to the number of ongoing initiatives which we began in our first year, I am very pleased today to announce that we have, in the second year of our strategy, approximately 75 or 76 initiatives. We are funding about 63 of these from a multicultural fund of about $7.7 million. I would just like to highlight a few of the initiatives, again to give the House some examples of the variety of initiatives that we are undertaking in our multicultural strategy.

The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), for example, will provide interpreter services through community-based groups for use in one-on-one consultations between rent review staff and clients whose first language is neither French nor English.

The Ministry of Education, which is completing its analysis of responses to the report that I mentioned earlier, has appointed Dr. Mavis Burke, a well-known individual, as a special adviser on race relations to the deputy minister. She will assume the lead in preparation of policy development in this area for both the minister and the boards of education.

Of importance in this area, an interministerial committee has been convened to develop a systematic and co-ordinated long-term approach to the delivery of English-as-a-second-language and French-as-a-second-language programs. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities will be participating in this interministerial committee along with staff from my ministry.

Much of the credit for the achievements of the first year of our multiculturalism strategy is due to the contribution of the cultural communities themselves. Frankly, it was their valuable input that helped to shape the strategy, and it will be their ongoing efforts that guarantee for us its success in the future.

In our multicultural society, we are all now mainstream. Any true partnership assumes two or more equally contributing individuals or groups, but in order to contribute each must be given an equal opportunity to participate.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I thank the members of our cultural communities for joining us in a partnership, and I reaffirm our ongoing commitment to ensuring their continuing participation, as individuals and as communities, in the development of a dynamic multicultural society here in our province.

RESPONSES

MULTICULTURALISM

Miss Martel: Very briefly, I want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips). I want to commend the minister on the work that he has been responsible for completing in this last year. Certainly, we on this side of the House and in this party would agree with the initiatives that are being taken to respond to the multicultural communities in this province.

The multicultural communities are an extremely important part of our history, the history of this province and indeed of this country. They bring to our culture a broad range of perspectives, history, communication and culture that otherwise we might not have if we lived south of the border. I want to say, in reviewing quickly what the minister has had to say and the initiatives he has outlined, we have a long way to go but it seems the government is beginning to move in the right direction.

If I may, concerning the Ministry of Citizenship’s establishing a task force to review certification requirements for entering Ontario professions and trades such as engineering, medicine, welding and masonry, I would just like to make the point at this time that I hope the task force is looking seriously at the certification requirements for those in the medical profession and those foreign trained medical professionals who would like to enter and practise in this province. Indeed, many of them are already located here and have experienced tremendous difficulties in trying to get certification or any type of lab openings in order to actually practise in this province.

As one of the northern members who travelled on the northern health tour, I must say I was surprised that the three doctors who visited us in Fort Frances said that in fact the only solution to the lack of doctors in northern Ontario was that this government was going to have to allow foreign medical professionals to come to this province and actually work in northern Ontario and that the criteria for them to practise would have to be loosened, because in the view of the three doctors who met with us, there was no other way we were going to have enough professionals to serve the needs of those in northern communities.

I certainly hope that in this particular regard the ministry is taking a serious look at the needs of the medical profession and also of the other people in professions and trades we require in this province, needs we are not meeting, so that we can provide better services indeed to all of the people in Ontario.

Mr. Breaugh: In response to the minister’s statement on multiculturalism, we all support the concepts there. I just want to make a brief pitch today on the problem that the government has in responding -- in part understandable, because there are now several ministries trying to participate in this discussion -- to even simple ideas that attempt to address the needs of people who have some difficulty in formal English or formal French, whose native language is something other than those two and who propose ideas to the government.

For example, last year an idea was submitted, I believe to the then Minister of Citizenship and Culture, for a simple audio-tape scheme that would advise people in their own native language on how to get involved in the enumeration process. That is, I think, a workable idea put together for an agency of the government, which I hope is thoughtfully reviewing that, but in a year’s time the government has been unable to respond.

1400

I would make a simple plea to the minister today. While he is announcing large amounts of money and the activities of a great many ministries, he should somehow take the time to listen to people who have themselves good ideas to help them become an important part of this country. He should take the time not only to listen to what they have to say but to implement the ideas they have; they may not be as expensive and as grandiose as the thoughts of those within the ministries, but I assure him they are every bit as important to them and therefore to us.

Mr. Brandt: I too would like to join in the congratulations that have been extended to the minister with respect to the initiatives he is taking in what I and my party consider to be an extremely important program.

I would like to indicate to the minister that I do have some concerns. Perhaps they are just in terms of nuance relative to the release, but one of those concerns is with respect to the certification of both professionals and tradespeople. I say very seriously that I have come across far too many cases to believe that this is simply a small problem or an oversight on behalf of some of the officials who are involved in immigration programs.

While it is not the fault of the minister’s government but, in fact, the fault of federal immigration authorities, I find that there are misleading statements made when some professionals immigrate into this country. We have found again and again that some people are given the impression that the certification they have received in their home country is adequate. They make arrangements to come to Canada, expecting to do a couple of things that will appropriately recognize their degree, only to run into a tremendous amount of frustration, having made this very real decision to move to a foreign country and then finding out that their degree is of little or limited value to them. That can be very discouraging.

I would like to ask the minister, in the paragraph he has set aside with respect to this particular problem, if, in setting up a task force to look at this issue, he will make sure that he does communicate with the federal government in connection with that particular area of concern.

I would like to compliment the minister as well on the strengthening of the English-as-a-second-language program. The importance of that program, of course, is self-evident. Without the English language being available to many of our immigrants, they will simply not be able to survive in Ontario and Canadian life. I happened to attend a graduating class just last week of this particular program in my own community and I know the tremendous benefits that immigrant families get from it, so I welcome continued initiatives to expand and improve upon that.

Finally, I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) with respect to contributions from outside the government bureaucracy. I believe the ethnic groups themselves in our multicultural community really do have a contribution to make in terms of the direction that certain programs should be going. Quite frankly, I feel that we have a wealth of experience and information we could obtain from those people if we get a two-way dialogue and communication in place, adequate to respond to the needs they identify.

Mrs. Marland: I was particularly interested in this statement, especially where the minister says, “the goal being to create an education system that ensures an equal education opportunity for all children.” I would hope that the minister does feel, with the sincerity of his statement, that whatever his ministry might be doing in this area will just be a complement to the very forward-planning legislation the Conservative government introduced in this Legislature in 1982. Certainly, Bill 82 did ensure, for the first time, an equal education opportunity for all children, and I hope what he is doing will be a complement to that.

Whereas the publication of material in five languages is a thrust of this statement, in fact I know that in the government bookstore today there already exist pamphlets in as many as 27 languages, which was also an initiative of our government, and I am glad to see that this government is going to perhaps continue.

To encourage the participation in the local political system of the multicultural groups, I am very proud to say that in Mississauga we have the Peel Multicultural Council, which has just celebrated its 10th anniversary.

Mr. Cousens: It is good to see the positive things that are going on. I wonder if the minister has done anything to analyse some of the problem issues that are still out there. I know there is a problem for many seniors when they want to go to a senior citizens’ home. Perhaps there could be a place where Italians could meet with other Italians, or Greeks with other Greeks. Perhaps the minister could look at some of the problems in parts of the city where people need more education on the services that are available.

I think we are doing the right thing; let’s continue to do it more effectively.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources related to the downgrading of the silvicultural program by his ministry. The minister has a lot to say about his commitment to sustained yield and regeneration, but apparently he has no money to back up his words.

Could the minister explain why his ministry spent about $52 million less last year than the previous year on silvicultural programs in this province, and why this year’s estimate is about $46 million less than was spent two years ago? When is the minister going to put our money where his mouth is with regard to regeneration in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I certainly cannot answer specifically the questions as related to the funding that has been put in there. What I do know is that this ministry and this province planted more trees last year than ever in the history of the province, some 163 million trees.

We are entering into a circumstance where we are doing the kind of preparation, the kind of planting and tending, that is going to guarantee that these trees reach maturity, which is another very important initiative. We have done many things in the whole forestry initiative that are going to take us into the kind of yield that is going to continue to provide the forest products for industry and park lands and all of the other things that they are used for across the province.

As for getting into the specific numbers, of course I do not have them at my fingertips. I am prepared to share them with the member.

Mr. Wildman: Considering the lack of financial commitment by the ministry, I am not surprised that the minister is not aware of the figures. He talks a great deal, again, about how many trees they are planting, but I note that in the forest management agreements’ five-year review, published by the ministry just in the last few weeks, there are a couple of rather alarming statements.

For one, Boise Cascade says: “The company is very concerned about the low numbers of nursery stock currently made available for regeneration programs in the Manitou and Seine River forests. These FMAs currently receive sufficient stock to treat only 20 per cent of the area harvested.” That is half of what is required.

With regard to Ontario Paper, it states, “The company has accepted what it considers as inferior-quality planting stock during the first five years, because the ministry could not supply additional planting stock as replacement.”

If the minister is so concerned about survival of the planting stock, can he explain why he is supplying apparently insufficient amounts of stock and poor-quality stock? Why is he not budgeting more for production and purchase of seedlings in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Just to reinforce the comment that I made to the honourable member, I would like to share some numbers with him. In 1984-85, the previous government spent $25 million on planting and tending.

Mr. Wildman: No, no, we’re talking about your government.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I listened while he asked the question. It would be nice if he listened while I give him the answer.

In 1984-85, the previous government spent $25 million on planting and tending. Last year, my ministry spent $40 million. We have a commitment, and we are keeping it.

Mr. Wildman: This government spent $132 million on silviculture in 1985, $171 million in 1986 and $119 million last year. That is quite a cut.

Is the minister aware that three million so-called surplus seedlings will be dumped this year in northern Ontario because, according to provincial forester Ken Armson, who admits that companies have fallen behind in regeneration, the ministry does not have the funds to purchase them? Does the minister realize that it would cost only $1 million more to purchase and plant these so-called surplus seedlings, and is he prepared to increase the expenditures by that much if he is not prepared to match totally what he spent two years ago?

1410

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Some number of years ago the previous government decided it would get nursery stock from private growers, and initially there was a great deal of confusion about what kind of money should be spent on that particular initiative.

In the sense that we are guaranteeing to buy so many trees from those people in the nurseries -- and in fact we have paid for trees that withered over the winter; we put up money when we did not get seedlings and we are asking for a certain number to be delivered -- if those private growers produce more seedlings I think that is a great thing to be given credit for; but there is no guarantee that the government is going to buy more than the 163 million we can plant. The private companies, if they choose to do business in a private way, are very free to go out and sell those trees to anyone else.

We want to be certain. I want to share this with the member because it is very important. It is not good enough any more to plant a tree; we have to spend the money to tend it and be sure it is free to grow or we have wasted the money in planting it in the first place. I think the member knows that, but he is just playing with numbers. I tell him, we are doing things like never before.

Mr. Wildman: Why did you cut the budget?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I’m not. Listen to the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter has been dealt with.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The status of rent review at the end of May has now been released. Can the minister explain to us how at the beginning of February there were 23,189 cases before rent review and at the end of May, according to her ministry officials, there were 25,066 cases in front of rent review? What is she doing to screw it up even further than she already has?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In the last several months we have received thousands of applications for rent review. We have also dealt with thousands of other applications. I want to assure the member that our rate of making decisions in rent review is accelerating. and I expect this to continue.

Mr. Breaugh: I think the tape is available from K-Tel, but the fact is that the whole situation is getting worse instead of better. The minister now has one out of every four apartments in Ontario strung out by a rent review system that clearly does not work and is getting worse. Can she tell us how she can spend so much money and so much staff time and come out with a poorer performance?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Let me say that no one takes this backlog more seriously than I do, because it disturbs me greatly for tenants to be in the situation they are in -- the ones who are under rent review and whose answers we have not yet been able to give them -- not knowing what exactly faces them and not being able to plan accordingly.

That is serious and I take it very seriously. That is the reason we have committed resources to solving this problem. That is the reason we are working with the kind of dispatch we are working with. We are accelerating our capacity to make those decisions. Those decisions are happening more quickly; they will happen more quickly. That does not underestimate the seriousness of what this means for tenants who are facing decisions and do not yet have the answers. I take that very seriously.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate the minister’s concern, and I suppose all those tenants and landlords who are caught in the system do as well. I refer her to a statement she made in here seven months ago. She said on November 9: “I am committed to ensuring that this backlog will be removed as soon as possible and that there will be certainty for tenants and the public.”

In light of the fact that the minister’s performance has worsened instead of improved, I simply ask her to take her hands off the system and perhaps at least change the system so that we might have a rent review system in Ontario that actually serves its stated purpose instead of confusing everyone about what the process is and instead of one with a backlog that is getting so bad that one in every four apartments, with all of the uncertainty that is involved in that process, is really caught in the mess that is rent review in Ontario.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The rent review legislation, as the member knows, is a result of our attempts to get tenants and landlords to work together. It seems to me it is very important to say to people that the reason we have this backlog is because we decided to protect all tenants in the province, and I know the member opposite would not want us not to be doing that. It is very important for us to protect all the tenants in the province.

As a result of the legislation, we have an additional 250,000 tenants in this province who are indeed protected by the legislation. We are protecting hundreds of thousands of tenants. We should not overlook the fact that a large number of tenants have also applied for rent rebates. The average rent rebate in this province is now $900 per tenant. I think that is a very good thing to be doing.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier and it relates to the discussion and debate we will have in this House shortly in connection with the proposed Meech Lake accord. As the Premier is well aware, because of the difficulties that have been announced publicly with respect to two of the provinces, Manitoba and New Brunswick, regardless of what we finally determine is the right course of action in this assembly, the accord will not go ahead without the concurrence of those two provinces.

Will the Premier share with this House any discussion he may have had with either the Premier of New Brunswick or the political leaders of Manitoba, recognizing the minority situation in that province relative to this question, and any help that might be provided to break the logjam?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would be very happy to share what I know with my honourable friend in that regard. Yes, indeed. I have talked to a number of people, particularly Premier McKenna, over a period of time. As my honourable friend knows, he was not a signatory to Meech Lake and he has a number of reservations. Some of those are specific and some of those are general. I was just talking to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who was talking to the Attorney General in New Brunswick as well. There were discussions going on at that level.

I say to my honourable friend that I could not tell him now under what terms and conditions New Brunswick would feel comfortable with the Meech Lake accord. They are having hearings in the fall, I understand. There are still two years to go on this matter. If my honourable friend is asking me if there is, shall we say, a breakthrough solution here, I do not see it. There are still two years to go and who knows how Premier McKenna will sense his responsibility over the long term.

I have not talked in detail to Premier Filmon about this. I have talked to the Leader of the Opposition in Manitoba. As the member knows, that party is diametrically opposed to the accord. At the same time, it is not clear at the moment whether, if the Meech Lake accord were put into the Manitoba Legislature, it would pass or not because of the position of the New Democratic Party there.

There is uncertainty there, but I do not think anyone can draw any definite conclusions. I guess that brings us to our own position here in our own province and what is the most provident thing to do, assuming we agree it is in the interest of this country to sign the Meech Lake accord and bring Quebec into the Constitution.

It is my view, and I am happy to share it with my honourable colleague, that the most positive signal we could give to the country would be for us to ratify that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: Certainly, we share with the Premier the intent and objective of having Quebec become a full working partner in Canada, and that is something our party will work with him co-operatively on, to the extent that we can, in order to see that happens.

