Journal des débats 1988-déc-14 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I want to ask both the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to get themselves directly involved in the issue that has risen around the Peel Board of Education’s decision not to allow Sikh students to go into the classroom with their ceremonial daggers.

I know this is a difficult issue for us to deal with and is not something most of us in western religions can identify with, but there has been the experience of the Toronto Board of Education for a number of years now, where no instances at all have taken place of the misuse of these daggers, and the North York Board of Education has come up with a very interesting method of allowing them to come in as long as they are concealed.

I suggest it is high time this government, through the Minister of Citizenship and the Minister of Education, came up with a policy and a rationale that could be given to boards of education to assist them in making decisions that would avoid some of the problems we have now seen develop in Peel.

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Villeneuve: In recent weeks, I have been pleading with the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) to speed up an application made by the Mutual Aid Firemen’s Association of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. These professional part-time firefighters have a rare opportunity to upgrade their skills, but the ministry has been so slow that the 62 firemen involved may lose their only chance to take this course to upgrade their training skills.

The reason for the ministry’s delay is strictly bureaucratic, another failure by urban bureaucrats to understand issues in rural eastern Ontario communities. Even though the errors were pointed out directly to the minister on November 30, the ministry has failed to take prompt action.

The course in question begins on January 6, 1989, and that is very soon. Without funding by the ministry, there is no chance that any of these rural firemen will be able to attend. With Highway 401 and Highway 417, three major rail lines and many scattered rural communities within their area of coverage, these firemen must be trained to deal with as many serious situations as are full-time urban fire departments.

I urge the Minister of Skills Development to take prompt and positive action to ensure that the 62 members of the Mutual Aid Firemen’s Association of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry are able to start their course on January 6.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

Ms. Collins: I rise today to urge our government to adopt a procurement policy giving preference to environmentally sound products. There are several conditions that likely are necessary to implement a successful purchasing policy.

The program should be clearly understandable to purchasing officers, the environmentally sound products should perform their functions well and have prices competitive with conventional alternatives, and the policy should not increase trade barriers for Ontario and other producers that fear market fragmentation.

I suggest our government recognize the importance of environmentally sound criteria in purchasing products and letting contracts. This policy would have a number of beneficial spinoffs, including encouraging the development of environmentally sustainable products and technologies in our industry and setting an example for other governments, along with society at large.

With respect to the costs of implementing this procurement policy, it is significant that an overwhelming majority of Canadians have repeatedly indicated in opinion polls that they are willing to pay up to 10 per cent more for environmentally sound products. This does not surprise me. Like most of those surveyed, I may not know what the final bill will be for making the shift to an environmentally sustainable lifestyle, but I do know what the price will be if we do not start to pay it now.

WEST END CRECHE

Mr. Allen: The West End Creche is a Toronto children’s mental health agency that works with abused, autistic, speech-impaired and organically damaged kids. There are assessment units for these children in hospitals like the Hospital for Sick Children but no treatment facilities. Private psychiatrists also pass these children on to places like the West End Creche because, as some of them say: “These kids are too depressing. They destroy your office.”

Agencies like the creche are essential to the future wellbeing of up to 18 per cent of Ontario children, according to a 1983 Ontario Child Health Study. The staff at the West End Creche are highly trained with two, three and four degrees. They relieve highly paid psychiatrists of treatment responsibilities. Ironically, they are at the bottom of the heap of what are called transfer agencies in Toronto and across the province.

The government relies on them for delivery of crucial health services, but the Ministry of Community and Social Services pays these transfer agencies, and especially the West End Creche, grants that preserve a large gap in salary between them and equivalent personnel in direct payment agencies and the ministry. In a letter to me, the minister admitted the gap is growing. As in child care and homemakers’ fields, trained and experienced personnel are leaving the field. The creche has had a 75 per cent turnover in three years, when continuity in personnel is crucial to treatment.

Do these agencies all have to strike or threaten closure, like Catulpa Tamarac Child and Family Services, to get some recognition or response from the Ministry of Community and Social Services?

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

Mrs. Cunningham: On November 25, the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) announced amendments to the regulations for training for crane operators. One of the troublesome amendments was the elimination of compulsory ministry training and accreditation requirements for operators of hoisting devices under eight tonnes. Over the last six years, the Ministry of Skills Development has changed its training policy three times with regard to boom truck operators who are affected by the proposal.

There is an average of one boom truck fatality every eight months in this small industry now. With less training, the workplace is less safe. Should we expect more accidents and fatalities? This ministry has obviously spent extensive time, effort and moneys for private consultants to address its concerns with training, safety and efficiency at the work site. Boom truck operators want a safe place to work.

I cannot believe this ministry is sincere about reducing accident rates and providing a safer work environment for Ontario construction workers when it is exempting a sizeable number of workers from compulsory training they were previously entitled to. We do not want this change. Too many lives have already been lost.

1340

PROPOSED MOHAWK-RYERSON EXPANSION PROJECT

Mr. Neumann: Many members may not be aware that my riding of Brantford is the only community of its size in the province without the benefit of a significant post-secondary facility. We do not have a university and we do not have our own community college. The lack of such an institution has meant that young people in Brant county have traditionally had a lower than average post-secondary participation rate. People in Brant county who wish to further their education must go outside our community.

Mohawk College of Hamilton does offer some programming at scattered locations in Brantford and this has proved to be very popular; however, it is not enough. Brant county needs and deserves a full-scale college campus to give our young people the same opportunities as those that exist in other communities of a similar size. Sadly, Brantford was overlooked during the growth years in post-secondary education.

People in our community fully support the proposed Mohawk-Ryerson expansion project recommended to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) by her advisory committee. I am confident this government recognizes the need. I urge the minister to recommend this project to cabinet for implementation, as this exciting project forms an important part of our community’s diversification and restructuring strategy.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Miss Martel: The Ontario Public Service Employees Union has launched a campaign to bring its concerns about pensions to the attention of all members of this House. OPSEU members are concerned about several of the proposals in the Coward report, especially the one to raise employee pension contributions by more than two per cent in order to fully fund the pension escalator.

Negotiability is also a problem. Collective bargaining is not permitted on the issues of contributions or benefit levels, nor do employees have any say over what happens to the pension fund. They have no control or effective input into the management of the fund or its investment. The $4 billion in assets could and should be invested so that surplus revenue can be generated to fund improved benefits. Some of the improvements in benefits that OPSEU members would like to have the opportunity to negotiate include improved early retirement provisions, survivors’ benefits, improved portability provisions and inflation protection.

OPSEU members have every right to be upset since the assets of their pension plan have been used freely by both the Liberal government and the previous Conservatives, resulting in a low rate of return. OPSEU members are seeking the right to negotiate a pension agreement that is fair to its members, to the government and to the taxpayers of Ontario.

In order to do this, changes are required to two important acts. Most of all, a change is needed in this government’s attitude, with real recognition that the pension funds belong to the employees and that pension contributions are deferred wages and not simply a captive capital pool to be used by the employer at every opportunity.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING / HABITATIONS À LOYERS MODIQUES

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It gives me pleasure to inform all members of this House that the Ministry of Housing and the Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto have today entered into a partnership to provide affordable housing.

This agreement is a direct result of the leadership shown by His Eminence Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter, Archbishop of Toronto, with whom I signed the agreement and who is in the House today to receive the appreciation of all members.

This is the first partnership agreement of its kind that the ministry has entered into with a major religious denomination. I know that partnerships of this kind are essential for us to make progress in supplying affordable housing across the province.

Cette entente s’inscrit dans le cadre des politiques de logement du Gouvernement, en particulier dans les domaines de soutien communautaire et de l’offre de terrains.

L’archidiocèse catholique, dans le même esprit du message du Nouvel An de 1988 de Son Éminence, fait appel à ses fidèles afin de trouver des solutions aux problèmes de logement. Ceci encouragera l’ensemble des communautés de Toronto à appuyer et à promouvoir les organismes de parrainage à but non lucratif dans leur quartier.

As members well know, one of the biggest obstacles to producing affordable housing is the identification of available land. The archdiocese is making an inventory of its land to determine its appropriateness for housing development. This activity will have a major impact on our shared ability to produce affordable housing.

The archdiocese is leading the way with its plans to develop nonprofit housing on its own lands and is opening a housing office to co-ordinate the development of affordable housing on all church lands. This office will assist all concerned in providing more opportunities to build housing that is needed and so necessary. The Ministry of Housing will provide financial support to help set up this office.

Under the agreement, the ministry and the archdiocese are planning for the development of more than 800 nonprofit units over the next three years under our nonprofit programs. This includes some 400 now under active consideration and an additional 400 to 600 that will be identified once the inventory is complete and housing targets are established.

This agreement is a significant beginning to our strong working relationship with the archdiocese, and I hope a sign of things to come with other organizations.

PENSION BENEFITS

Hon. Mr. Elston: I wish to inform the House of the government’s intentions concerning a number of pension issues, if I may.

The Pension Benefits Act, 1987, deals with post-1986 surplus generated in a pension plan. Plan sponsors were given until December 31, 1988, to amend their documents to provide for ownership of surplus. Other plan amendments related to the 1987 pension reforms, however, are not mandated to be made until January 1, 1990.

In order that all plan amendments can be made in a comprehensive manner, the deadline concerning ownership of surplus amendments will be extended by regulation for one year.

I also wish to announce that we are amending another regulation to the Pension Benefits Act, 1987, to continue the restrictions of surplus withdrawals in terminating pension plans until January 1, 1990.

I also wish to announce we are in the process of consultation with business communities, labour organizations and consumers around the province, and that in our consultations on pensions we have recognized there are a number of closely related critical pension matters.

Therefore, it is my intention to release early this new year, draft legislation to form the basis of discussion on these issues, which include inflation protection, pension benefits, the guarantee fund, the solvency valuation rule, the splitting of pensions on marriage breakdown and clarifying amendments and strengthening of enforcement and administrative law elements of the Pension Benefits Act, 1987.

This draft legislation will be widely distributed for comment.

All of us recognize that pension reform to date has improved pension standards for the approximately 40 per cent of the Ontario labour force who are members of employment pension plans. But we must also be concerned about the rest of Ontario’s workers who do not have benefits such as those provided by pension plans.

It is our goal to expand employment pension plan coverage in Ontario, and this too will be included in our discussion draft.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other ministerial statements? If not, responses; the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: I was hoping that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) would be making a statement to accompany the rosy picture he painted here and left on our desks at one o’clock this afternoon. Since he does not have a statement, perhaps I can refer -- Hon. R. F. Nixon: Are you not going to be here tomorrow?

Mr. B. Rae: Are you going to make it tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No.

Mr. B. Rae: No? Oh, I see.

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps I can respond, first of all, to the announcement by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek). Any development of new housing in this province is to be welcomed and we on this side of the House certainly want to welcome it. It is part of a long-standing tradition on the part of many of our charitable and religious institutions to be heavily involved in the field of affordable housing. We are very, very proud the cardinal is here and has been speaking at a press conference, indicating exactly what the archdiocese plans to do.

But I would like to point out to the minister that in last spring’s budget –

Mr. Black: Now be careful; be nice. It’s the Christmas season.

Mr. B. Rae: In the spirit of the season, in last spring’s budget she announced 30,000 units in the Homes Now program, of which this, I take it, is part. This announcement gives details of several hundred more units to be built, but we have added it up and it means that out of the 30,000 that were announced, 3,800 have been solidified. There were 30,000 units promised in the budget, but there are only 3,800 units in what is supposed to be a multi-year program, so all that can be said is that there is a long, long way to go to achieve the necessary target.

I say to the minister that I look forward to her action on a number of applications that I know are in front of her that will, I am sure, be announced day by day by this government for the next several years. But I would say that I doubt very much that we will in fact reach the 30,000 units promised and headlined by the government on many occasions.

1350

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. B. Rae: If I might also respond to the statement by the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Elston), you have to have to have been here a while to know how ludicrous the minister’s statement is today.

When the accord government was in place, it was the inheritor of a set of policies that were in place, discussion papers with industry going back to 1981 and 1982 on this question of inflation protection. It has been sitting in the Treasury and the Ministry of Financial Institutions for seven years, and the minister knows that.

The issue has been canvassed. It has been discussed by treasurers across Canada. It has been discussed at conferences on pensions since 1981 or 1982. It is not a new issue.