Have there been any suggestions from the two provinces I mentioned, New Brunswick and Manitoba, with respect to any kind of a framework relative to either amendments, companion resolutions or any other mechanism that would be somewhat satisfactory or appropriate to them in the context of trying to move this matter further? Has the Premier any indication at all that might be possible?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to that question is no. I am not in possession of any specific information that would advance the cause, as my honourable friend suggests, or, I guess, a position that either one of those provinces could or would accept. I am not aware of that, if indeed there is one.

1420

Of course, that raises the immediate question: What about the other provinces that have already signed the Meech Lake accord? Would they accept changes as well? That leads us to the conclusion that unravelling the situation would be extremely difficult.

I think all of us are going to have to work together to try to persuade the other provinces that it is worthwhile to sign this at this time, that the process of constitutional reform has just started and many other things can be dealt with in the future.

I think the signals going forward from this House, in a debate that I hope we will have in the not-too-distant future, will be important, not just for Ontario but indeed for all of Canada.

May I just say one other thing while I am on my feet. Everything I have heard about the committee, as it functions with all members of this House, indicates that it has worked extremely well. It has been very sensibly and very well handled. I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate all the members of this House who have wrestled through that committee with very, very difficult issues, and, I believe, with distinction.

Mr. Brandt: We, too, feel that the committee has contributed very substantially to a positive and I think a very open debate on the question, and we are proud of the representation of our members and all members of this House in terms of the contribution they have made.

The reason I ask my final question, and the reason I raised my first supplementary question, is to find out if there is any common ground that we might share with those provinces. Do we share any common ground relative to some expansion of the position that the Premier put before this House, relative to the specifics of the Meech Lake accord and the limitations on any alterations or any embellishments that might be made, of whatever kind, in order to meet the legitimate concerns -- and I say to the Premier, the very legitimate concerns -- that some provinces have and some groups have with respect to aboriginal rights, with respect to our native peoples, and with respect to our ethnic groups and women’s organizations? All of those groups have raised some legitimate questions in the context of the accord.

In our party, as I am sure is true of the Premier’s party, we are struggling to meet some of those concerns, and the Attorney General has attempted to respond to some of them.

What I am asking the Premier is: Is there, in fact, any common ground, any reaching out to those other provinces, prior to us passing the resolution in this House, that might be made in terms of a gesture of nation-building on the part of Ontario that would help to bring them into the accord in a satisfactory manner?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s question. I say to him very frankly that I asked myself, and the cabinet mooted at considerable length, the question of when it would be most appropriate to have this discussion in Ontario, or if there was some way we could assist the other provinces with the dilemmas that they have.

I guess, because a number of members of the committees went in with a lot of reservations -- my honourable friend will be aware of that; they wrestled through the issues; they heard the delegations; they listened to the Attorney General and his legal interpretation, and they came to their own conclusions -- those deliberations themselves, which were seen as fair, open, untruncated and unmanipulated, in themselves created a process that set more people at ease.

I think perhaps if we can share the results of those committee deliberations, and the individual, shall we say, enlightenment -- I do not mean it that way -- as the members wrestled with those issues and the way that they came to grips to them, it may be helpful to the other provinces.

My own view, as I have said, is that it is important now, in the history of this country, that Ontario, hopefully in a unified way -- admittedly, lots of individual members have individual reservations over certain parts; I understand that and I accept that -- can come out with a common voice, with all parties and all members saying, “Look, this is a great day for Canada; this is an important thing for Canada,” I think, hopefully, that signal coming out of Ontario may assist in breaking the so-called logjam that my friend describes so accurately in this House.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. As the minister is aware, the Cresap report indicated that Ontario Hydro has approximately 2,400 redundant employees, and, according to the president, 2,000 of those are middle managers.

We have estimated it is costing the consumers of this province at least $140 million a year in excess costs. The minister has opted to act, since he assumed that portfolio, as a Hydro spokesman rather than as a strong political leader committed to taking some firm and urgent steps to eliminate this massive waste of taxpayers’ dollars.

Given the minister’s knowledge in respect to the 2,400 redundant employees, can he explain to the House the rationale behind Ontario Hydro’s decision to spend $235 million to construct a building in North York to house the 2,400 redundant employees?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The critic has confused his arguments with many fallacious facts. First of all, there are 700 or fewer managers at Ontario Hydro. Second, the Cresap consulting report did not refer to any figure of 2,400.

As I indicated in the House last week, these specialists, in looking at utilities, indicated that if they had to do a rough guess, an overview, it could be as much as 10 per cent. However, their study has concentrated on one branch, the production branch, where they said it was overstaffed by 450 people; but an overview of the rest of the organization showed there was understaffing in many of the other branches, so the plan was to deploy.

I might finish my answer by saying that if Ontario Hydro is incorrect or wrong, then I would be the first in this House to so state, but if it is correct, then I think those facts should also be enunciated.

Mr. Runciman: The minister’s lack of leadership in the face of major, useless cost to the people of this province is quite remarkable. In 1987, the Ontario Energy Board recommended that Ontario Hydro cut $35 million from its operating, management and administrative costs. We have to assume the minister has been monitoring Hydro’s progress on that recommendation. Can he tell us how much of the $35 million in waste has been cut to date?

Hon. Mr. Wong: With respect to the key question of leadership, I wish to inform the honourable member that we, the government, continually ask Ontario Hydro to look at its productivity and human resources picture. That is why this study was completed, and now we have those results.

Mr. Runciman: One has to wonder what has to happen to get this minister to take a serious initiative to save the taxpayers substantial sums of money. Ontario Hydro has added 450 head office employees since 1985, when this government came into office, people Cresap makes clear were not needed. Can the minister tell us why these people were hired in the first place and what action he has taken to make sure this kind of feather-bedding does not occur again?

Hon. Mr. Wong: First of all, the growth rate in energy demand was far greater than the growth rate in the employees the honourable member was referring to.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wong: Second, the extra staff was needed for the Lennox generating station and for the commissioning of one of the nuclear stations.

INTERVENER FUNDING

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Attorney General and it concerns the issue of intervener funding. We have been told in this House on countless occasions that the government will soon announce a policy of intervener funding. In fact, just yesterday the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, the member for York East (Ms. Hart), refused to accept an amendment of mine to the Environmental Protection Act which dealt with funding because, as she said, the Attorney General and cabinet are preparing a policy on intervener funding.

I can enumerate the number of times I have raised the issue, but I will not bore the minister by doing that. We all know that what the Attorney General wants, the Attorney General gets.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mrs. Grier: Can we therefore conclude that the lack of an intervener funding policy means that the Attorney General no longer supports one?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for the question, which I propose to have copied to submit to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in printed form. The matter of intervener funding is before the government and the honourable member’s getting warm.

Mrs. Grier: I am not sure if “getting warm” is better than “before the next full moon” or not, but I guess we will take it.

1430

I want to demonstrate to the Attorney General the incredible problems that the lack of an intervener funding policy poses for community groups. The ad hockery they have been subject to is just not working.

I would like to tell the Attorney General, and ask for his response, about the Foundation for Aggregate Studies, which has been representing a citizen’s group concerned about the effects of a proposed gravel pit in Dufferin county. They had extensive correspondence with a number of ministries seeking intervener funding earlier this year. The Attorney General, to whom they wrote, said they should go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins). The Minister of Municipal Affairs said they should go to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). The Minister of the Environment said they should go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the Minister of Natural Resources said he could not help.

How long are groups like this going to have to have bake sales and rummage sales in order to raise the funding they need to adequately represent their concerns?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not know why the honourable member, after that catalogue, is asking me the question; it seems to start it all over again.

I am very conscious of the honourable member’s concern about this important issue. The government has made extensive intervener funding available over the past three years on a wide variety of projects, thanks to the intervention of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: And?

Hon. Mr. Scott: And the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: And?

Hon. Mr. Scott: And the Treasurer -- I am still learning my way around here; there are things you have to do and things you have to say and I am learning to do them.

I am very anxious to accommodate the honourable member and to provide her with the response of the government, and if the next full moon is when I believe it is, the announcement will be made before then.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. I would like to bring to the attention of the minister a study that was made by the Ontario Medical Association, a survey of nursing homes. Among its findings among 300 different physicians who responded, it came out with the statement that nursing home placements of residents who are there are well placed. It said that approximately two per cent of nursing home residents could be safely transferred to home care.

This finding is interesting in view of her own ministry’s study of residents in which she stated that 55 per cent of residents in nursing homes and homes for the aged could be more appropriately served in community-based programs. I am very concerned about the variance in the findings of these two reports and I ask the minister to comment on this discrepancy.

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: The care requirement study that was released at the end of March was a study that was prepared as one initiative in the development of a new extended care act. The partners to that study were the two care-provider associations, the Ontario Nursing Home Association and the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors -- the homes for the aged group -- as well as the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Office Responsible for Senior Citizens Affairs.

Together, that group agreed on the hiring of an independent consultant. They determined together the appropriate measurement tool that would be used. The study that was released was a result of that consultant’s independent study with the partnership of all concerned.

Mr. Cousens: The criteria used in the study from the ministry seem to be very different from the criteria used by the OMA. I am very concerned about the direction her ministry is taking with regard to developing community-based care for seniors and would like to ensure that she is on the right path. All of this undoubtedly will have an impact on the long-awaited extended care legislation.

Given the OMA study, will the minister admit that by excluding the indirect care requirements of these residents, she may indeed be risking appropriate care for our elderly in a community-based setting?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: The objective of the care requirement study was to determine the direct care requirements. The eligibility criterion for extended care placement refers to direct care, 90 minutes of direct care being the eligibility requirement. Here we are talking about hands-on nursing care, taking blood pressure, administering medication and that sort of thing. Using that criteria, we studied direct care. That is not to say there are not other aspects, such as indirect care, supervision and so on, which make up the total required care of a patient.

To say we have a light care component is true; to say a great number of people, 55 per cent, do not belong there is actually carrying that too far and is not the case.

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Ballinger: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, there was an article in the Toronto Star which talked about Canada Post Corp. disposing of almost 70 parcels of property in the Metro area. They hope to generate revenue, I think, to the tune of $155 million by way of auctioning them off to the highest bidder.

Does the minister not think it is a bit ridiculous, considering the unprecedented growth that Toronto has experienced, that they would venture to do this sort of thing?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I must say I read that article too with a growing dismay. I looked at all the properties that were being listed and I thought to myself what we could do with some of those properties if they were being introduced into the system for affordable housing in the way we are doing with our lands.

What we have done is make sure all our surplus lands will be considered for housing, and those that are appropriate for housing will be used for housing to improve the situation for people in this province. I think it would be very, very helpful, to be very polite about it, if the federal government took exactly the same kind of approach with Canada Post lands and with the other significant lands that are available to it.

Mr. Ballinger: What can the minister do to convince the federal government that it must take some responsibility in this venture to provide affordable housing for the Metro area?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think one of the things we can do is lead by example, and I think that is something we are doing.

Mr. Breaugh: We’re waiting.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am glad everyone agrees that we are leading very well by example.

I have written a letter to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. indicating my concern about this and asking him to take a leadership role in order to make sure that the land that is available, that is under the control of the federal government, does enter the possibility of being used for housing in Ontario.

The need for housing in Ontario is very great, as every member of this House knows and understands. We have pledged to use our surplus lands to that end. We have pledged to build more than 30,000 housing units, in addition to the ones we had already planned to build under nonprofit, a total of 55,000 all over the province. We are doing an enormous amount, but we can certainly use the help of the federal government and its recognition that it has a significant role to play in housing and must not abandon this area, as it seems to me to have done in the last number of years.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. It concerns the role of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, as outlined in the proposed Workers’ Compensation Board amendments.

There are two specific references to WCAT in the legislation. The first is in section 45, which outlines how a permanent disability pension is awarded and the process of appealing an unfavourable decision. The second reference is in section 54b, which outlines the injured worker’s rights to reinstatement and re-employment in the workplace. In both cases, the legislation specifically states there will be no appeals to WCAT allowed; the WCB will have the final say in any disputes which arise out of either section. I would like to ask the minister why WCAT has purposely been left out of the appeals process which is now in place at the board.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the question the member for Sudbury East raises is a very important one. She is right that in those two specific instances in the bill I introduced in this Legislature two days ago there is no appeal to WCAT.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: A very good bill it was.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There are to be no interjections, but the Treasurer interjects that it was a very good bill.

Let me deal with the first one first. The reason there is no appeal for noneconomic loss to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal is that the determination for noneconomic loss is entirely a clinical, medical matter. Instead of providing that an appeal be made to WCAT, we have built an appeal mechanism right within the statute. We have provided that if the worker is not satisfied with the assessment for noneconomic loss made by the Workers’ Compensation Board, then the worker, together with the employer and the board, can choose a new medical doctor to do the assessment, a doctor who is mutually agreeable to all the parties.

1440

On the second point, we have excluded an appeal to WCAT in the area of the obligation of employers to re-employ their injured workers because the time frame for that obligation is set by statute. That is a two-year period. We feel those determinations have to be made quickly so that the injured worker can get back to his pre-injury job.

The member for Sudbury East knows that sometimes an appeal to WCAT takes perhaps a year or even two years to resolve. If we were to provide an appeal, it might well be that the appeal would succeed and the statutory period for re-employment simply expire. That is the reason we have done that.

Miss Martel: Even though there are regulations or time limits under the statutes, the minister will know that is not going to solve the problem of the disputes which are going to arise within the system. WCAT was specifically set up to deal with some of the more ridiculous decisions the WCB made and where there was no recourse to any other independent tribunal. That was the whole point of WCAT.

I would like to point out to the House that as far back as 1980 Professor Weiler stated in his report that there had to be a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. The standing committee on resources development and this House in 1983 stated that a tripartite committee had to be established because of the decisions that were coming out of the Workers’ Compensation Board. That is why, in 1985, this House established WCAT, because the House recognized we had to have an independent body to look at those decisions.

I want to ask the minister why he is now undermining the spirit of that legislation, the spirit of WCAT and the right of workers in this province to appeal.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I hope the member for Sudbury East is not inadvertently creating the wrong impression in regard to this bill. The authority and the capacity of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal are alive and well, its jurisdiction is clear, and the work it is doing resolving very difficult issues is ongoing.

The major part of the new bill deals with a wholly new way of approaching the earnings impairment a worker might suffer as a result of an injury. Those decisions will be appealable, obviously, to WCAT. It is only in two narrow areas, clinical impairment --

Miss Martel: But those are very major areas --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Sudbury East is shouting, but I tell her it is only in two very narrow areas -- clinical impairment, which will determine noneconomic loss, and in the obligation of the employers to re-employ -- that we have said it is inappropriate to have an appeal to the WCAT.

In the first instance, we have done that because we have built a different appeal mechanism right within the statute, one we think can work effectively. In the second case, we provide no appeal because the time limit is a two-year time limit period for reinstatement, and we think that to have a long appeal mechanism would be inappropriate under those circumstances.

HERITAGE HIGHWAY

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The minister may recall that on a number of occasions I urged him and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) to work together to have Highway 93 designated as a heritage highway. During the past three years, I have had a number of constituents and local politicians approach me with the request. I urge the government to designate Highway 93 as a heritage highway.

I had anticipated that the minister would give this serious consideration during 1988 when we were honouring the 100th anniversary of Charles Drury’s appointment as Ontario’s first agriculture minister. I still believe that this highway should be designated a heritage highway and still retain the name of Penetanguishene Road.

What is the stage of this request?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am not sure whether that question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro) or myself. We are now the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario.

The question has been before us for review and, as the member would know, in similar situations in other parts of the province we have acceded to the request. If there is merit and substance to it, as the member suggests, I think we will make an announcement to that effect in the near future.

Mr. McLean: The old Penetanguishene Road dates back in history to the early 1800s. Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe explained the need for a connecting military link between York -- now Toronto -- and Penetanguishene as early as 1793. It was not until 1814 that Penetanguishene Road between Lake Simcoe and Penetanguishene was constructed and had a military base established. This road provided an overland military supply artery to Penetanguishene as well as a communication link to the northwest.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. McLean: When will the minister make the designation?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciated the history lesson. As I indicated in my previous answer, as we have done in Essex county, Prince Edward county and other areas across the province, where it is justified to designate as a heritage highway we will do so. As I said, it is under review and we expect to make an announcement in the very near future.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mrs. Stoner: My question is to the Solicitor General. Three developments have recently come to my attention in the area of nuclear emergency planning.

First, the director general of the Atomic Energy Control Board, Zyg Domaratski, stated that Canada is not keeping pace with the United States and Europe in preparations for dealing with severe accidents and emergencies at nuclear power plants. He said other countries appear to put more emphasis on emergency planning and that there is a growing trend to train operators to respond to severe accidents.

Professor Kenneth Hare, in the second incident, has also called on a number of occasions for emergency measures at nuclear plants to be upgraded in Ontario.

Third, the Shoreham nuclear power plant on Long Island is being sold to the state of New York for $1 and will be demolished, having never been used, because state and local officials felt the emergency planning was unable to evacuate safely 2.5 million people living near that plant.

It is very important to the communities that live around such facilities to know they have the most effective nuclear emergency plans possible. What is the ministry doing to improve nuclear emergency planning?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to inform the House that I also read the article by Mr. Domaratski and I had my staff phone him and speak to him about his opinion of nuclear safety in this province and what suggestions he had for us in this regard.

It turns out that his concern was largely around the operation of nuclear plants internally rather than externally, which took it outside the realm of my ministry’s concern in so far as we are really responsible for emergency plans within the community, not within the plant.

However, since we all have our citizens’ welfare as a concern, I am happy to inform the member that he considered that our plans were, generally speaking, very adequate even though we are not as highly concerned about it as they have been in some of the European countries. The fact that we have had a very high opinion of our safety within the plants expressed by the Hare commission itself largely and by the operational safety review team from the international agency in Vienna have tended to make us, one might say, less excitable on this issue.

Mrs. Stoner: The Durham region nuclear emergency planning task force, which I initiated as a member of the council, has met on this topic for two years and has recently had a problem with the lack of attendance at its meetings by a representative from the Solicitor General’s ministry.

What is the minister doing to ensure staff involvement on this committee, which is looking at nuclear emergency planning both at Pickering and at Darlington?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member will be happy to know that at the last meeting we did have someone in attendance and we certainly hope to continue to have better attendance at that and other meetings.

We have recently been advertising for extra help in our emergency planning department. Up until this time, it has been concentrating primarily on emergency plans, which are in place for both Darlington and Pickering. It has also been supervising emergency evacuations, which it has put on recently in the Windsor area. The time constraint has been a factor at which we are looking. We will have more staff in place and will tighten up all our nuclear safety plans.

1450

HAZARDOUS SPILL

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, if he could take a seat. The minister is well aware of a serious toxic spill which occurred several years ago in downtown Sault Ste. Marie on the property of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the effects that has had on neighbouring homes in that area. The material, which is the herbicide Spike, has been moving across, leaching through people’s property and killing everything in its way. Samples have been found, earlier this year, even in the basements of people’s homes.

This has been causing serious health problems for these individuals. The ministry, in the meantime, has been negotiating with CP for a cleanup. We have had promises of a cleanup for a number of months now. Most recently, in the minister’s letter to me earlier this week, the minister says, “March 3, CPR outlined proposed cleanup procedures.” The minister surely is well aware that CP’s cleanup procedures have not been implemented.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would ask the minister, when can the people be assured that their properties and their own homes, their basements, will be cleaned up and this toxic chemical removed?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to share the member’s concern about the length of time it has in fact taken on the part of CP to resolve this matter. He would know, as he has shared with members of the House, the fact that one particular couple and others in the area have for some time been drawing to the attention of CP, as has the Ministry of the Environment -- CP being under federal jurisdiction only from the transportation point of view -- the problems that have been caused.

While it is useful that CP has agreed to build a runoff collection system to prevent further contamination and to remove and replace the soil in the affected properties, what the member and I are looking for is the action, not the promise from the company to do so. I attempted to address that in my correspondence with the member yesterday. He has my assurance that I will continue with vigour to press CP to ensure that this serious matter, and I believe it is a serious matter, is resolved to the satisfaction of the neighbours.

I know the reason was offered that in Sault Ste. Marie particularly they would have to wait until the spring runoff was finished and the frost was out of the ground and things of that nature. All of that is completed now, and it seems to me the company is in a position to move expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can assure the member that is my goal as well as his.

Mr. Morin-Strom: In his response to me, the minister knows as well that the actions probably cannot be taken legally by his ministry according to his timetable, because more than two years have passed since the offence is alleged to have been committed. As his own statement says, “Therefore, the ministry cannot legally lay charges.” The minister’s negotiating would appear to have no legal basis.

Is the minister not responsible for the environment of this province and should it not be he himself who takes responsibility for this cleanup, then pursuing with CPR independently the problem of the cost of the cleanup? Why do the minister and those in government not take the responsibility, go to these properties, clean up the mess, ensure that these people have a clean environment in which they can live, and reduce the kind of health problems they are experiencing within their families?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may have drawn the inference from my communication with him this week that what we are considering at the present time is an order from the Ministry of the Environment for a cleanup. This has been a matter of some legal discussion and a matter of some controversy and dispute between the two.

I think people would recognize, as I and the member do, that in fact the contaminant has come from the Canadian Pacific Railway property on to the property of the residents there. I do not think anybody is quarrelling with that. I do not think even the company is quarrelling with that. What the member and I want to see is a cleanup at the earliest opportunity. If we do not get this response to my latest letter expeditiously, in fact what I will be doing is ordering a cleanup and assigning the cost to CP.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Concerning the claims of widows and children of gold miners who have died from lung cancer in the gold-mining communities across the province, some six weeks ago I asked him to contact the government of Quebec because the Workers’ Compensation Board was denying the claims of widows and children of dead gold miners because those miners had spent some time working in Quebec.

Because they had worked in our sister province of Quebec as part of their normal contracting work, they were being denied on the basis of the minister’s guidelines. I had no response from him. The claims are still being turned down. Because the board is applying the guidelines as if they were law and statute as opposed to guidelines, will the minister allow and expedite a referral of these kinds of decisions to the Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario so that the use of these guidelines in the place of statute and law can be challenged in the courts at no expense to the widows and the children involved?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Cochrane South did raise this matter with me about six weeks ago. It is my understanding that officials within the ministry and the board are now in discussions with officials from Quebec. I am not prepared to say at this point that we will allow or provide for an appeal to the Divisional Court. I am not sure his suggestion that guidelines are being enforced as if they were statutes is an accurate one, but I know that he is obviously very sensitive to the widows of those gold miners, as are we.

I want to simply point out to him that the determination made by the board some time ago as to who would be compensated is a very extensive bringing into the system of hundreds of widows and will provide for compensation in the area of some $30 million. He did raise a good point dealing with certain workers who had worked in Quebec, and we are continuing to look at that issue.

Mr. Pope: Another reason for a referral to the Divisional Court of the way in which these guidelines are being applied in place of the law by the Workers’ Compensation Board -- and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, I might add -- is the perfect example of Lionel Roy. After his death, an autopsy was performed by the most eminent lung disease specialist in this province. He found that not only did the man have lung cancer, but that the origin of the lung cancer was in scar tissue surrounding silicotic nodules. The board has turned down the claim of his widow for benefits on the basis of the policy guidelines, contrary to the law.

When there is a recognition that lung cancer is associated with gold-mining, and lung cancer was the cause of death, the law says there should be compensation. It has clearly been established medically that the site of the cancer related to scar tissue around silica nodules. Will the minister refer the use of these guidelines by the board to the Divisional Court so that widows and the children of these dead miners can get some justice?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to make it clear that in my view the policy guidelines of the board which were put into place after years of study of this issue have brought justice to a group of workers and their widows who, for a long time, have been awaiting justice. The specific case that my friend the member for Cochrane South brings up is one worthy of further investigation and I will ask that be done. But let there be no mistake about it; these are very difficult cases. It is not an easy task to associate the development of a cancer in the lung with any particular place of work or any particular scenario. He knows that the amount of study that has gone into the guidelines has been exhaustive, very challenging work.

Just by way of his question, I want to point out that in the green paper which our ministry is proposing to do on workers’ compensation, we are going to be looking further at this whole question of industrial disease, but I do want to undertake to look at the specific case that my friend raises here today in the House.

1500

LANGUAGE TRAINING

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. I too, like many members in this House, welcome and compliment the earlier statement to the House on the government’s multiculturalism strategy. Flowing from that and through earlier questions to him, I am aware that his ministry has initiated several cultural interpreter services pilot projects and may be expanding these projects in the future. Apart from these projects, what additional assistance does the ministry provide to persons who wish to improve their English-language facility?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I appreciate the question. As I announced earlier in my statement, and I think several other members commented on it, the importance of our English-as-a-second-language program is in helping people new to this province be at home as quickly as possible.

The Ministry of Education has the prime responsibility for delivering ESL, English-as-a-second-language, or FSL, French-as-a-second-language programs in the schools. However, our ministry does provide about $2 million to community groups to help them deliver English-as-a-second-language programs and French-as-a-second-language programs. In addition to that, I think the ministry has been a leader -- in fact, I know it -- in terms of development of ESL learning materials. As well as that, we help to provide training materials for ESL teachers.

Lastly, as I mentioned in my statement earlier, we have a significant working group looking at the whole area of ESL-FSL on a government-wide basis to ensure that we are taking a co-ordinated approach to it for the future.

Mr. Faubert: Some of my constituents who need help in improving their English-language facility just do not have the time to attend classes since, first, they work and, second, they have family-related duties. Will the ministry consider this problem when consulting the agencies that it supports?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: There are really two issues there. One is English as a second language or French as a second language in the workplace. I am pleased to say that we have had good co-operation with the Ministry of Citizenship, the Ministry of Skills Development and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities in terms of developing programs that can actually be done in the workplace.

Last year, I think there were about 300 different companies that participated in providing ESL-FSL training in the workplace. I think it is an enlightened approach by these companies. Frankly, it is good for them and, obviously, good for the people in them. We have been pleased to be able to participate in that.

The second thing, and the member has touched on an important issue, is particularly ESL-FSL programs for women with young children. That has been probably the weakest part of these programs, and I am pleased to say that both in terms of the ESL-FSL training we do in our Welcome Houses and in the support programs we have provided the community groups, that is an area of focus for us where, in addition to the language training, we are providing child care during that training period. We have been fortunate to locate a lot of community groups prepared to carry out that kind of training. I hope that in both those areas we are responding to the need the member has expressed.

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to his responses to the Catulpa-Tamarac Child and Family Services situation in the Barrie region. The minister has claimed that he is working at closing the salary gap between institutions and agencies in the social services system, and there is a big gap that remains at Catulpa-Tamarac.

But we see the same thing beginning with a more recently privatized agency like Surrey Place in Toronto, where the equivalent bargaining group in the public service, for example, has just received a 5.2 per cent increase, while Surrey Place, which is 100 per cent funded by the ministry, has received a proposal of only 4.1 per cent.

Will the minister perhaps table with this House a schedule of institutional and agency settlements over the past four years to demonstrate the reliability of his recent statements about closing the gap?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have clearly indicated in the House that the average increases to the agencies across the province have been at the inflation rate, which is in the neighbourhood of about 4.5 per cent. I also indicated, however, that as we move increasingly to community services rather than institutional services, part of that process has to be closing the gap. That has not begun in the kinds of significant ways I would like to see. I would be prepared to give the member any figures he wants. The average since this government has been in place has been in the neighbourhood of about 4.5 per cent.

Mr. Allen: I appreciate the minister’s leaving me time for a supplementary.

Another claim of the minister in those answers, and he repeated it today, has been that all settlements have been in the neighbourhood of inflation-level increases.

If one looks at some recent settlements in ministry-funded agencies, one finds the Kinark Child and Family Services agency in Barrie getting eight per cent, Dawn Patrol group homes in Hamilton getting nine per cent per year in a multi-year contract, Atikokan Association for the Mentally Retarded getting eight per cent, and Sacred Heart Child and Family Services in Scarborough getting 10 per cent. There is in fact an incredible range of salary settlements also between the agencies.

Will the minister lay before this House a detailed plan showing how he proposes to overcome both the gap between salaries in institutions and agencies and the range of incomes between the agencies themselves, so that there is some equity in compensation in comparable specialities out there?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: When I used the figure 4.5 per cent, that is the total number of dollars we transfer from our ministry to the agency specifically for that purpose. But I have said on numerous occasions in this House that individual agencies can readjust their own internal budgets and use them in different ways. We do not dictate to them.

Therefore it is clear, from the numbers the member has given, that some agencies, depending upon where they are in the salary scale in relationship to other comparable agencies, may feel they have a need to put more money into that particular budget line than somebody else does.

I indicated to the honourable member just a few days ago with respect to day care that there are some day care centres in any community that happen to pay the highest wages in that community. There are others that pay the lowest. The tendency of the lowest is to try to get up closer to the highest. There is a variation in what individual agencies actually pay, but there is little variation, if any, in what the ministry transfers to the agency.

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 2,896 persons from across Ontario, which reads in part as follows:

“We, the undersigned, object to the increase in the Ontario sales tax to eight per cent, which, when applied to consumer services such as cable television and long-distance telephone calls, when added on top of the federal sales tax, has the net effect of a tax increase to Ontario taxpayers of 23 per cent.”

Bob Nixon, you have gone too far -- and that was not even in there.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mrs. Stoner: I have a petition:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

Mr. Speaker: I am just waiting. It is difficult to hear some of the petitions. The member for Markham.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 31 persons from the St. Catharines area, which reads in part as follows:

“We therefore call upon Premier David Peterson and his government to pass province-wide legislation rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and upholding Sunday as our common pause day.”

It is beautifully signed, and these people have expressed that view.

I have another petition. This petition is for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 434 persons from Toronto and southwestern Ontario, which reads in part as follows:

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

Mr. Speaker, I submit this to you in the same spirit as the others.

I have a third petition --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would just wait. I again ask all members to keep their private conversations very, very low. Thank you.

1510

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in council signed by 27 persons from Oakville and area, which reads in part as follows:

“I believe legislative authority regarding Sunday shopping should be the responsibility of the provincial government. I do not support the extension of Sunday shopping.”

I submit that petition.

I have another petition, signed by 57 persons from the Trinity-Elfrida Pastoral Charge of the United Church of Canada in Hannon, Ontario.

Mr. Black: Where is that?

Mr. Cousens: I am not just sure. It reads, in part, as follows:

“We state that we consider legislative authority regarding Sunday shopping should remain the responsibility of the provincial government. We further state that we do not want an extension of Sunday shopping.”

I have another petition. This petition is signed by people from St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Markham.