After all the arguments we had with his predecessor, after all we were able to demonstrate in terms of the abuses by companies taking advantage and withdrawing surplus, of all the issues that we have raised with respect to contribution holidays and companies that are now contributing, of the thousands and tens of thousands of pensioners who have been waiting all this time for some action on what is going to happen to them, for the minister to say that the best he can do is that some time in the new year he is going to produce a draft discussion paper, draft legislation which will be discussed, legislation in draft form -- not even first reading, not even legislation presented as a bill but legislation simply out there for discussion -- it will be a long time before pensioners in this province get justice under a Liberal government.

It is perfectly obvious that under either the Liberals or the Tories, the message to pensioners in this province is wait, wait and wait again. We say the waiting should be over. People who are in their seventies and eighties should have the right to a pension that is protected from inflation by employers and by funds that have been making billions and billions and billions in excess profits these last seven years.

For the government to say it is simply going to ask pensioners to wait and wait and wait again just is not good enough.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Brandt: I am delighted to rise in my place today to have this opportunity to compliment His Eminence G. Emmett Carter on the initiatives that he has taken to assist the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) with respect to the development of affordable housing in this province.

I am delighted as well that Cardinal Carter has indicated that he is prepared to co-operate with this government in helping to solve one of the real crises this government is facing with respect to the expansion of a housing program that will meet the needs of the people who are unable to find adequate housing accommodation in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Are you currying favour with the church?

Mr. Brandt: I hope that the Minister of Housing will take into very serious consideration the kind of leadership shown by the cardinal with respect to this announcement, which will hopefully lead not only to the 400 units now under construction but to an additional 400 to 600 units that are being proposed on lands now controlled by the Catholic Church, but I hope as well that this will serve as a signal to other organizations throughout our province that the minister is now conceding that she is unable to meet this demand alone and will in fact need the voluntary contributions of organizations right across the province in order to fulfil the needs of housing.

I hope that all organizations that are in a similar situation to those under the responsibility of G. Emmett Cardinal Carter will in fact come forward and offer to the minister their assistance and help as well.

I would like to suggest, if I might -- and this may be somewhat unusual, but it is so infrequent in this House that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and myself can get up and agree with what the government is doing on any particular proposal that it puts forward -- that the cardinal should in fact be informed of the unanimity of this House with respect to this question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: You won’t make it into heaven no matter what you say.

Mr. Brandt: I think he should be informed in one of the most direct ways possible. I would like to recommend -- if I can get over the interruptions of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who is so amazed that we are agreeing with him on this point -- that the Hansard be sent to the cardinal and that he be very directly informed of the fact that all parties in this House applaud this very progressive and yet, at the same time, conservative measure with respect to the needs of this province. I hope it will lead to further initiatives that will in fact be taken in the days and weeks ahead by other organizations.

Mr. Cousens: In her statement, the Minister of Housing said, “This agreement is a significant beginning to our strong working relationship.” The one thing that is very true is that the Catholic Church and the Christian church have been working to help people for close to 2,000 years.

I am indeed pleased that there is a sense of hope for at least 400 to 600 more families. I think maybe the signal should go out that if the government can work effectively with the church groups and can work effectively with the civil service, maybe it can begin to work more effectively with those who build rental accommodation and develop a better strategy to work with the whole marketplace.

It takes all levels to work effectively in order to solve the problem. The government cannot do it just by itself. The fact that it has tried to do it by its lonesome for this length of time --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Even the cardinal couldn’t crack Markham.

Mr. Cousens: The cardinal can give it a blessing now, and that is going to be good, but let’s begin to have government and the builders in private enterprise and the church and the community at large working together. It has not happened till now. The government has not completed the triangle. Let’s see it work a little harder, because it has not begun to reach its election goal of 192,000 rental units by the end of this year. So far, the government is still a failure.

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. Runciman: A quick response to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Elston): We have mixed feelings about the statement today. While we share the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) about further delay, we are also reluctant to see this government plunge headlong into a process the way it did with the auto insurance. They rushed into the auto insurance field with an ill-thought-out, interventionist approach that has developed into one sorry mess. We hope that by taking this extra time and talking to a variety of people --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: You’re on the status quo kick today.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: -- about the implications, we are not going to be faced with the same sort of situation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions for the Premier about the car insurance review that is going on at the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and some of the tremendous difficulties that are being experienced at the board.

I understand the Premier made some statements to the press this morning with respect to who has the last word in this regard. I have once again been reading through Bill 2, the act under which the insurance board is working, and the Premier says he thinks the cabinet has the last word. If that is true, I wonder if he can explain why section 14 of the act says, “The board has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred upon it by or under this act.”

Just what section of the act is he going to be invoking or using in order to make sure that the rates are fair and reasonable, as the act in fact calls for?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is wrong, but I will turn it over to the minister to tell him why.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am pleased to rise to provide a little bit of background for my friends with respect to the means by which the proposal has been put in place to ensure that there are fair rates in the province for auto insurance. The member knows about the board. He has just quoted the section dealing with the issue of the hearings that bring within their jurisdiction the hearing of the rates. One of the things that we have been doing is funding the public interest, through the Consumers’ Association of Canada.

Of course, as I have said to all people as we have gone through this process, when the product is in the field and when in fact the rate system is well in place, we as a government obviously will be comparing our product against that of any other jurisdiction. Then not only will we be sure that the rates are fair, but that the people of the province are getting the coverage that insurance is designed to provide them in a reasonable manner, a cost-effective manner and in a manner which provides them with the coverage which they require to protect their interests in the event of accidents.

1400

Mr. B. Rae: I do not think I heard an answer to my question. Perhaps I could ask the minister, since he did not answer my question, whether he would not agree with subsection 27(1) of the act, which says, “The superintendent, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council” -- which means the cabinet – “may issue policy statements on matters related to categories of automobile insurance, classes of risk exposure and automobile insurance rates and dividends.”

Subsection 27(2) goes on to say, “A policy statement takes effect on the day it is published in the Ontario Gazette.” Subsection 27(3) says, “In making orders under this act, the board shall have regard to the policy statements issued under this section.”