Mr. Villeneuve: Where is that?

Mr. Cousens: They have a member who will present theirs, unlike many of those others that I just read, where the members will not present it.

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s proposal for Sunday shopping does not mean more business, but rather the same business spread over seven instead of six days and thereby increasing costs for both retailers and consumers, we request that consideration be given to the views of persons who have signed this petition.”

So signed and presented.

Mr. Speaker: That is all?

Mr. Cousens: I will bring some more tomorrow.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Daigeler: Unfortunately, I have only one petition, but still it is as important as the ones presented by the member for Markham. It is a petition signed by some 40 residents of my area and addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

“And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Villeneuve: I also have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 4,096 persons from across Ontario, many of whom are from Local 4444 of the Steelworkers, the office staff of Cold Metal Products, from Burlington and Hamilton. It reads as follows:

“The Ontario budget contains excessive tax increases which are a direct attack on the middle class. We object and demand that you repeal them.

“Along with needless funding to special interest groups, the continual drain on the budget from meaningless studies while asking us to tighten our belts and pay more tax, the government officials, with no remorse, have the gall to ask for a 14 per cent increase in wages. The government’s reluctance to impose stiffer taxation laws on large corporations -- politicians should receive the same tax treatment that the public receives.

“Mr. Treasurer, Bob Nixon, you have gone too far.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

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

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

The text of the petition goes on to talk about this issue: “Let’s not leave this issue up to the municipalities -- this is a responsibility of the provincial government.”

It is signed by 22 constituents in and around North Bay, some in the great riding of Parry Sound, one from as far away as Brampton. I was surprised. I too have signed it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr47, An Act respecting The Peterborough Civic Hospital;

Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the County of Simcoe;

Bill Pr44, An Act to revive Moravian Temple Corporation;

Bill Pr50, An Act to revive the Gottscheer Relief Association.

Motion agreed to.

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES SOCIALES / STANDING COMMITEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

M. Adams du Comité permanent des affaires sociales présente le rapport suivant et propose son adoption :

Mr. Adams from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 109, An Act to establish a French-language School Board for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Projet de loi 109, Loi portant creation d’un Conseil scolaire de langue française pour la municipalite régionale d’Ottawa-Carleton.

La motion est adoptée.

Motion agreed to.

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

Bill ordered for third reading.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Monday, June 27, 1988, and on Tuesday, June 28, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHANGE OF NAME AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE CHANGEMENT DE NOM

Mr. Fleet moved first reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Change of Name Act, 1986.

M. Fleet propose la première lecture du projet de loi 164, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1986 sur le changement de nom.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr. Fleet: The Change of Name Act is insulting and demeaning to women and must be changed immediately. The current act forces a woman who changes her name at the time of marriage also to change her original name on her birth certificate. Although an unintended effect, the existing law infers that such a woman loses her identity, as if she were never born with her original family name. It is not just insensitive and unnecessary; it is offensive to the dignity of all women.

Women have justifiably complained about this existing provision. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) has taken a positive step through administrative policy to include both the original and married names on birth certificates, effective this summer. However, the real solution is to amend the offending legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I remind the honourable members that it is possible to make a brief explanation, but this is not the time to debate the bill.

1520

SARNIA KIWANIS FOUNDATION INC. ACT

Mr. Brandt moved first reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the Sarnia Kiwanis Foundation Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, by way of a brief --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all members that we do not call for explanations of private bills.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of the bill is to ensure that persons are not discriminated against on the basis of religion when, because of their religious observance, they refuse to co-operate with the safety requirement under the act.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 166, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of this bill is the same as the last bill I introduced, except that it applies to conditions in the workplace.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act.

CONSERVATION LAND ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved second reading of Bill 68, An Act to promote the Conservation of Certain Land.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I wonder if we could have a table and some of our people moved up front to be able to respond.

Mr. Speaker: This is second reading.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: In the event we go to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Then you can request that of the committee, yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The act recognizes the value and contribution of privately owned land for provincial conservation and natural heritage objectives.

The bill provides for the establishment of programs to recognize, encourage and support the stewardship of conservation land. It further sets the stage for the conservation land tax reduction program, which will provide the owners of specific conservation lands with 100 per cent rebates on municipal taxes. These lands will include provincially significant areas of natural and scientific interest, significant wetlands, lands designated as a natural area in the Niagara Escarpment plan, nonrevenue-producing lands belonging to the conservation authorities and other land owned by nonprofit organizations.

In effect, under the tax reduction program that will be established following approval of this bill, the province is proposing to pay the property tax on certain conservation lands. In the past, the tax system did not recognize conservation lands. It did, however, recognize agricultural and managed forest lands. These lands are already eligible for tax rebates. The conservation land tax reduction program will put conservation land on the same footing as agricultural and managed forest land.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has been working with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Revenue on this program. We have pinpointed hundreds of thousands of hectares of provincially significant conservation lands, and their owners are qualified for the tax reduction program.

Following approval of program details, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will be contacting these land owners to inform them about the new program and their eligibility for a tax rebate. This rebate will apply to taxes that have been paid since January 1, 1987. The established cost of the program will be about $5 million annually, but the benefits to the natural heritage of Ontario will far exceed this.

Many nonprofit organizations, conservation authorities and private land owners have long recognized the important role private lands play in conservation. They will welcome this bill and the program it helps to create. Along with myself, these groups hope that Bill 68 will be given prompt attention so it can proceed to third reading quickly. Timely attention to the bill will enable us to begin implementing the conservation land tax reduction program by late spring or early summer.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to support the Conservation Land Act, Bill 68, on second reading. Our party will be supporting this because we think it is a step in the right direction. However, there are some flaws in it that I would like to point out.

Basically, most of the target interest groups that are interested in the conservation of wetlands in particular are supportive of this legislation. For instance, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has indicated that it believes it is a good first step, but it throws an Aspirin at the land protection problem. It leaves out a lot of significant lands that deserve protection. The next step must be to get public input on more lands that should be included.

The Federation of Ontario Naturalists again says that this is a good program, but the federation people we talked to pointed out, as I indicated when the minister announced this in the House some time ago, that it begs for re-examination of the Drainage Act with regard to provincial subsidies for farmers who drain wetlands.

The problem that identifies is that all of us in this House have supported the need for farmers to be able to drain lands in order to improve productivity, and in support of that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has provided, through the municipalities, subsidies under the Drainage Act. Farmers can get up to 75 per cent of the cost of tile drainage paid for through the program. Then, of course, subsequent to the land coming into agricultural production, farmers are eligible for the 100 per cent property tax rebate. So there really is no incentive for farmers not to drain the land under Bill 68, and I am not sure how we deal with that. That is a very difficult problem.

Other groups we talked to, like the Ontario Heritage Foundation, said this bill is a good first step, but they do not think it is going to resolve the whole issue. They believe that the bill must be augmented.

1530

We need to include areas not yet designated by the province as significant. Since all productive forest and farm lands are already covered, it is actually a departure from past policy to include only class 1 to 3 wetlands rather than all wetlands.

The Nature Conservancy of Canada is in support of the bill. I believe the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is also in support of the bill, although I have not had direct conversation with it for some time on this legislation.

I realize that this bill, when it was first proposed by the minister, was to be brought in during the early spring of this year and was to be retroactive. I would hope that is protected.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is.

Mr. Wildman: The minister has indicated it will be.

I have already mentioned the difficulty with regard to farm drainage. This is a discrepancy that has not been addressed adequately by either the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) or the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). It has been argued that a very high proportion of the productive land in Ontario has already been drained and so this might not be as great a problem, particularly in southwestern Ontario, as it might at first appear.

However, I am sure the minister is aware that in eastern Ontario and in northern Ontario there has been far less tile drainage done by farmers in the past and there has not been nearly the proportion of agricultural land drained as is the case in southwestern Ontario. When we consider we have only about 13 per cent of the wetlands left in southwestern Ontario, I think that if we are to avoid a similar situation in eastern Ontario, something has to be done.

Also, it is interesting that under this bill municipally designated areas are not included. Some of these lands are provincially significant, but they have not apparently been defined as such by the ministry. Environmentally significant areas in regional official plans appear not to qualify under Bill 68, and I think they should. The ESAs are decided upon by the ecological and environmental advisory committees formed at the regional level under the Planning Act. Such committees exist in Waterloo, Halton, Niagara, Hamilton-Wentworth and Ottawa-Carleton, and I do not understand why they have not been included under this legislation.

The scoring system for deciding on class 1 to 3 wetlands is quite subjective, and I think it is a massive task for the ministry to undertake in classifying these wetlands. I have no reason to think it has not been done well, but it would perhaps not have been necessary to go through this whole process if the ministry had been prepared to designate all wetlands, at least in the initial stages, and then move to determine which wetlands might be removed, rather than going the route it has gone.

I also do not think the ministry has given proper attention to other types of naturally significant areas. For instance, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has given us two examples of areas that will not but should be protected under this legislation. Deer wintering yards are an example, or muskellunge spawning areas. I do not think, for instance, that a muskellunge spawning area will go very far in the ministry’s scoring system, while a unique botanical feature may chalk up enough points to qualify easily. It could be argued that the spawning area would have a much greater impact on the local economy as it affects tourism, for instance, than does a unique botanical area.

I agree with the protection of areas of botanical significance, but I wonder why a similar protection was not given to areas of biological significance, such as a muskellunge spawning area or a deer wintering yard.

In my area, one of the main deer wintering yards is right in the middle of the village of Iron Bridge. It is very nice for all the people, and for the deer, I suspect, that they have such proximity to one another in the wintertime, particularly in the late winter and early spring, but I wonder if we want to have that kind of situation develop where it could be avoided. We do not really want to have large development taking place in areas where our fauna are wintering.

I also would like to know from the minister, if he could tell us, what kind of public input the ministry had in determining which areas are significant and should be designated. I think probably most Ministry of Natural Resources district officials could rhyme off a dozen or so sites which residents in the area consider significant but which are not covered under this act because of the point system.

In summing up, I will say that while we are in support of the legislation -- we certainly are in support of the view that wetlands particularly must be protected in this province in order to ensure that waterfowl and the habitat for them are protected -- we support the view that by untaxing, if we want to use that term, these lands we have a chance of encouraging land owners to preserve rather than to fill in on private land.

But I wonder if this is just the first step. Why is it not going to be expanded? Or is it going to be expanded -- I hope it is -- to include many other significant areas that we would like to preserve? This system might be a way of dealing with it.

In conclusion, I will not repeat my concerns about the agricultural community and its relationship to the preservation of wetlands. I do not think this bill is going to deal with that very well in eastern Ontario and in some parts of the north, because the farmer, for very good reasons, will want to drain his land and is probably eligible for the subsidy under the Drainage Act and then will still be able to get a 100 per cent rebate on his taxes if the land is productive agricultural land.

With that, I will say that our party will be supporting the legislation on second reading. We think it is a good first step, but that is how we view it: a first step. I would hope the government will be moving to expand the legislation and to deal with the particular problems I have mentioned.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: If I could wait to respond, there are other members who want to put something on the record.

Ms. Bryden: I support the statement of the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). I have been interested in the wetlands problem for many years, not only the wetlands in other parts of the province but also the one on the Leslie Street Spit, which needs developing in order to preserve our own natural wilderness in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

I agree with the member for Algoma that it is only a first step and that we do need a much more active wetlands policy if we are going to preserve the habitats for our flora and fauna, and particularly for our wildlife, and if we are going to preserve the land and prevent it from being eroded. That is what is part of the reason for wetlands.

1540

Mr. Wildman: I thank my colleague for her comments. That really was the import of what I was saying, that the legislation could have included much more and could have cast its net far wider. I hope the ministry will see this as an ongoing process -- and this is just the beginning -- as a way of trying to provide incentive to land owners to preserve areas of environmental significance in the province. I reiterate that it could have included some municipally designated areas, and it is unfortunate that apparently it does not.

Mr. Pope: I am pleased to rise and very briefly speak to this bill on second reading and put a couple of concerns on the record. First, our critic, the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), could not be here today because of very important, pressing constituency obligations. I know he had studied this matter in some detail and made a presentation to our caucus on this bill. It is regrettable that he cannot be here to share his knowledge of this bill and its principles with the members of the House. In his stead, I will try and put on the record a few of the points we had discussed.

We have -- and the member for Hastings-Peterborough has -- consulted with a number of groups and individuals across the province, a number of the conservation authorities. Of particular help was Bill Murdoch, the chairman of the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority, and Rodney Saunders in Grey county, president of a very important association there, who had also given advice to us in this matter and generally very supportive comments on this legislative initiative, urging us to expedite its passage with the Minister of Natural Resources.

I know the minister had some fun with this legislation with the other ministries that it impacted on and other ministries having a say about the contents of the bill. I know that from my own experience, and I congratulate him on resolving the issue among the various ministries and bringing it forward as an initiative of this government. It does have widespread support from many groups across the province.

I know as well that the staff who are assisting the minister are very competent and knowledgeable on this matter and on some of the issues that I am going to touch upon. I am sure in committee they will be assisting the minister with some of the questions that they may have heard before.

I take an approach to this bill that is somewhat different from that of my friend the member for Algoma, and that is its impact on private property rights and private land owners in this province. I come from a background of knowledge of some complaints over a period of years from private land owners over what they call expropriation without compensation -- I never thought it was that extreme -- however, the zoning or designation of lands by conservation authorities or by government ministries, lands that were not within flood plains, as we would understand them, and therefore falling within the precise criteria or definition of the mandate of the conservation authority, as we understand it originally; but areas of environmental sensitivity, areas of natural and scientific interest, those kinds of designations.

An example is the Dundas Valley, where there were complaints from citizens’ groups and individuals about the designation of a vast proportion of that valley as environmentally sensitive and the ramifications of that designation on the ability -- and the former member from that area, Mr. Cunningham, gave me a good example at one time -- the ability of a property owner to excavate in his front yard and place a pond there and his inability to get a building permit or permission from the conservation authority to do that because it had been designated as environmentally sensitive under the plan that was proposed for the Dundas Valley by the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority.

The investigation of that and the ramifications of that policy led the cabinet of the day to delete the “environmentally sensitive” designation from the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority plan. I suspect it may be back in there but I use that as an illustration of some of the background of the concerns of private property owners.

This bill accomplishes something. It removes the financial argument from private property owners about the designation of land without compensation and lands that they are paying taxes on. It removes that argument and therefore it does improve their situation. There is no doubt about it. It does improve their situation. They will now get tax relief for keeping those lands in the state that is deemed to be appropriate or necessary by either conservation authority or by the Ministry of Natural Resources and that is an important, progressive step in resolving this conflict that all too regularly arises in various regions of the province.

As well, it will remove some of the financial or tax arguments that are advanced and the conflict that occurs from time to time with respect to drainage proposals in eastern Ontario and the conflict between drainage under the Drainage Act and the decisions of the tribunal, chaired by someone from Pembroke, and the concerns of conservationists and wildlife enthusiasts for the protection of fish habitat.

I guess I take a bit of difference with my friend the member for Algoma that I think this legislation will do something towards protecting the fish habitat, the spawning grounds or the spawning beds that exist in many parts of eastern and southwestern Ontario and will remove the tax pressure from a conversion of these significant sites to agricultural purposes.

Therefore, I think it has to be part of an overall picture of trying to resolve, if we ever can, the conflict between private property rights and private property expectations and a more general public need and public demand for environmentally sensitive lands to be preserved, for wetlands to be preserved, for the environment and for the use of all of us as residents of this province.

In general terms, our party is very supportive of this legislation. We know a lot of work went into it. We know the staff has worked hard with a number of interest groups around the province to make sure that it met their needs. I think it goes a long way towards doing that, but maybe in the committee of the whole House the minister can make some statement of policy or indicate where we are headed in resolving the conflict between private property rights and a growing concern of private property owners over unilateral designation of their property when it is not flood plain land, when it is their property and when private property owners feel that they perhaps have as much right to take steps to protect or develop that land as any other land owner in the province.

I would ask the minister to consider those comments when he responds perhaps to second reading or in committee, but it is a step forward and I think we should underline that fact. It is a step forward. It is progress and it is going to help both conservation authorities and naturalist groups in the province and I think it will gain the support of most fish and game clubs across this province as a progressive step in the right direction.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the comments made by my friend the member for Cochrane South. Certainly, this is a difficult area when one gets into designation of private land for protection and eliminating the possibility of a private land owner taking steps to develop land, as he or she might wish to do, and those concerns have to be weighed against the overall public good as the member for Cochrane South has indicated.

The import of this legislation, though, is once a designation is made then the private land owner will indeed have some compensation in that they will not have to pay taxes. While it does not resolve the conflict, it does at least give some compensation to the land owners. If they own property that has been designated, they at least will not have to pay property taxes on land they cannot develop and cannot change.

1550

Mr. McLean: I just want to comment briefly on the remarks made by my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). There were a couple of points there that were not too clear to me when he was discussing the wetlands.

Some of the ministry staff have done studies across the province and have designated wetland areas in municipalities on land that is privately owned, and I would like a clarification from the member or from the minister later on how he is going to handle those designations put on by the ministry staff.

I know of one municipality that is fighting drastically the large area that the ministry designated as wetlands. If they are designated as wetlands, is the municipality going to be able to get a tax rebate on 100 per cent of that property? In lots of cases designation is just a blob on the map and takes in an area not specifically designated.

I would like clarification on whether, for these municipalities that have a large tax base there, there is going to be a deletion of that problem for them.

I wanted to comment on the member’s comments and I agree with the remarks he has made. It is legislation that is overdue, and I happen to agree with the content of it, but I just wanted the minister to explain some of the specifics.

Mr. Pope: As a former minister, I think I will leave it to the minister to reply.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is maybe with a little bit of enthusiasm that I rise on a bill that is generally supported, even though there are questions that I shall attempt to deal with. I think the bill in itself is one that has been readily acclaimed as a step in the right direction.

If I seem to be wandering just a little, it will be to respond in a way to one of the major questions that have been asked as to whether this is the first step. I must say that that is the case. We are looking at other areas within the Ministry of Natural Resources to look at a very good wildlife plan that will take into account some of the things that we do not touch in this particular bill.

When we get into the aspect of this bill, though, the thing I would like to share is that when I first came into the ministry there was an undertaking to do the inventory of wetlands. It may answer as we go along some of the questions that were asked about the specifics of lands within a municipality.

We are primarily concerned here with provincial wetlands. We feel that, within the bounds of the municipality, there is going to have to be a decision made by municipalities while we go out first and identify, outside those bounds, the significant wetlands.

The thing I did ask for early on was a speedup of the process. They were talking some four to five years. I am pleased to say that we have moved that up nearly two years, and here we are with the bill.

When we look at the comments by the member for Algoma and refer specifically to some of them, I have already said it is a first step and that that inventory can be expanded on as we go along.

Agriculture, of course, is one of the areas we were very concerned about. It was to the farmer’s advantage to drain these wetlands, because then he could put them to farm use and get full advantage. Now that this has happened, I think the first thing we are doing is encouraging farmers to protect those wetlands where they can do that, and now it is not costly to them. In fact, that is the case with many other areas where they will be encouraged to maintain these wetlands.

There are other interested people who have had contact with our people in the development of the bill: all of the groups that the honourable members have mentioned. I would add something to it that is significant; that is, there has been an initiative by Ducks Unlimited in Ontario to put some $16 million forward to actually purchase some very valuable wetlands. We are attacking this on a couple of fronts. Where it might be short on some sides, it will be more than made up for on others.

I think the designation of wildlife and fish habitat is going to be coming in with that other bill, more directly involved, but as the member for Cochrane South has said, there is in fact protection in the bill for some of the spawning grounds and some of those areas of concern.

As I said before, to answer the other question, we feel we might encourage municipalities, where there are wetlands within the bounds of the municipalities, to do something to encourage them until the province can take over fully. We have talked about winter habitat and deer yards. Of course, we are very much concerned that we protect those. Because of very important protection, we are on the upward movement now of getting deer herds back, and the wildlife bill will also address that. I keep mentioning that because we are developing that wildlife bill, which is very important.

As money becomes available, we will expand the program. We are starting out in a little more restrictive way, but it is going to leave us room to move forward. In fact, it is going to acknowledge and will be retroactive to January 1, even though we are discussing and debating the bill.

The wetland inventory will be expanded. The member for Cochrane South had some concern about that one. Of course, we are going to encourage the preservation of a considerable area with the bill and improve on that. We will be working with other agencies and land owners to protect that resource. I feel very strongly this is the initial step. We will be reporting back, maybe in the course of a year, to see where we can and should expand the role of this bill in protection.

At this point, I do not have much else to say. If we take it to committee, we can then get directly involved with some of the questions the honourable members might like to raise.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Madam Speaker, is it the intention that the next bill will go to committee of the whole as well? The next bill is the pits and quarries bill. Perhaps what we might do, with agreement, is simply to proceed to second reading of that and then move into committee of the whole for both, if that is agreeable.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): I want to make sure I have the unanimous consent of the whole House to have Bill 68 stood down and put into committee of the whole House with Bill 153.

Agreed to.

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved second reading of Bill 153, An Act to amend the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The purpose of the amendment is to correct a legal ambiguity in the legislation. The amendment will clearly enable the Minister of Natural Resources to transfer pit and quarry licences between established operators. The amendment will also validate those l icences that have already changed hands.

There will not be a change in the way the ministry administers the Pits and Quarries Control Act. The ministry has reissued licences to new owners, provided a new owner adheres to the same site plan terms and conditions as the previous one. The change proposed in this bill has become necessary because of a recent judicial review in the Supreme Court of Ontario involving a ratepayers’ group seeking to close a quarry near Orillia.

1600

The court found that the ministry is conforming to the intent of the act and is administering the legislation in the only practical way. Nevertheless, the court found that on a strictly legal interpretation, issuing a licence to a new operator of a licensed pit or quarry does require a public review and an opportunity for a hearing. In the light of the court’s strict legal interpretation, the amendment I am introducing is necessary to preserve the status quo in administering the act.

If existing licences are found to be invalid, it could result in the closings of many pits and quarries, causing severe economic repercussions. Approximately one third of all licensed pits and quarries in Ontario -- and that is nearly 800 -- have been relicensed over the years as a result of changes in ownership. The amendment rectifies the legal ambiguity of the act and totally conforms with the intent of the legislation as endorsed by the Supreme Court.

I emphasize that there is no change in the way the ministry administers the Pits and Quarries Control Act, and I hope that the House will consider moving quickly to pass this bill to enable the licensing of pits and quarries to continue in an orderly and satisfactory fashion.

Mr. Wildman: I rise on behalf of our party to indicate some disappointment in the procedure we are involved with here on Bill 153. The reason for the disappointment is that for some years now, as the minister will know, this House has been expecting a major overhaul of the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

Some years ago, we had the introduction, under the previous government, of a bill called the Aggregates Act, which went through extensive committee hearings and extensive amendment. I think there were something like 150 amendments put at that time, both by the ministry and by members of the opposition.

As I recall, the now minister was then a member of the opposition and critic for this area and was involved in that process. When I heard that we were finally going to get a reintroduction of an amendment to the Pits and Quarries Control Act, I thought, “It’s finally here,” because after that committee finished its work -- I cannot remember the number of years now, but it was about 10 years ago -- nothing happened. It just disappeared.

The legislation had been amended so extensively that some might have thought the committee had created a monster, which no member of the House, on whatever side, wished to claim responsibility for. So nothing ever happened: the bill just died a quiet death.

I know that the ministry is involved in work towards the introduction of a new Aggregates Act, but it has been a long, ongoing process. When I saw that there was going to be an introduction of an amendment, I thought, “Well, finally.” Instead, I had the opportunity to meet with the minister and his staff and was informed that no, this was not the Aggregates Act, the major overhaul of the legislation; this was just a minor amendment to deal with a particular judicial problem.

It is a minor amendment to deal with a judicial problem but, frankly, I do not think that we should be doing it this way. I think we should be incorporating this change in the overhaul of the Aggregates Act. I fail to see why the ministry has moved so quickly here, when it has moved at the speed of granite on the Aggregates Act.

We will not be supporting this legislation. We will be voting against it. I am sure that my arguments will persuade the majority of the House to our position rather than that of the minister.

As the minister indicated, the bill seeks to amend the Pits and Quarries Control Act because of a court ruling on transferability of pit or quarry licences when ownership of a pit or quarry changes hands. It is interesting that the act, as it is currently worded, does in fact say that the transfer of licences is prohibited. That is clear, but in practice the ministry has been routinely transferring them. In effect, the ministry has been breaking the law.

Instead of saying to the ministry staff, “Please obey the law,” the minister is saying, “Let’s change the law.” The Supreme Court of Ontario found that the ministry was not acting in strict compliance with the act. Instead of saying, “OK, we will comply,” the minister is now saying, “Let’s have a quickie amendment to formalize the illegal practice we’ve been following.”

I indicated that we will be opposing the legislation on second reading. I do anticipate that it will be defeated on second reading and that we will then have the minister move to an amendment which will in fact overhaul the legislation. I would be prepared to have it introduced on Monday -- we are not sitting tomorrow -- for a quick and serious debate on second reading next week, then have it go to committee this summer, go through all the amending process we went through before and then, hopefully, have it come into law next fall.

If it happens that this bill does not get defeated on second reading, then we intend to request that it go to committee of the whole House, and I will be introducing two amendments to the legislation.

I am concerned about the transfer of a pit or quarry licence with no reappraisal at all. While I understand that it is unreasonable to expect that there be an opportunity for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on every transfer of a pit or quarry licence, there is the problem that a number of pits and quarries have been in operation in the province for a long time and there is no guarantee that a new owner is going to be operating a pit or the quarry as the previous owner did.

We do not know that the new owner is going to be as committed to ensuring that he is as a good neighbour as the previous owner and we do not know that he is as committed to the pit or quarry rehabilitation as the previous owner. Just because he is purchasing the licence, purchasing the pit or the quarry, does not mean that he is going to operate in an acceptable manner.

I do agree that it would be unreasonable to expect an OMB hearing every time. Frankly, I think it would be unwieldy and unnecessary to have every relicensing open to a hearing. While we would support the waiving of a hearing provision, I do oppose the provision that there should not be a new site plan. I think that relicensees should be required to file site plans.

Site plans drafted before 1984 are, according to a number of people in the aggregates field, completely inadequate. They are devoid of detail about environmental protection and rehabilitation. Suppose, for instance, that a pit has been licensed for 20 years. The site plan which accompanied that licence is probably outdated. If I took over this pit and had it relicensed under the provisions of the bill as it stands, there would be no requirement for me to have a site plan which was up to date. I will be moving an amendment that would require them to file a site plan, again without a hearing being required and without the option of going to the Ontario Municipal Board.

1610

There is one thing I do not understand in this legislation as proposed. Subsection 14a(3) states that if a pit has been licensed in the past but has been unlicensed for less than two years, it can be relicensed as proposed in the legislation. I would like to know where this two years came from. Is it just an arbitrary number picked out of the air? It is inconsistent with subsection 20(1) of the act, which give pits in areas of the province which are about to be designated under the act only six months for the licence.

Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If a new designated pit is going to be given six months, then it seems to me that if a pit has been unlicensed, the figure should be six months before a relicense is issued rather than two years. They should comply with one another and we should be consistent in the legislation.

This party has been as consistent as the Conservative Party was in not bringing in an overhaul of the aggregates legislation in the province. I would like to see complete consistency and for those reasons we will be in opposition on second reading. If, by some fluke, the bill passes second reading, I will be requesting that it go to committee of the whole House and I will introduce amendments.

Ms. Bryden: I would certainly concur with what the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) said, that this bill is not the Aggregates Act we have been seeking for many years. I was the critic for the Ministry of the Environment, under which this came at that time, about seven or eight years ago. At that time we were asking for an Aggregates Act. There has been no movement since then even though there has been a change of government. We are still waiting for a real Aggregates Act that covers the whole problem.

We do not support this bill because it does not go far enough and it does not require the notification or the updating of the licence. We are not even in favour of the bits and pieces. What we would like is a proper Aggregates Act.

Mr. Pope: Again, this is a piece of legislation which the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), our party’s critic, presented to our caucus. Wayne Weaver would tell me right about now to support the bill and sit down and if Sherry Yundt were here she would chuckle at the discussions about the Aggregates Act. Sherry used to think it was a life-long sentence.

We do support the bill. We understand that you cannot go through this process every time you transfer ownership. It is unwieldy and unreasonable, I believe. I will leave comments on other legislative initiatives to others, but we support the bill.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I certainly was not looking forward to even bringing forward this bill, in the sense that I know the former minister, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), worked very hard at trying to get that aggregates bill moved forward, and I am not sure there was the kind of support on all sides in order to move it forward. I feel that we do have the support now to move the bill forward and I am going to move that bill as quickly as I can.

But the bill is going to be one that should go out for public scrutiny and even though it seems that we do have the support, in particular, to a rehabilitation to providing money to build roads and all those good things, we seem to have most all of the players on side now; so I wanted to give the member for Algoma my word that we are going to move forward just as quickly as I can. The government House leader, who is going to play an important part in getting that on the table, is here but I am going to move that forward as quickly as I can to address all those other issues. Whatever kind of oversight there was in the former act, this one really needs to be done so that we can continue the business across the province while we introduce and move forward with the new Aggregates Act.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Hon. Mr. Kerrio has moved second reading of Bill 153.

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

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

CONSERVATION LAND ACT

Consideration of Bill 68, An Act to promote the Conservation of Certain Land.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Could I have some of my staff move down here?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, please. We shall wait for a minute so we can all get installed. We would like at this time to list any amendments or questions and comments people may have on Bill 68.

Mr. Wildman: I have some comments, but no amendments, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Please go ahead.

Mr. Wildman: As was indicated in the comments during the second-reading stage, we had a number of questions with regard to the application of this legislation to other areas that are designated municipally. I do not understand why they might not be included in this legislation. I would like to know the reasoning for that.

I know the minister has said he is going to bring in a new wildlife bill which, among other things, will protect habitat for various species of wildlife. Could he clarify how this legislation will affect spawning beds and what process will be used in order to have a property that various groups think should be designated as an area of natural and scientific interest so designated?

1620

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think the one of greatest significance is the spawning beds. I think when we talk of areas of natural and scientific interest in land and water, we are talking about where those areas could very well be designated because of the scientific interest in the reproduction in the spawning beds. I think one of the most significant things we do in getting fish stocks back is to be able to have them regenerate in their own environment, and in many places this is a role that is important.

I imagine we could share that kind of scientific involvement there, but that the wildlife bill would be even more specific. That is the reason I brought it into focus here, because it is being developed right now. I think it would augment the bill, where this one does not in fact cover all of the areas I would like to cover in the science of rearing fish.