Since the board has final jurisdiction over what the level of rates is going to be, and the only time the government gets to influence a board decision is by issuing a policy statement on the subject of insurance rates before the board makes its decision, does the minister not think he and his cabinet colleagues had better get together and decide what that policy statement is going to be on behalf of consumers? He has not appointed the advocate; the very least he could do is issue a statement telling the board what it is allowed to do.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, you will also want to know that in addition to people being able to get in touch with the Ministry of Financial Institutions so that we can pass the questions of difficulty that consumers are having on to the board, they can also get in touch with the superintendent of insurance, just to put to rest the member’s concern that consumers have no access to deal with questions of concern.

I can tell the honourable member that in terms of policy it is very clear that the board is to work in a manner which puts a fair rate system in place in Ontario. It is charged to ensure that the consumers of this province understand and know that its deliberations have provided a fair result.

That is what the open hearing process is about. That is what this public discussion we are having now with respect to rates is all about. That is a very clear policy statement made by this government as it was put through this Legislative Assembly. The public knows full well that the proposal which is in front of the board now to deliberate upon is being considered with respect to the public interest of having fair rates. I cannot think of anything that is more clear than that. Fair rates for coverage is a very clear and distinctive policy statement to that board in outlining its mandate.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me ask the minister a yes-or-no question. Is he or is he not, on behalf of the government of Ontario, going to issue a policy statement under section 27 indicating what the policy of the government of Ontario is with respect to insurance rates? Is he going to do it under section 27 specifically? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The government of this province has already spoken very clearly. We have indicated we want fair rates in Ontario. We have said that specifically. To ensure that this process is carried out, we have a very open and public hearing. The member would also be aware that at this particular time we have the first in a series of hearings the board will be having. It has an ongoing jurisdiction with respect to this matter. It will continue to hear in a public way concerns from the public, industry or other people about the rates, but the policy is never going to vary: fair rates in Ontario.

Mr. B. Rae: I never knew that the word “no” had a thousand syllables, but I guess it does. We just heard it from the Minister of Financial Institutions. The answer to my question was no.

Mr. Speaker: Your new question would be?

RENT REGULATION

Mr. B. Rae: A question to the Minister of Housing. I want to ask the minister some questions about rent review.

The minister will no doubt know that as of October 31, which is the last date for which we have figures, some 242,000 rental units are still awaiting a decision on rent review. That compares to, on March 30, 235,000 and on April 30, 240,000. It is, I admit to the minister, since I know she will say this, a slight decline from the peak of 258,000. It still represents nearly a quarter-of-a-million citizens, nearly a third of all people living in rental accommodation in units that are covered by the act, who are waiting to hear a decision on rent review.

I would like to ask the minister, when she has a situation as serious as that, when she has tenants who are routinely receiving increases of 8 per cent, 9 per cent, 10 per cent -- in fact, the average on rent review now is 11.4 per cent; again, the latest figure is from October 31 --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder how the minister can justify a system which leaves 250,000 people waiting, hanging around for years on end for a decision; and those tenants who have had their decisions show an increase which is over twice the allowable amount under the government’s so-called legislation.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have said in this House many times before, and I am happy to say again, that it concerns me greatly that we are not processing these answers as quickly as we would like. However, I would like to share with the member opposite, who I am sure is very interested in the answer since he was so interested in the question, that as of our last date, at the end of November, the backlog had been reduced to 18,300 applications, which is a significant reduction, and the number of applications governs how quickly people get their answers.

The member also made a case about the average increases for the people who have gone through rent review. That is indeed the case and those increases have to do with increases that are justified because of capital costs and other costs associated with running those buildings.

Mr. B. Rae: Since the minister’s answer states very clearly that there are increases that have been called justified, I would like to ask her how she feels about the fact that there are literally thousands of tenants who are paying more now, paying more this year, who will pay more next year and will pay more the year after and well into the 1990s because of the financial loss provisions of her bill.

In fact, would the minister not agree with me that there are thousands of tenants who are being asked for the next five or 10 years to carry the cost of flipping and speculation on apartment buildings, which her government has done absolutely nothing to stop?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The provisions of the act the member is talking about are there to make sure that if there is an increased cost when buildings change hands, the cost is contained. In 1982, when our party was in opposition, we worked hard to make sure that that increase was contained and capped at five per cent, and that is the way it works now.

It seems to me that one of the pieces of information that might be helpful to the member opposite is the knowledge that at the same time as there are indeed rent increases that go through the rent review system there are also rent reductions and rebates, and the average rebate of rent in this province has been 14.4 per cent.

Mr. B. Rae: If the minister needs documentation, we can provide it to her on a daily basis in terms of where the flipping is happening, where the speculation is taking place and why it is that the government’s law, in fact, sanctions it, allows it and indeed requires the tenants to finance it. Let me give one example.

Would the minister comment on this example at 191 St. George Street in Toronto, which has 100 apartments? The building was sold to 191 St. George Street Ltd. on August 31, 1987, for $2.9 million. This company then resold the building to Tri-Arms Investment Ltd. on January 5, 1988, for $5 million. This represents a 72.4 per cent increase in a little over four months’ time. That speculative increase is being paid for by the tenants every year on the financial loss provisions, and the minister knows it full well.

Does she not realize that the law she is in charge of administering requires tenants to finance speculation, not for one year, not for two years, but for as long as they are going to be tenants in that building? Is she not ashamed to have that kind of law in her jurisdiction?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The law I am administering was put together after consultation and extensive work with landlords and tenants. It is not perfect, but it was meant to be a balanced package in which there was a series of initiatives to balance the concerns raised. There are extensive and increased protections for tenants under this rent review legislation. There is, I believe, a reasonable balance.

1410

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier with respect to the Mercer report and the proposed auto insurance rates.

I want to suggest in advance that I have heard the comments of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston), so I would prefer that the question not be transferred to him. My question, therefore, is to the Premier and it relates to his comments. He said that just because the consultants give a suggestion does not mean that the government is going to do it. Cabinet, ultimately, and the Legislature make the decision on these things.

Is the Premier now admitting that the entire process of setting rates is not independent? That is contrary to what he has been saying in this House. What are the implications of his words with respect to this arm’s-length, independent review board, which he has indicated time and again in this House is going to have the responsibility for setting rates? Obviously, what he is saying here flies in the face of his previous comments, and I am looking for him to clarify which of his comments is correct.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The leader of the third party is wrong too; and I will not refer this to the Chairman of Management Board, I will refer it to the Minister of Financial Institutions.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It always gives me pleasure to respond to the member for Sarnia. Although I have said before basically what I am going to say now, I think it bears repeating. We have mandated the board to go out and set the rates. They have gone about their business in a very workmanlike way and they are in the process of setting rates, as is their responsibility.