Mr. Wildman: Also, the question was raised, by my friend the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), about the effects with regard to municipalities and why some of the areas now designated by municipal bylaw are not included.

If they are not included, how might they become included? Could the minister deal with the member’s concern about how, if a large area of a rural municipality is designated by the ministry as wetlands that should be preserved, that might affect the municipality’s option for development and improved assessment?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: In explaining the bill and what we were attempting to do, we described it again as a first step. What we were looking at doing was to do the inventory across the province and provincial jurisdiction. I think we would be looking for those other areas where there might be interest and where we might move as a next step, to do as another initiative something about those that are within the bounds of municipalities. I would expand on those where it would be proper to do that, but in the reality the first initiative was to deal with the provincial inventory that we have taken.

Mr. Pope: Maybe to pursue that questioning by my colleague the member for Algoma, when does the minister anticipate the inventory for areas of natural and scientific interest to be completed, what notification will there be of a proposed designation and what rights to object will a private land owner or municipality have?

Will the Ministry of Natural Resources, using the area of natural and scientific designation process, intervene in appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board such as we had in the Ottawa area, with respect to a subdivision development proposed there which contained some rather significant lands of environmental value, and in the London area, where there was a wood in London that was going to be developed by a subdivider and the Ministry of Natural Resources and other environmental groups had a look at it in terms of its environmental importance to the residents of the area? I am sure the member from London South (Mrs. Smith) remembers that controversy about three, four years ago.

When is the inventory going to be completed, what notification will there be and will there have to be notification and formal designation by some process before it triggers the tax rebate or the grants in lieu of taxes? I guess it all folds in that way.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As it relates to how it would impact where there might be lands that had been designated and might be brought into some development, that would be appropriate. The only way we are trying to hold them with the designation is having the rebate on the taxes. To that degree we would encourage people to hold lands for the purpose that we are deciding here. That would not necessarily tie those lands up forever, as far as a person who would want to use them for another purpose would be concerned.

The encouragement is there, but I do not think he can take advantage of the situation, because I think the member described it as taking lands over without any kind of monetary help. In this case, we would not be tying the lands up, but we would be hopeful that we could, for a reasonable length of time, perform that very important task.

Mr. Wildman: In this regard, again, the minister has not indicated when he anticipates the designation to be complete; that is, the work that is being done. Does he see it as an ongoing process?

I understand the minister’s point of view that this bill is designed to provide for the rebate. He is not, in this legislation, casting in stone that some piece of land or property is to be protected. But then am I correct in understanding that if a piece of property is designated and somebody wishes to develop it, the process that is now existent for appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board and so on still would carry through?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think that is exactly the way it is. I think the question that was raised as well by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) is that, while we have the inventory that we are dealing with at this point in time, as we keep going and getting more of those lands designated in the inventory, certainly they would then comply.

Mr. Pope: I would like to ask if the private property owner would have a right to object to any designation, either within a plan filed with the ministry by a conservation authority or a proposed designation of part of his private land as being an area of natural and scientific interest. If he objected to any zoning change to implement that or to any zoning or official plan consequences that might arise from that designation -- and there may be some at a future date -- would he still qualify for the rebate, even if he won his objection?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have been advised that it does not necessarily have to be used, even though it is designated for that purpose, by the owner. In fact, what we are doing is allowing him to recover the taxes but not inhibiting the use of the land in any way. Of course, if they accept the money, then they have accepted the designation.

Mr. Pope: I guess that is the point we wanted to make sure of. I think it is important that private land owners and those who follow the debates here, the real estate boards and associations in the province, understand that you qualify for the rebate if you agree to the designation, or if the designation is decided upon and your objection to it fails. I think people should understand that they cannot fight the designation and then expect to get the rebate if they win their case. I think that is important.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think we clarified that properly, yes.

Mr. Chairman: Any other questions?

Mr. Pope: I have just one last question, if I might. It is on the whole issue of private property rights. If there is an objection to a designation of lands as being areas of natural and scientific interest, is the policy of the ministry going to be then to withdraw the proposed designation and not force it on private land owners? Or is it going to be the policy of the ministry that, if you object, you may have some sort of hearing process through the 0MB or some other mechanism? In other words, is the ministry going to say: “It is an area of natural and scientific interest. Therefore we are going to designate it. You qualify for a rebate. You may object to the OMB or some other vehicle that we decide upon”? Or is the ministry going to pull back and say: “If you do not want it, that is fine. It is not going to be designated and you do not get your rebate”?

1630

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The way it has been described to me is that in the event we are not going to accept the designation, it would then be put into the normal process of the planning and would go forward on that basis.

Mr. Pope: As I understand it, it would then be subject to the normal appeal processes through municipal councils and through the Ontario Municipal Board. It is the intention of the ministry, therefore, to proceed with the program for designation of areas of natural and scientific interest through conservation authorities or other vehicles and that will have an impact on private land and the tradeoff will be the rebate.

Just one last point and then I will sit down. It may be appropriate for the minister to give some assurances to the conservation authorities that any rebates they receive will not be reflected in the subsequent transfer of funds to the conservation authorities.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to

Bill ordered to be reported.

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 153, An Act to amend the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

Mr. Chairman: At this point, I would like to list all the sections to which members would like to bring amendments.

Mr. Wildman: I have an amendment to subsection 1(2) and an amendment to subsection 1(3).

Mr. Chairman: Are there any more sections members would like to see amended? Is that it?

Section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that subsection 14a(2) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(2) Section 5 does not apply to an application for a licence issued under subsection (1).”

Mr. Wildman: I made clear at the second reading stage my concerns in this area. While I realize there is no need for a hearing and an OMB process, I do think it would be reasonable to expect that relicensees should file a site plan. That is the purpose of the amendment and I hope the minister might accept that view.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have some difficulty with this amendment. I am not prepared to accept it because I think it is covered in the sense that subsection 14a(2) deals with site plans. In the process of extraction, if the ministry sees some major changes in the operation, it can upgrade a site plan at any time. If there are any intrusions on people in the area, there would be a demand on the ministry under the existing regulations to ask for the site plan to be upgraded.

The reason we are trying to move forward with this is just to carry it forward on the basis of the former regulations. We are here only because of the circumstance of the courts. We are talking about the same property, the same kind of operation, and the same site plan would apply, with the proviso that they have to upgrade it if we asked them to.

Of course, the whole premise is that with the transfer, the operation is going to be carried on as it was before, with the ministry very closely involved to be certain they comply with the regulations as they exist now. With our new act, that will be improved.

Mr. Wildman: I understand the comments of the minister, but can he assure us that all the pits and quarries in operation in this province have up-to-date site plans?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would not think we could say that. I suggested that where it is appropriate, if there is any question about how a quarry is functioning, the ministry can ask for an upgrading of the plan to make certain it complies with the licence. I would certainly not say that all quarries at this point have an up-to-date plan. It may not be required.

Mr. Wildman: That is exactly my point. I think that if the relicensee is getting a new licence on a transfer, it is a great opportunity for the ministry to request a new site plan. That is the purpose of my amendment and I am sorry the minister does not see that.

1640

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I just reiterate that it is our prerogative to ask for a new site plan wherever it is appropriate, and we certainly do.

Mr. Wildman: I do not want to prolong this, but I just want to change it from a prerogative to a requirement.

Mr. Chairman: Are we ready for the 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.

Mr. Wildman: It would be better to stack it.

Mr. Chairman: Sure, you can stack. Is there unanimous consent to stack?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: At what time, please? At 5:45?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have no difficulty, but the House leaders would probably want to have a chat at some point. There is the expectation that this is all going to move along with some speed this afternoon.

Mr. Wildman: I am at the disposal of the House. I do not want to hold things up.

Mr. Chairman: The Chairman of the committee is also at the disposal of the House and would sure love to get a very clear signal as to what it would like. Is there unanimous consent to stack at 5:45?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I was not under the impression that there were going to be divisions on this particular matter, and that is the reason for the confusion. There is no difficulty in stacking these votes, but I am sure members will appreciate my concern in this connection. I will agree to stacking. There is no particular difficulty.

Mr. Chairman: I assume I have unanimous consent to stack until 5:45.

Mr. Wildman: Maybe we should stack it until Monday.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I think we should try to do it today if we possibly can.

Mr. Wildman: Let’s have a source of realism. These amendments are not going to pass, so let’s deal with them today, when they are stacked.

Mr. Chairman: So the final consensus is that we stack at 5:45 today.

Agreed to.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. The second motion for section 1.

Mr. Wildman moves that subsection 14a(3) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill. be amended by striking out “two years” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “six months.”

Mr. Wildman: Again, I made clear during the second reading stage the reason for this amendment. It is to make it consistent with the six-month provision for an area that is going to be designated, as set out in subsection 14a(3) of the act. I do not have any indication of where this two years came from. It seems to me that if we are going to license a pit that has been unlicensed in the past, we should treat it in the same way as a pit that is going to come into an area that is going to be designated.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The reason this amendment is unrealistic is that two years is not unreasonable. If you have an estate sale or some intricacies in changing over a licence, it does not follow that it could be accomplished in that length of time. We feel two years is about the least amount of time we should put in for this sort of transfer.

Mr. Chairman: Any more comments? Are we ready to vote? Is it the pleasure of the committee that Mr. Wildman’s 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.

Mr. Chairman: Since the only amendment I had was for section 1, shall sections 2 and 3 carry?

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole House reported progress on one bill and reported one bill without amendment.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO CONVENTION CENTRE CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. O’Neil moved second reading of Bill 141, An Act respecting Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corporation.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: This legislation proposes to confirm the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre as an agency of the crown and to clarify and formalize the provincial government’s relationship with this facility. As a crown agency, this facility will continue to enhance Ontario’s growing profile as a major tourism destination.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any member wish to comment upon the remarks made by the minister?

Mr. Philip: I just want to comment that we are in support of what the minister is proposing.

Mr. McLean: I do not want to take up any time of the House because we agree with this bill. There are just two short questions I had for the minister and perhaps he can clarify them. Does he anticipate any money surpluses from the corporation? It is indicated it is to go back into the consolidated revenue fund. Does he anticipate there will be funds or surpluses, and if so, how much? That is really the only thing I have with regard to the bill. Other than that, we are supporting it.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I appreciate the comments by the critic on that. I might say that the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre is proving to be very successful. I think that has been proved even over the last couple of days with the economic summit that took place there.

We anticipate the centre will make a profit. At the present time, some of the profit which has been realized from it is going back to payments on a loan the corporation has with the province. We do anticipate that as time goes on it will prove to be very successful.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

OTTAWA CONGRESS CENTRE ACT / LOI SUR LE CENTRE DES CONGRÈS D’OTTAWA

Hon. Mr. O’Neil moved second reading of Bill 142, An Act respecting Ottawa Congress Centre.

L’hon. M. O’Neil propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 142, Loi concernant le Centre des congrès d’Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: This legislation proposes to confirm the Ottawa Congress Centre as an agency of the crown and to formalize the provincial government’s relationship with this facility. As a crown agency, the Ottawa Congress Centre will also continue to enhance Ontario’s growing profile as a major tourism destination.

Mr. Daigeler: As a member of the Ottawa-Carleton area, I would like to say how pleased we are with the congress centre and the convention centre in the Ottawa area. I am very pleased the minister is continuing to support this initiative. I think it is great; it is very much appreciated. In fact, it is increasing tourism significantly in eastern Ontario. I just want to say that we in the Ottawa area are very pleased about this.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We will be supporting this legislation. I might say to the minister that I have looked at this piece of legislation, plus the previous one, with great interest. I am sure the minister will know that my home community is looking at the Metro Toronto model and the Ottawa model as perhaps being a model that should be adopted in the only other region in this province which could justify, with its border-city population with Detroit, this type of convention facility.

I totally understand the benefits Metro Toronto and Ottawa have reaped as a result of these facilities. I hope the minister will be as enthusiastic in the Windsor-Essex area for a major convention facility that would benefit not only our area but the entire province and build on the two main facilities that already exist, along with some of the regional facilities such as Hamilton that exist in the province as well.

We will be supporting this legislation and using it as a model for other areas like Windsor in the future.

Mr. McLean: We will be supporting this bill. I have a couple of questions for clarification. There is approximately a $400,000 deficit at that centre now. Is that going to be paid off by the ministry -- I understand it is hoped it will become self-sufficient -- or is it going to be paid off by the corporation? The minister indicates somewhere that the ministry has been paying the deficits all along. Could he indicate to us the amount of deficits he has been paying each year and who is going to pay the $400,000 deficit?

We will be supporting the legislation, but I would like those questions clarified.

1650

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I might just say, in regard to the member’s questions, that the province has an allocation of $425,000 for the Ottawa Civic Centre’s projected deficit this year, but we anticipate that will drop to $125,000 this year and that amount will be paid by the province.

I can also say to the member that the centre in Ottawa has been very busy. We are very pleased with the board of directors and the staff that we have, not only here in Toronto but also in Ottawa, who are working very hard and travelling and speaking with the different groups to see that the centre is used as much as possible. We are very pleased.

We had larger deficits in the beginning years. Those have been gradually decreased to the amount that I just mentioned. We anticipate and hope that both of them will work at a profit. Either that profit will be used for future expansion or new equipment within it, or part of those revenues or profits will be returned to the province.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for third reading.

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

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Bill 84, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, implements the proposal in the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) of May 20, 1987, to reduce the statutory time limit for raising a reassessment from six years to four years. It also provides for the temporary reduction in the capital tax payable by a corporation that is a farm equipment dealer, and it makes the needed amendments to the Corporations Tax as a consequence of recent amendments to the Income Tax Act of Canada.

Ms. Bryden: This bill to amend the Corporations Tax Act is really a very important bill, because we are one of the few provinces that has its own Corporations Tax Act and, therefore, has the power to have an independent corporations tax rather than just one that mirrors what Ottawa passes in its legislation in the cases where Ottawa collects the corporations tax, as well as sets the legislation.

I think the bill really should have had much more time allocated to it, and today is probably not the day for a long debate on the philosophy of the Ontario Corporations Tax Act, even though I would have liked to have participated in such a debate. That is why I regret that the government has decided this must get through before the end of this spring session. It seems to me that an act of this sort should be scheduled for a period when all members can look at its philosophy and discuss whether we want to keep our own Corporations Tax Act.

We should discuss whether we want to use that Corporations Tax Act to effect our economic development in this province. We do not have to just say “ready, aye, ready” to the federal corporations tax whenever they make an amendment. We could have our own amendments, and we do not have to just accept all their concessions to corporations, although we usually do. In fact, sometimes we go further and put in our own concessions. Of course, it depends on whether you think the concessions are good or bad as to whether you think it is a form of independence that we want to pursue.

I realize there are also a great many housekeeping changes in this act, and we would not oppose their going through, but again I do not think anything would be very seriously upset if those were delayed until we had time for a proper debate on this act. That is why I object to this end-of-session practice, by this government and by the previous government, of not giving us adequate time to discuss important tax legislation.

We know that we do not have a fair tax system in Ontario by a long shot, and the corporation tax is one of the reasons, because the corporations have been paying a smaller and smaller share of the total revenue over the past 10 or 15 years and the individual income tax payers have been paying a larger and larger share of the total revenues of this province. That indicates that in order to have a fair tax system, there should be some increases in the Corporations Tax Act and some changes in the kind of concessions that are allowed under the Corporations Tax Act.

There are some important matters of principle that I want to spend a little time discussing today, and one is the proposal to implement the proposal of the Treasurer of Ontario in his May 20, 1987, budget that reduces the time limit for issuing reassessments of the corporations tax, the statute-barred limit, from six years to four years. That came out in the 1987 budget and has not yet been put into effect, but this bill will do that.

I question why the government should be reducing the time limit within which it can reassess corporate income tax. While no doubt it is desirable and necessary to have some time limit, and in practice virtually all reassessments may be completed within four years, there may be certain circumstances where, for whatever reason, four years is insufficient to make such a reassessment. Even though it may affect only a small number of cases, it would seem reasonable to keep the door open just in case there are complex cases where the Ministry of Revenue may lose a great deal of money if the time for reassessment, the statute-barred limit, were reduced from six to four years.

That is an area that I would have liked to have more discussion on, with more explanation from the ministry as to how much revenue this may ultimately lose it. I guess it is something that you cannot really pinpoint, but it is worth looking at how many people went right to the six-year limit and whether it was in the last two years that the Ministry of Revenue really found out that they needed reassessment.

The proposal to implement the temporary capital tax reduction for farm equipment dealers, which was announced by the Treasurer on February 11, 1987, is another area we should have had time to look at in more detail. Under this measure, capital tax is to be reduced to a maximum of $200 for farm equipment dealers on their first $3 million of taxable capital for the first two taxation years commencing after December 31, 1986.

While the plight of farm implement manufacturers and dealers is well documented and the problems quite severe, it appears that the worst is over. Sales of agricultural machinery are expected to show an increase this year. Thus, with the market showing an upturn and cautious optimism the word, the timing of this latest government initiative is perhaps misplaced and may even be unnecessary at this date, considerably after February 11, 1987, when it was announced by the Treasurer.

1700

In addition, I have somewhat of a problem in using the tax system to deliver such relief. With a blanket reduction, there are bound to be many farm equipment dealers who are in relatively sound financial shape and should not benefit from the tax reduction, just as there are, undoubtedly, other firms and other industries that could use a break.

In addition, reducing capital tax does nothing to alleviate the underlying problem. Therefore, I think that is another area that the Treasurer should have looked at again and perhaps postponed implementing. He should have dropped it from this bill and considered a policy in his next budget, not in the present year.

With regard to the proposal to amend the act to bring it into step with recent amendments to the Income Tax Act of Canada, in principle, we would support most of the recent federal changes, but there is one in particular where we would like to see Ontario take a more independent line; namely, on flow-through mining shares.

The amendment in Bill 84, subsections 4(1), 4(2) and 4(5), continues the present policy of enabling flow-through of deductions for exploration and development expenditures to investors in shares of resource corporations. This allows investors to deduct from their incomes an amount in excess of 100 per cent of their actual investment.

At the recent Ontario New Democratic Party northern council, a resolution was passed condemning the use of flow-through mining shares as being an inappropriate use of the tax system. In most cases, I am sure the minister will agree, it is the world price of a particular commodity that determines whether it can be mined profitably. While there may, in fact, be cases where assistance is necessary, it seems more reasonable to determine this on a case-by-case basis through the use of a system of grants.

That is the third area where we would have liked to have seen us not to be in such lockstep with the federal government and to have gone our own way on that particular part of the federal changes.

There are additional amendments that we would like to make to this act but, again, I have only very limited time to go into the details of them, so I would like to put them forward as suggestions for the minister to consider for next year; or he can bring in his own amendments, if he likes, before we pass this bill.

The amendments that I would like the minister to look at are, first, to increase penalties for nonpayment of corporation taxes by a specified deadline.

I understand that we do not have figures as to how many corporations are in arrears of taxes or have not paid by the date set in the act, but there was a study done in Ottawa which was reported by Simon De Jong, NDP member of Parliament. He got figures from the federal Department of National Revenue showing that 122 companies owed more than $1 million in unpaid and undisputed taxes at the end of 1986-87, and the total amount owing in this category of undisputed taxes -- they just simply had not written the cheque and got the money in when they were supposed to -- was 3.6 per cent of the total tax revenue expected.

We would like the minister to look into our own statistics and find out how much corporations tax is undisputed but still owing and should have been paid by this date, or by whenever he does the study. I hope it will be as soon as possible.

My second proposed amendment I would like him to look at is to require payment of a minimum corporations income tax annually by all corporations. There are still mlany Ontario corporations that do not pay any income tax at all. This is because they are able to qualify for various concessions and deductions, some of which are more than 100 per cent of their investment. As a result, they have really large earnings but they do not pay any corporations income tax.

Not only would we like to require payment of that but we would also like a list of which companies did not pay any income tax in the last fiscal year. Then we would be in a better position to see those companies that are really getting off, through our unfair tax system or through our concession system, with not paying their share of the total cost of running this province in which they operate.

My third proposed amendment is to require all corporations to report annually to the ministry the amount of all “deferred taxes” on their books. Some of them do set up the figures as to what they consider deferred taxes as a result of slower write-offs or more rapid write-offs of their capital investments and other means that they have under the tax law, but it would be interesting to know how much of a cash flow, shall we say, or how much their revenues are increased by the fact that they are able to carry certain taxes on their books as deferred taxes.

The Ministry of Revenue, when it receives these figures, should be required to issue a statistical summary to report these figures. It may not be feasible under the confidentiality requirements of the tax law to report them by company, but it certainly could be reported by category of industry and the total amounts that are reported.

My fourth proposal, and this is the last one, is to require the Ministry of Revenue to publish annually a report on the amounts of tax expenditures, as is done at the federal level for most years. The Ministry of Treasury and Economics did publish in May 1986 a book called Ontario Tax Expenditures and it gave a breakdown of what tax expenditures are. As most the members know, tax expenditures are what the corporations are able to save because of tax concessions which are supposed to encourage investment, economic development or some activity that is desirable. Really, they are any break that is given to the taxpayer; but it does not show up as a grant, it just shows up as a reduction in taxes for either a corporation or an individual. This covers both corporations and individuals.

It is a study that would be very valuable to all of us to know what is actually not being voted by this Legislature to corporations and individuals but is a saving to them and is directed to certain purposes which they are allowed to direct it to under the law. In effect, it is money that we would have liked to have had some say about in this Legislature before it was spent, but we cannot under the present law. That is a further report that we would like from the ministry.

1710

We would also of course like an annual statistical report on his tax collections, the amount he spends on collecting. That is also something we have been asking for for many years. It is impossible to analyse the tax system without having that kind of annual report and those kinds of statistics.

I would like to suggest those for the minister’s consideration, and I hope he will respond favourably towards those proposed amendments. We intend not to support this bill because we feel it is not producing a fairer tax system for Ontario. That is why I have set forward some of the reasons we consider we do need a revamped Corporations Tax Act, and this is not the kind of bill we are looking for.

Mr. Harris: We are in favour of this particular bill. While there could likely be debate on little bits and pieces of it, I am not sure that at this particular stage it would serve a great, useful purpose. I want to make just one comment. which is that this bill arises out of a budget brought in well over a year ago. I think it is a disgrace that we are getting around to dealing with this bill only right now. I condemn the former Minister of Revenue for not being able to bring forward this bill. He is currently the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and at the time he was the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue.

It says something about the priorities of this House that when it comes to economic legislation, this bill, which really does I cSan up a lot of little things and which does live up to being one of the very few positive aspects of the budget of two years ago, was delayed for so long. Having said that, I am in a backhanded way, I suppose, congratulating this Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) for finally getting around to dealing with the bill. Our party will be supporting it.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I appreciate the comments and the remarks of the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). We had a very interesting conversation about corporation taxes not so long ago. We had a good briefing and she brought to my attention most of her good ideas at that time. I am pleased to report to her this afternoon that we did do a little bit of research, so I would like to share with her the answers to some of her questions today.

One of the member’s questions was in respect to corporations not paying income tax. At the time she asked me that question, I did not have the statistics before me. lean tell her that of about 155,000 corporations in 1986, 125,000 of them were inactive and, as the member so justly pointed out, of the remainder a good number of corporations did not file income tax, for a number of the reasons she pointed out. Naturally, we are trying to close these loopholes every year.

Who knows -- as the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) has said, maybe this bill should have been brought before this House before this last week, we hope, or last 10 days of the House -- but I will certainly take into consideration the member’s proposal and I invite her to provide me with her proposed amendments, or the amendments she would like to see to this bill, in writing. I will certainly try to accommodate her the next time we look at amendments to this act.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Hon. Mr. Grandmaître has moved second reading of Bill 84.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This bill, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, implements the 1987 Ontario budget proposal of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) for a tax holiday of three years for new mines in Ontario after May 20, 1987. The program will exempt operators from the 20 per cent mining profits tax on income earned from the first 36 months of commercial production. Major expansions of existing mines and reopenings of inactive mines will also qualify.

The bill will also introduce certain other amendments to the Mining Tax Act. It will reduce the time limit for making reassessments of tax from six years to four years, and this parallels the proposal contained in the corporations tax amendment of 1987.

Mr. Harris: I wonder if the minister could just clarify briefly how much of this act is in force now and how much is not in force until royal assent. Are the tax benefit provisions in place now for the mining companies? I wonder if he can he just clarify the assent provisions.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As far as I am concerned, or maybe I could use some assistance, these amendments have been in place since the May 20, 1987, budget.

Ms. Bryden: After voting against the previous bill, we will probably not surprise the members in also voting against this bill. I think our reasons are pretty fundamental.

The purpose of the amendment to the Mining Tax Act, Bill 85, according to the compendium, is: (1) to implement the May 20, 1987, budget proposal for a tax holiday of three years for new mines and major expansions; (2) to transfer some of the prorating provisions relating to processing and depreciation allowance from the regulations to the act; (3) to make some housekeeping changes to streamline the act.

1720

Of course, we do not object to housekeeping changes and streamlining of the act, but we are fundamentally opposed to the first and most significant purpose.

Tax breaks will not make the difference in whether companies will open new mines. Dozens of mines are opening in the north right now because of the world price for minerals, particularly gold. The three-year tax break is essentially a gift to mining companies.

This is another government handout to a sector that prides itself on its entrepreneurship, on free enterprise, on capitalism. But they are really welfare bums if they come and ask for a three-year tax break. If the Treasurer wants to establish a fiscally responsible and conservative regime, why is the government condoning corporate welfarism?

The second purpose which I mentioned, regarding the proration provisions, will probably have very little practical effect.

With regard to the act itself, we feel there are some amendments we would like to have made to it but, once again, I am going to commend them to the minister so he can consider them for the next round.

If we had had more time, I think we should have had a general debate on the purpose of this mining tax and its holidays and its tax breaks for the reasons I mentioned.

We should also have considered whether the revenue from the Mining Tax Act should not be directed to the northern Ontario heritage fund, because that fund, as we have heard in the House this session, was promised in election promises by the government opposite. It has been requested at northern Ontario meetings, particularly of the Ontario New Democratic Party’s northern council, for many years. But the way the promise was implemented last year was that the money which was promised was not paid in the last fiscal year, 1987-88; in effect, the promise has not been implemented.

After the question was debated in this House about getting that fund going with an adequate allotment which would not just be a very ephemeral election promise, after a considerable debate was initiated by the New Democratic Party and assisted by some of the other representatives, we did get an agreement that there would be $30 million in the budget for this year and, I understand, for the next 12 years.

That is still very inadequate for the northern Ontario heritage fund. With all the promises which were made about how it was going to be used for the economic development of the north and getting the resources developed at home, and not just being the hewers of wood and drawers of water with our resources and shipping them across the border, we should really consider whether a portion of the revenues from the Mining Tax Act should be earmarked for the northern Ontario heritage fund.

As a matter of fact, I understand that this year’s $30 million is less than the government is getting in a tax windfall under the forest export tax which was put on this year in an attempt to compensate for the United States putting special taxes on our shakes and shingles.

This year it is costing the government nothing. It could take a chunk out of the revenue from the Mining Tax Act this year, and that might be a use for the revenue from this tax, but the more the government reduces the revenue by tax holidays the less money it has to support the northern economy and the northern Ontario heritage fund. I think that is a reason this bill really should be opposed as wrong-way taxation, going back to the old giveaways to the mining companies, which should be expected to operate on their own within the framework of world markets.

That is one area where the minister could still consider some action. He does not have to have legislation to direct some of those revenues to the northern Ontario heritage fund. All he has to do is persuade the Treasurer to make that a part of his budget next year. To make it a permanent thing, he may have to have legislation, and we would be glad to consider that next year.

On the second amendment, I am sure the minister will be sympathetic to this amendment because he probably is supporting the amendment of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) to provide for special tax arrangements for the townships of Marathon and Manitouwadge, near the Hemlo mining properties, which are located in unorganized areas outside those townships. The townships of Marathon and Manitouwadge serve as dormitory municipalities for the employees of those mines and their families, yet they get no tax revenue from those mines to cover the costs of the services and the schools they provide for the employees of those mines.

It is true that the provincial government did make grants in the last two years to those municipalities, but the mines got off scot-free. The provincial taxpayers paid the grants, which are not based on the actual cost of the services, nor are they necessarily in proportion to the number of employees and the number of schoolchildren whose parents work in those mines and who live in the dormitory municipalities. There may be other dormitory municipalities adjacent to those mines as well that are also needing help.

The legislation that was introduced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs last week is very progressive legislation. It provides that those mining properties outside the townships of Marathon and Manitouwadge and any other municipalities that act as dormitories for those mines should be assessed and taxed and should pay property tax.

Their assessment would be added to each municipality’s existing tax base. Then each municipal council could establish its mill rate according to existing procedures. This means that the mining companies would pay their fair share of property taxes and of school board taxes. Further, the legislation gives the minister the power to decide the percentage share of these tax revenues that will go to each of the affected dormitory municipalities.

There is one part of the legislation that I do not like; that is, it empowers the minister to designate which mining properties should be assessed and taxed in this way, and it does not necessarily say that this will include all mining properties, both surface and underground. That is left vague in the legislation. It also does not specifically spell out that both municipal and school taxes would be included in this assessment and property tax regime that is to be put in for those municipalities.

1730

Mr. Harris: Madam Speaker, we are talking now about Bill 159, which is going to come up later in the day. If the member assures me that she is not going to speak on Bill 159, I can sit here and listen to this stuff. Otherwise, let’s get on to the point of the bill.

Ms. Bryden: OK. The point is simply that the principle in Bill 159 should be extended to all mining municipalities in Ontario. If it is good for Hemlo and for the municipalities that are its dormitory municipalities, it should be good for the whole province. I am surprised that the government has moved to solve only the Hemlo, Marathon and Manitouwadge problems when other mining companies are getting off scot-free in the business of looking after the employees and the children and families of the employees with regard to the kind of municipal and school services they need.

That would be my second amendment, and I think it is a legitimate amendment, to the Mining Tax Act. The provision should be made for all mining municipalities to be brought under municipal assessment and taxation and to pay property taxes. It may have to be done by a Municipal Affairs Act amendment ultimately, but I think the principle that they are subject to property assessment and school board assessment should be set forward in the Mining Tax Act.

Those are the main changes we would like to see in the act, and if it does go through in spite of our opposition, I hope we will see some of them in the next version, next year.