Ultimately, of course, as has been indicated, we will compare the product which we have in place and working, after it has been in place in Ontario for some time, against the products that are in any other jurisdiction in North America to see what happens and deal with issues. With regard to the rates, the board will set the rates some time in January, as the member suggests.

Mr. Brandt: I want to be very clear in my supplementary to the Chairman of Management Board, since the Premier does not want to handle this particular issue. I say to the Chairman of Management Board that just a few days ago he indicated that there was more than adequate time for the board to get input from the public. Today, the Premier is saying that there is not adequate time and that we are going to have to extend the hearings -- again, a contradiction between him and the Premier.

Since the Premier has indicated on a number of occasions that this is an arm’s-length, independent body and today has indicated that in some way cabinet is going to make the decision -- two statements that are in direct conflict with respect to how this matter is being handled -- could the minister perhaps share with this House how those statements that are in direct conflict happened to occur? Then the public of Ontario will clearly understand what is going to happen with these rate increases, how it can have input, how the decisions are going to be made and what role, if any, the government is going to play, recognizing that on September 7 --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The minister.

Mr. Brandt: My question is --

Mr. Speaker: I heard quite a number of questions. Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The people will know that there has been a commitment made by the board, by us, that the hearing process will allow for input. I have said and the Premier has indicated that there ought to be ample time for public input and, in fact, that goes a long way to deal exactly with the public pronouncements of the chairman the first day the hearings started, Monday, December 12. He said that if they needed more time, they would take the time.

The interesting thing is that, as a result, there is no conflict in that statement, which goes a long way to indicate that the member obviously is not in possession of all the material facts. I had said the public is going to be able to appear before the board and I expect that to occur.

With respect to this board process, the hearing process is of course quite independent and is going to deal with all of the material facts that come before it and make its determination independently of us and will set the rates. We have a mandate in the province with respect to dealing with the issues of insurance. As the member knows, my capacity as the Minister of Financial Institutions is to deal with the act or any other parts. Of course, ultimately the responsibility for all of the carryings on in the business field in Ontario in one sense or another comes back to --

Mr. Speaker: That is quite a full answer.

Mr. Runciman: There is a very critical issue here that is being avoided like the plague by both the Premier and the minister. The Toronto Star says, “For the first time, Peterson indicated the government, not the so-called independent auto board, has the final say on auto insurance.” This is very critical. It is going to destroy any credibility this board supposedly has.

Let’s have an answer from the minister quite clearly. Is the Premier wrong or is the minister not giving appropriate and accurate information to this House?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is obviously not quite on on this one because, of course, ultimately we do have the carriage of the issue of insurance throughout the province: auto, private and otherwise. But I tell the member that the board has the requirement under the act to set the rates. We have the requirement as a government to take a look at the product and see how the policy is working out, and that will in fact take effect. I understand and the member understands full well that the board is setting the rates and we have, as the ultimate managers of the province, the obligation to compare the products.

WESTERN COAL

Mr. Brandt: My question again is to the Premier. I do not know if there is a minister of coal over there, but he will not be able to refer this one in that respect. The question I have is to the Premier in his capacity as vice-chairman of the Action Group on Western Canadian Coal.

It was about two years ago that the Premier issued instructions that Ontario Hydro should enter into immediate negotiations to buy western coal. I wonder if the Premier could indicate to the House today, since it was two years ago that that initiative was taken, what progress has been made. What contracts have Ontario Hydro entered into with the respect to the purchase of western coal and what contracts does the Premier anticipate will be unfolding in the weeks and months ahead?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am glad my honourable friend asked me that question. He is quite right. I think it was perhaps a year or so ago, perhaps two years, that we struck a task force under the chairmanship of Don Mazankowski and the western premiers to try to develop a methodology to buy more western coal in central Canada; not just for Ontario Hydro, but looking at its industrial applications as well, recognizing that even though we are in a world of free trade that my honourable friend supports, we would like to purchase as much as we can from our sister provinces.

I am going by memory but I think my facts are right. At the present time, I believe 37 per cent of Ontario Hydro’s coal requirements are purchased in western Canada. If I am wrong, my honourable friends will help me. We pay a premium for that now of about $100 million. In other words, if we purchased that same coal in the United States, in West Virginia, we could save Ontario Hydro roughly $100 million. One of the reasons we are doing it is because we believe we should support other provinces. Another reason, of course, is to diversify the suppliers in a contract of this nature.

We have also entered into and signed in a memorandum, even though we did not have a meeting, a number of co-operative projects that we could look at. One of the great problems in bringing in western coal is the transportation problem. We are looking at ways to get the BTU value of the coal up so you are shipping a higher-concentrate fuel. We are looking at our port facilities in handling this.

There are a number of new research projects that we are actively participating in and funding with the federal government. They are funding it out of their western opportunities fund or the equivalent thereof, as well as the other provinces. So we are engaging intensively in a lot of research to try to get the price of western coal down and make it more competitive.

We want to take this beyond just Ontario Hydro and have it for industrial applications, as I said, in Ontario as well. But at the present time, there is a severe price difference and a difference --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: My supplementary is with respect to the fact that, as the Premier is, I am sure, aware, the contracts we have at the present time with the United States in regard to the purchase of coal are coming due. If there are going to be major decisions made, those decisions are going to be made within a relatively short time frame, given the period of time required to plan for these kinds of massive changes.

1420

The Premier is probably also aware that the $100 million he mentioned will be offset very substantially by environmental improvements that can be made through the reduction of sulphur dioxide -- which is the problem with purchasing American coal at this time, the high levels of SO₂ -- and also the fact that some 5,000 jobs will be created in Ontario as a direct result of the importation of western coal as opposed to Pennsylvania or other US coal.

My question to the Premier is, what immediate steps are going to be taken with respect to entering into these contracts? Can he give us some concrete dates and figures with respect to his plans in regard to the purchase of western coal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is no, I cannot. The negotiations are continuing on both sides, as my honourable friend will know, and I do not think it would be helpful to Ontario Hydro or the suppliers to make all of those figures public at the present time. Frankly, I do not know them. There are experts there who are negotiating these things.

My honourable friend raised another interesting question, the implications of the free trade agreement, which is something that he supports. It is very interesting to hear him talking out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. On the one hand he is saying we should favour Canadian vendors, and on the other hand he is saying we should respect the free trade agreement. My honourable friend will want to get his own philosophic act together before he gives us advice.

That being said, I do appreciate having the honourable member’s advice, even if it is on both sides of the issue.

Mr. Brandt: Even that rather stretched statement did not get applause from the trained seals over on that side of the House.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: It is a little late now.

Since he raised this question, the Premier knows full well that nothing in the trade agreement denies him the opportunity to buy environmentally safe coal from western Canada. There is nothing in the agreement that sets aside a section that denies him that opportunity; so let’s not use that as some kind of red herring in this particular debate.

The Premier should also be aware, since I am trying to keep this on a positive note, that the importation of western coal into Ontario will alleviate part of the harbour crisis in Thunder Bay and will create a substantial number of jobs in that community as a result of increased harbour activity, which is now being impacted very substantially by the reduction in the shipments of western grain.

In terms of the importation of this particular coal, which I believe even the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) would agree is a substantial and positive step forward environmentally and for Ontario Hydro, will the Premier take the initiative, as the vice-chairman of the committee studying this question, to move this issue high on the priority list so that in fact we can bring in western coal, as we should have been doing for some long time, and as a previous government back in 1970 originally initiated? Will he take the steps to make sure --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. You did get to the question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Again I find my honourable friend’s advice a bit contradictory, but let me say that we issued instructions to Ontario Hydro a couple of years or a year ago to try to increase those volumes from western Canada.

Indeed, I think if the member talked to Premier Vander Zalm, Premier Getty or the others, he would understand that Ontario has been making a supreme effort in this regard, and we are anxious to do so.

There are certain differences in SO₂, as my honourable friend has pointed out, but there are also differences in technology and what can be burned where. There are different technical problems. It is not always easy, as I understand it -- and others will give me advice if I am wrong -- to transfer one grade of coal for another. There are problems involved in this.

My honourable friend is suggesting that we should bring this forward to solve the problems in the Lakehead today because of the layoffs of the grain handlers. That is a different problem, and I am glad he raised it. This is an issue that worries me a great deal -- not just the jobs in the Lakehead but indeed the future of the St. Lawrence Seaway. As my honourable friend knows, the Seaway has been a major artery for the province of Ontario and indeed for western Canada. Because of federal government policies, they are stripping down the Lakehead.

I have had considerable correspondence with the Prime Minister on this issue, as indeed have many other members from the Thunder Bay area. This is extremely worrisome. Because I know that my honourable friend is held in such high repute by the Prime Minister, I would ask him for his advice and for his help in this matter. Would he please get in touch with the Prime Minister and say that he should treat the grain handlers in Thunder Bay the same way he is treating other grain handlers and that he has got to fulfil his responsibilities?

I know when the honourable leader of the third party stands up and speaks with passion --

Interjections.

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

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Solicitor General. She will be aware that under the present Retail Business Holidays Act, Boxing Day is a holiday. Is the minister aware that the Hudson’s Bay Co. has sent a letter to its employees advising them that it intends to disobey that law and in fact encouraging its employees to be part of this disrespect for the present law? If so, what does she intend to do, as the chief law enforcement officer of this province, to uphold the present act?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I particularly welcome such an interesting question from this member who has not been uninvolved in the discussions at the standing committee on administration of justice. We were very hopeful that we would have this out of committee and to the House so that we would have a new act with teeth in it to prevent such an occurrence.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale expects an answer. Minister?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would remind all members of the Legislature that last year there was some confusion around the Boxing Day closing. The stores indeed stayed closed on Boxing Day, which was Saturday, and some of them tried to open on Sunday due to the Sabbatarian exemption. That issue is not here presently at stake this year.

I saw the letter to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) from the Hudson’s Bay Co. in which it said that it had heard rumours that 70 per cent of the stores were going to open, etc., and then went on to advise its staff on all of this. I do not operate on rumours. I have heard no such rumours. The police are instructed. They will pursue the law as it stands and lay charges. I trust that the Hudson’s Bay Co. and other corporate citizens will obey the law, as indeed individual citizens are expected to do also.

Mr. Philip: Now that the minister has heard the rumour, the same minister who has introduced legislation that has amounted to every Hudson’s Bay store in British Columbia being open on every Sunday, would the minister tell us what she intends to do about a company that is advising its employees that it intends to break the law? Is she going to use the powers of injunction or other powers, as the chief police officer in this province, to see that this kind of wilful disobedience of the law and counselling others to --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait for a while, if you want to waste time.

1430

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I hope no member will complain in the future that he has not had an opportunity to ask a question. Order.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member is well aware there are injunctive powers in the new bill, which has not been passed, which is still in committee.

There are no injunctive powers in the present bill to apply to anybody, be it the Hudson’s Bay Co. or the smallest merchant anywhere.

When we get the new bill, we will use the powers it gives us. In the meantime, we will lay charges as the present bill permits.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The London area office staff of his ministry has informed parents of autistic children of a 25 per cent reduction across the board in parent relief time. As he knows, raising an autistic child is a tremendous challenge and puts a great deal of strain on family members. In some families, this means a 25 per cent reduction in just six hours a month of relief time.

With this totally inadequate level of support services now, can he explain to the family members just how they can continue to provide the necessary care for their children in their own homes?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member is referring, I believe, to our special services at home program. In the past three years, we have increased the budget of this program from about $5.7 million to about $11.5 million. That is more than a 100 per cent increase.

In the specific area that she is referring to, the London area, it has increased just over the last two years from $637,000 to about $1.1 million. That is almost a doubling; not quite. That is just simply a reflection of the increased demand for the service.

The member would know that in all of my programs I have limitations on total budget available, because the rest of the budget has to go to all the other programs for which I am responsible.

There has to be some control on the expenditure expansion because there just is not an unlimited amount of money; so our area office has been asked to reduce contracts by 25 per cent, where it is possible, as they come up for renewal. There is no reduction where it would make a significant impact on the family.

It is not an across-the-board reduction. It is a reduction for some but not for others.