Mr. Harris: I have two comments. One is the same as I had on Bill 84, that again we are dealing with a budget bill not of the past budget, the abominable budget, but of the pre-election budget of over 15 or 16 months ago, or in that range. Again, I indicate that I think it is unfortunate that it takes this much time to deal with economic legislation, and particularly this piece of legislation which deals with an industry so important to my area of the province, indeed to all of northern Ontario and, I would argue, all of Ontario.

I want to indicate that we do not think this bill, to get into the specifics of it, goes nearly far enough. We indicated that at the time the budget was brought in in 1987. It does a little bit. I guess it is estimated the government will forgo somewhere in the order of $5 million -- its estimate -- over the life of the legislation.

Certainly, nobody would say this is going to make or break the mining industry. From that point of view, it does not do a lot. Maybe that is why the former Minister of Revenue was embarrassed to bring it forward and left it for the current Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître); I am not sure. We really do not think it goes far enough. None the less, obviously we are not going to vote against it. We take anything we can get that benefits the mining industry in this province.

I want to indicate that the very fact that the New Democratic Party is opposed to this really encourages me to say how much more I am in favour of it. I cannot for the life of me understand why they think it is of benefit to northern Ontario to tax companies in northern Ontario more. I do not understand why even they would not think, “Isn’t it better to leave some money there so that when it comes negotiation times, the unions can get their share of it, the workers can get their share of it?”

Would one not think that they would want those companies to be economically viable, that they would want those companies to have money in their hands so that it can be shared with the communities, it can be shared with the workers and it can improve the quality of life in northern Ontario?

We are talking about companies which have been good for northern Ontario. We are talking about companies which have provided meaningful, good, well-paying jobs in northern Ontario, not the kind of jobs this party talks about by shutting down the forest and mining industries in Temagami and bringing in the $4-an-hour tourism jobs for the odd tourist outfitter to go guiding and to take the rich élite from the United States and Toronto fishing in our lakes. These are good, well-paying jobs which enable us to live in the north with dignity and which enable us to have the incomes in northern Ontario that I think we need and I think we deserve.

I can never understand why they want to attack those very industries in northern Ontario which have given us the well-paying jobs. I have seen example after example. I saw it with the Temagami situation. where they wanted to take away mining jobs, they wanted to take away forestry jobs and they wanted to replace them with Mickey Mouse, $4-an-hour, maybe student jobs, maybe the odd thing part-time in the summer, to help wash somebody’s canoe.

It bothers me when I hear these examples. I thought it was entirely out of order to talk about Bill 159, but it was talked about. It bothers me when they use that example, saying: “Instead of the money coming from the Treasury, from all the taxpayers of Ontario, to support our municipalities, let’s tax the bejabbers out of the companies that are there. Let’s make it even more difficult that way for them to compete, for them to operate, for them to pay meaningful wages to the workers. Let’s grab everything we can away from the unions, so that when the union sits down at the table and says, ‘You’ve had a good year, company, and we think we’re entitled to our share of it’” -- I cannot understand why they want the government to have taken all that money away so there is nothing left for the workers, for the union, for exploration, nothing left for any of these companies.

I did not plan to speak as long as I did, but I am glad to have the opportunity today to say how much more convinced I am that, as almost meaningless as this bill is because it does not do a lot, the principle of the bill is important. It is important for the mining industry. It is important for northern Ontario.

It is an important principle that if you leave money in the hands of people instead of taxing it all away, then spending money to collect the tax and then spending money to figure out how you are going to spend it, and then interfere in the economy in different ways, that is not the best way for the economy of this province. It is not the best way for the economy of northern Ontario. Northerners, in my view, are saying: “Let us keep the money we earn. Let us keep it. You don’t have to tax it all away and then spend it in some way.”

The government does not know best how to spend the money on behalf of those of us in northern Ontario. It convinces me all the more that this bill deserves support. I also want to say that if you are a northern Ontario member of the Legislature and you do not support this bill, in my view you are saying. “Somebody in Toronto knows better how to spend your money. Let’s tax it all away and get it down here and we’ll come up with some program to give it back to you,” instead of leaving that money in the north for the companies, for the workers, for those of us who live and work there.

Mr. Wildman: I hesitate in a way to comment on the facetious argument that was just put forward by the member for Nipissing. First off, I am sure he does not seriously believe that this is a 100-per-cent tax and we are taxing away all the money made by Inco, for instance. Neither does he seriously believe that the dividends deriving from the profit made by Inco stay in northern Ontario.

He may be surprised, although I cannot understand how someone coming from North Bay does not realize that the international headquarters of Inco are in New York City and that only about 50 per cent or 53 per cent of the shareholders in that company are Canadians. To suggest that the profit, if it is not taxed, will stay in northern Ontario is nuts.

I am not surprised that the honourable member should make that argument, because he was a member of a government that took many, many taxes out of northern Ontario and did not send back a fair share, and was unable to persuade his government to do so. This government is doing the same thing, so I am not surprised that he should say that if we do not leave it with the companies, it is never going to go back to northern Ontario. Both the Tories and the Liberals have followed that policy.

Well, it is about time we had a government that did ensure that the companies that benefit from the resources pay their fair share of the costs of the production of that wealth, and that the wealth that is taxed by the government is returned to the north to provide the services and amenities that we in northern Ontario do not have but that we deserve. That kind of an argument, put forward in this House, denigrates all northern members of the Legislature.

1740

Mr. Speaker: Any other comments or questions? Does the member for Nippissing wish to respond?

Mr. Harris: Briefly. Obviously we disagree. I do want to say in conclusion that I feel strongly that I would rather have the money there for the union. I would rather have the money there for the workers so that when they sit down with the various mining companies, they have access to that money. In my view, the workers, the union members, those people who live and work in northern Ontario and their families, know how to spend this money better than the government does. I applaud leaving it there so that they will have an opportunity to get their fair share.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to participate in the debate? If not, the minister may wish to make some final comment.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This is a whole lot better than question period, having the official opposition arguing with the third party. Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the government was the winner? I have not said a word yet.

I have heard all kinds of comments from the two opposition parties about the dollars that were pumped out of northern Ontario and never returned. Well, I think this government is a leader when it comes to returning some of those dollars. This is only the start; better things are yet to come.

Mr. South: We’re not perfect, but we’re working at it.

Mr. Villeneuve: You’ve got a long way to go, patting yourself on the back.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Well, we are very close to being perfect. I think the member for Nippissing came very close to agreeing with the government that we are doing a good job in northern Ontario. We have created more jobs in northern Ontario in the last 24 months than possibly anywhere else. We have created more jobs in northern Ontario than in eastern Ontario, I can assure members of that.

Mr. Villeneuve: Well, thank you from that area. Where are you from?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I welcome the member to the House. We have not seen him this week.

I think this is a start. Those amendments are to improve the Mining Tax Act, and we will continue, as a government, to improve it.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr. Grandmaître has moved second reading of Bill 85. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The moment has finally arrived Mr. Speaker; the 39th order.

WEED CONTROL ACT / LOI SUR LA DESTRUCTION DES MAUVAISES HERBES

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 138, An Act to revise the Weed Control Act.

L’hon. M. Riddell propose Ia deuxième lecture du projet de loi 138, Loi portant revision de Ia Loi sur Ia destruction des mauvaises herbes.

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister have any opening comment?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: In the interest of time and in the interest of those people who suffer from allergies, I am prepared to forgo any comments that I have on this bill, believing that there is support from the other side of the House from both parties. I will listen to their comments and perhaps respond at the end of the day.

Mr. Wildman: As the minister indicated, we are in support of the legislation and the purpose of the legislation. I do not intend to prolong this. It is a difficult problem if you have a property owner, who may or may not be easily identified, who is not maintaining his property as he should and can allow it grow up in weeds that will then adversely affect the crop production of his neighbours. The bill upgrades the system for dealing with this problem.

I do have one amendment to put forward in committee of the whole which would require notice to be given and a posting of an area that is to be sprayed under an order of a weed inspector so that the neighbours are notified in advance if a chemical spray is going to be used. Other than that, we are in support of the legislation.

Mr. Villeneuve: Our party is also in favour of Bill 138, providing better control of weeds. Noxious weeds, of course, are always of great concern to people, and certainly I appreciate the fact that noxious weeds will not be universally labelled across Ontario. Indeed, we know we have differences in northern and southern Ontario.

One area that concerns me to some degree is in the one provision where they will be regulating and prescribing the measures that shall be taken to prevent the use of birdseed that is infested with weed seeds. We have known that that has been occurring over a period. We are not too sure what the minister and those in charge of policing this particular area will do. We have birdseeds coming in from the United States and from other provinces. What is the degree of infestation allowed? Will there be any weed seeds allowed? Will they have to go through a sterilization process such that, indeed, if they are ingested by the bird and dropped as droppings throughout the area, they will not regrow?

Those are areas I would like the minister to speak on. Outside of that, our particular concerns are not great in this, and we will be supporting Bill 138.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions? Is there any other member wishing to participate in the debate? Seeing none, the minister may wish to make a final comment.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Perhaps I can save time and, I hope, convince the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) that it would not be necessary to have this go to committee of the whole House. I can appreciate the member’s concern and the safety-oriented thrust of his amendment. While I do support the member’s amendment, I feel that the proper place to make such an amendment is through the regulations under the act, which prescribe the methods in which the noxious weeds should be destroyed.

Moreover, I feel that there should be some discussion with the municipalities to determine the impact of this amendment on their operations. So once again I trust I can convince the member that we can do what he wants to do by way of regulation. Let’s then discuss with the municipalities the impact that they feel his amendment will have on their operations. If they feel that it will have no impact, then we can always incorporate it into legislation at another time.

Regarding the concern of the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), it will be the inspectors who will inspect the birdseed that is coming in and will make the determination as to whether there is an acceptable level of weed seed in that birdseed. If it is not acceptable, then the birdseed cannot be used for sale in this province.

As far as being able to tell the member what tolerance levels we have for birdseed, I will have to take that as notice and get back to the honourable member, because I do not know off the top of my head.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plénier.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Just as we begin committee of the whole on this matter, it might be useful to seek consent to return to the discussion we had when we were last in committee of the whole dealing with Bill 153. If we could have unanimous consent, I think the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) might wish to say something.

Agreed to.

1750

House in committee of the whole.

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 153, An Act to amend the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

Mr. Wildman: On Bill 153, Mr. Chairman, I have mused carefully about your hearing abilities and have come to the conclusion that you were right in deciding that the nays had it on the amendments. I have no wish to challenge the integrity of your hearing, so I would accept your ruling.

Mr. Chairman: I did not say, “nay.” I said “eh?” Very good.

Is there unanimous consent to that decision?

Section 1 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: As we had accepted sections 2 and 3, this completes our consideration of the bill.

Bill ordered to be reported.

WEED CONTROL ACT / LOI SUR LA DESTRUCTION DES MAUVAISES HERBES

Consideration of Bill 138, An Act to revise the Weed Control Act.

Étude du projet de loi 138, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur la destruction des mauvaises herbes.

Sections 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 1 à 17, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

Section/article 18:

Mr. Wildman: I have an amendment. It would be an addition, section 18a.

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

“18a(1) No chemical herbicides shall be used by or under the authority of a weed inspector for destruction of noxious weeds unless notice has been given under this section.

“(2) Notice of the use of chemical herbicides shall be given by posting signs near any adjacent properties that might be affected by the use of the chemical herbicides.

“(3) The signs shall be clearly visible and posted in such a manner that they are likely to come to the attention of the occupants of the adjacent properties.

“(4) The signs shall be posted at least 72 hours before the application of the chemical herbicides and shall remain posted until at least 72 hours after the application.”

Mr. Wildman: I understand the comments made by the minister at the second-reading stage, and I appreciate the fact that he says he supports the amendment but thinks it would be a good idea to do it by regulation. I am not in any way distrusting him or his officials, but I would rather see it as part of the legislation than simply a regulation under the legislation. There is no provision in the bill for notification when a weed inspector has ordered that an area be sprayed so that the neighbours might take whatever precautions might be necessary if a chemical spray is going to be used.

I want to make clear that the import of my amendment is not to require a farmer in a normal operation to have to post if he is spraying. That is not the purpose; it is only where there has been an order by a weed inspector. The point is that, particularly in this kind of a situation, you may be dealing with nonfarm people who have not ensured that their property is not weed infested, and they may not be familiar with the use of a particular herbicide. I think the people involved and their neighbours should be given proper notice.

I recognize that this might be an imposition on the municipalities. They might have to do something more than they would normally have to do if they were not required to have notification by posting, but I do not think that will add a significant cost to the operation and should not be an impediment. I hope the minister’s comments that he supported the safety reasons for the amendment and agreed with the amendment will lead him to accept the amendment. We could then proceed and get it and the bill passed as quickly as possible.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I believe that in my earlier comments I said that I support the intention of the member’s amendment. If there are concerns about the health hazards associated with areas sprayed with herbicides, it would seem that they would relate mainly to public lands such as school grounds and parks where children and adults would be present. Destruction of noxious weeds by authority of the Weed Control Act occurs almost entirely on private lands and seldom, if ever, on public lands.

One of the objectives of the Weed Control Act is to destroy noxious weeds before they can go to seed. In most cases, this is done by cutting. In less than five per cent of the cases is a herbicide used. In those instances, it is because cutting is impractical in destroying such weeds as poison ivy.

Posting of areas sprayed with herbicides is not a mandatory requirement of the Pesticides Act and regulations, but is done on a voluntary basis for the public’s information by some school boards, park authorities and lawn-spray companies. The responsibility to prevent the movement of a pesticide off a target area on to an adjacent property is already defined to be the responsibility and liability of the individual spraying under the Pesticides Act.

I understand the Ministry of the Environment is currently studying the whole question of posting sprayed properties. With that, I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I still say that we can do what the member wants us to do by way of regulation. That will give us an opportunity to consult with the municipalities about the impact that this amendment may have on their operations. If they see nothing wrong with it, then we can always come back into the House and incorporate the member’s amendment into legislation.

Mr. Wildman: I regret the minister’s comment. Again, I do recognize that in the past he has taken the position that things should be in the legislation, not in the regulations. I recognize what he says about the Pesticides Act and its regulations, and I regret that the federal regulations and the Ontario regulations do not require posting of areas, particularly on public lands, that have been sprayed. I wish they would and I think we should move ahead with this legislation rather than leaving it in line with the pesticides legislation.

1800

I will wind up by simply saying that the minister’s argument that only five per cent of the orders involve spraying and the rest are cutting makes it all the more reason to pass this, because it would not be an imposition on the municipalities. Only five per cent of the orders would require posting.

Mr. Chairman: I remind the House that it is six o’clock. Do you want to terminate this? Is there unanimous consent to conclude?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: 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.

Sections 18 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 18 à 27, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

Bill ordered to be reported.

Le projet de loi fera l’objet d’un rapport.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole reported two bills without amendment.

À la suite d’une motion presentée par l’hon. M. Conway, le comité plénier fait rapport de deux projets de loi sans amendement.

Hon. Mr. Conway: His Honour awaits to give royal assent.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

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

Clerk Assistant: The following is the title of the bill to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The government House leader may have some information for the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week, the week of June 27 to June 30.

We will consider the following legislation, although not necessarily in this order: second reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the Mining Act; Bill 22, the Motor Vehicle Repair Act; Bill 137, the Public Lands Amendment Act; Bill 159, the Hemlo-Marathon matter, and in committee of the whole House, Bill 100, An Act to amend the Education Act, with other business to be announced following discussions among the House leaders.

I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to remind you and all members of the House that we will not sit tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

22 juin 1988