Mrs. Cunningham: We checked this information with regard to the across-the-board reduction, which is one part of our concern, just within the last hour or so and we were informed otherwise: that six hours a month for some families and 40 hours a month for other families will be reduced across the board. So, I would ask the minister to check into that part.

I think really the question here is the ministries’ priority, both in health care and in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, for keeping families and children in their own homes.

I do not understand, and I am spending a great deal of time explaining to the public as we get calls in our office, how the government can support home care and not provide the resources.

My question is: How can a decision like this even take place when his ministry professes to support deinstitutionalization?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let me speak to the very last point the member made.

I have issued a clear directive that no family, where there is a possibility of a child being institutionalized, will have any cut. I would ask the honourable member to check the sources she referred to in her question to see if that is the case. In fact, there will not be any institutionalization as a result of this.

Secondly, I would remind the honourable member that the specific program to which she is referring is only one of several programs that are available to many families. For example, once a family has reached the $10,000 maximum of this particular program, then there are other programs to which it has access, other agency programs from my ministry and, in a number of cases, home care assistance through the Ministry of Health. It is not just this program in the case of many families, particularly those families who have children with multiple needs. A combination of all of those resources is usually sufficient to meet the needs of families.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

Ms. Collins: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. In recent years Canadians have become more aware of the quality of their environment. Issues such as acid rain, climate change and ozone depletion are discussed on a national scope every day. Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon elected representatives to lead by example. Would the minister please indicate whether consideration is being given to use environmental criteria as part of the provincial government’s procurement policy?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I listened carefully and with great interest to the member’s statement today. She will be aware that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) a few months ago announced the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy, which among many things identified a couple of major concerns, one being the interdependence between sustainable economic activity and long-term environmental concerns; the other one was, in fact, government’s corporate responsibility. As such, I have asked my officials if they would begin to look at our responsibilities related to environmentally sensitive and environmentally friendly products in our procurement area.

Ms. Collins: In a recent survey of my constituents, the majority have indicated that the environment is the issue of greatest concern to them. Would the minister inform this House how quickly he expects his ministry to adopt this policy?

Hon. Mr. Patten: As I think the member has, I have heard many constituents in my community identify the environment as a major concern and how that is applied to the daily activity of government. In fact, parenthetically, I am planning to organize a workshop in my own riding. Having asked my officials this particular question, I would expect that early in the new year, perhaps in January or February, we would be able to come forward with recommendations for some changes to our procurement policies so that they may be far more environmentally sensitive than they are now.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Last week in the House, with regard to the Bastien case, the Solicitor General said, “As I understand it, the difference between the section 58 that the member uses and the section 59 that I would be using” is that under order in council of the Lieutenant Governor, this section would give broad definition to the inquiry being held by the Ontario Police Commission.

Clearly, last week, the minister was saying the inquiry into the Bastien case was being called under section 59 of the Police Act. If that is the case, I would like to ask the minister why it is that Mr. Drinkwalter, the chairman of Ontario Police Commission, in an interview with the Windsor Star, said that it was being called under section 58, and then this morning when I spoke to him, he said it was being called under section 11, under regulation 790 of the Ontario Police Act, and as of today, there has still been no order in council passed; so even if it is under section 59, as the Solicitor General announced last week, there is no order in council, and the chairman of the Ontario Police Commission has no idea under which section of the Police Act he is proceeding for this inquiry.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It is certainly my understanding -- and I do not intend to get into a legal play on words here -- that the issue is fundamentally being dealt with under section 59, as I indicated. It is my understanding it also involves the section mentioned, section 11. When I was instructed originally about the numbers, both numbers were used, but 59 is what I had heard. I think the actual numbers do relate to two other similar sections, 58 and 59. Section 59, as I indicated, is broader in scope, dealing with matters related to the Ontario Police Commission that deal in a general way, whereas under section 58 it deals more specifically with problems of a municipality or of the OPC relating to a municipality, and tends to be something requested often by the municipality in reporting back to it.

Section 59 is the section involved here. It will be by order in council and will be acted on in that way and reporting back to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as required under section 59.

1440

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I can only say that this matter has been handled by the minister in the most incompetent fashion possible in the last several months -- absolutely incompetent.

Last week, when the minister made her announcement, she had no idea which section she was calling it under. We had to ask her. When is the order in council going to be passed, what is the scope of this inquiry going to be; and can she answer the question that I asked Mr. Drinkwalter this morning -- will there be public hearings? This morning when I asked him, he said, “There has been no decision on public hearings.” If there are no public hearings on this matter, if it is not going to be handled and defined by order in council, then last week was a hoax and the incompetence continues.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I wish to be very clear. When I stood up and made my announcement last week, I noted that the member of the opposition rushed over to the library behind the throne, came up with the book and the section involved. When he used the term “58,” I was surprised and checked indeed to make sure that I had not made an error. It turned out I had not. It was 59, as I had announced. He had the book in front of him and got the wrong number. I cannot help that.

Mr. B. Rae: You didn’t tell us which section of the act. You didn’t say anything about it. You didn’t say whether it was a public hearing.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: With regard to whether there will be public hearings or not, once again, I am not about to get into a battle around words. I have assured the public that the whole matter will be aired in public with public input. I am not going to argue about the precise wording of the terms of reference until we present them to the members.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Cousens: A question for the Minister of Transportation. Is it the minister’s intention to institute parking fees for the 19,000 Go Transit parking spaces in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member will be aware that I had stated earlier that indeed we have become a very large parking operator. He is, I am sure, quoting from a report from the press recently where the regional chairman of Halton made reference to that. It is something that has not been discussed in my office.

Mr. Cousens: Maybe this gives us a chance to have the minister go on record. Certainly, the 19,000 spaces are insufficient to meet the needs of the people who need Go Transit. We need more transit services. We need to have more support from the government for the people to get them off the roads and on to public transit. What I would like to ask the minister is if he can give us his commitment today in the Legislature that he will fight to make sure that there is no charge for parking spaces in Ontario for Go Transit spaces.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not know whether the member comes to this House by his large car or by transit. I would certainly like to find that out. I really have to --

Mr. Cousens: I don’t fly on a broom.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: He arrived on his broom this morning.

Interjections

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I sometimes have to take the member’s questions as if they are addressed to me with his tongue in his cheek, considering that in the short time that he was a member of the previous government, the only decision they made with respect to transit provisions for this province was to cancel the Go advanced light rail transit.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Oh no, shame.

Mr. Farnan: Ask Mr. McCague behind you.

Mr. Cousens: I did; you’re wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for St. Catharines-Brock.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. It has been close to two years since the declaration of intent was signed by two United States and two Canadian jurisdictions in regard to the Niagara River toxic management plan. While about 90 per cent of the contaminants originate on the American side of the river, I think it is clear that we on the Canadian side have the responsibility to clean up our own act. Would the minister tell this House what actions have been taken on our side of the river to meet these environmental obligations?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would be pleased to do so because the member’s point is a valid one: Unless we take the appropriate action, we cannot point the finger. Between 1982 and 1986, the reduction was some 60 per cent on our side of the river.

There have been a number of capital projects jointly funded by the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario and the regional municipality of Niagara, including the Niagara Falls sewage treatment plant improvement where we put in $3.3 million, the Anger sewage treatment plant upgrading where we have $3.4 million, the expansion of the Welland sewage treatment plant where we put in $4.8 million, and it goes on. There is a list of a number of projects.

I understand there are at least 19 projects which are currently on the go or recently completed in the regional municipality of Niagara which have contributed to an improvement of the quality of the water which goes into the river. In addition to that, we have imposed control orders on companies that have effluents which head into waterways heading into the Niagara River or the Great Lakes system.

Of course, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program will have a measured effect, a very important effect, on this. All of these actions taken together, generally from the Ministry of the Environment, that apply to the whole province and specifically to the Niagara River, have put us in a very strong position to demand equal action from our American friends.

Mr. Dietsch: Concerns have been expressed about the rather short list of persistent toxic chemicals to be dealt with on a priority basis. It started out, I believe, as a list of 10 and has now grown and has been expanded to a list of 15.

Would the minister be prepared to assure this House that just as that list has been enlarged from 10 to 15, expanded by 50 per cent, will it be expanded past that stage and will it include any chemicals that scientists or others may deem appropriate for immediate attention?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is correct in saying that initially there were only 10 on that list that were selected as priority pollutants. At that time I expressed concern that it was a very limited number and I wanted to see that list expanded. It has been expanded by some 50 per cent at the present time. That list, of course, includes polyaromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls.

In addition to that, there are some 50 that are on what is called a grey list at the present time, 50 chemicals which are being examined to be put on a list of chemicals to be reduced. The sampling protocols are being developed for those. As the scientists, technical people and others have their input and as protocols are developed for the testing of those, they will then be placed on that priority list.

If anybody knows anything about the Niagara River and particularly the inputs from those toxic waste dumps on the other side, I think it is safe to say that it is a requirement that there be far more than the 10 or 15 we have seen at the present time. That list indeed should be expanded beyond that, and I intend as Minister of the Environment of Ontario to ensure that --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question, the member for Hamilton East.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, and it is a serious concern to a number of workers in Ontario. We have two situations. We have 26 workers -- ex-employees of Max Security and Investigations, owned at the time by the Tunney brothers, who do the wrestling promotion -- who are out of work and who had an order from the employment standards for some $70,000 owing them issued in August of this year. They are nowhere in receiving that money and most of them are not very highly paid employees.

We have as well the Consolidated-Bathurst plant in Hamilton, which closed five and a half years ago and which four and a half years ago got an order, on the basis of bargaining in bad faith, for an additional $335,000 to the 177 workers in that plant. Those workers, over one third of whom are still not working to this day, have never received that money. It is worth well over $400,000 now with the interest that has accrued to it.

Can the minister tell us what he is doing in the case of these workers who are not getting their money five and a half years later, and about a year or less later, and who are in real need?

1450

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to respond first to the question about Max Security and Investigations. My understanding is there is some $70,000 in unpaid wages and vacation pay and that orders have now been issued by the employment standards branch, but those orders have not yet been complied with. The employment standards branch will continue to go after that employer to recover those moneys on behalf of the employees.

On the matter of Consolidated-Bathurst, I do not have an answer available for the member at this point, but I will provide him with one as soon as possible.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister will know that you cannot eat an order and that the order from the employment standards branch does not mean anything if it cannot collect it. Yet the owners of this company, or the ex-owners of it before they closed it down, are obviously doing quite well.

In the Connie-Bath case, about nine of the workers have died since that plant closed down and it will be their estates, if anything, that will get the money they are due. How many more are going to have to die -- it has now been five and a half years they have been without their money -- before we get that?

These governments -- the minister’s and the previous government, I believe -- have promised we would get legislation to see that workers could collect money legitimately owed to them, even if Ontario had to take action on its own and not wait for federal changes. Can the minister tell us when we are going to have some action that will give these workers who need that money the money that is due them.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Hamilton East makes a very good point. Shortly after I assumed responsibility within the Ministry of Labour, I was apprised of relatively high-level negotiations going on across Canada among ministers of labour and my counterpart in the federal government, looking forward to a national wage protection program that would ensure that right across this country we would have a system in place where wages and vacation pay that were owing to workers under circumstances where a business failed, for one reason or another, insolvency or otherwise, would be paid.

It is to my great disappointment that over the past few months I have heard zero, nothing, from the federal government as to whether it is actually going to implement the program. Notwithstanding that bankruptcy is a federal matter, I agree with my friend the member for Hamilton East that we should not let the clock run much longer before we look at initiatives that would respond at least to the workers in this province. Those are matters I am working on presently.

COMPENSATION FOR WITNESSES

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question for the Attorney General. Sandra Boyd, a single mother in the town of Smiths Falls, was a witness at a criminal trial in Whitney, Ontario, almost 100 miles from her home. In order to testify, she had to take a day off from work and she forfeited her pay of $52. In return, she received a cheque for $6 from the province for being a witness -- a measly $6. She has asked me to return the cheque to the Attorney General, which I will do.

I would like to ask the Attorney General if he feels this is adequate compensation for someone who incurred this significant expense in trying to do her duty to society, bearing in mind that she is a single parent.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think the honourable member’s point is a good one. I think some mistake has been made, probably by one of those people the member’s government appointed down his way to deal with these things. As the honourable member knows, the regulation fixes a daily fee for attending as witness and provides for a mileage or transportation charge as well.

Based on the facts the honourable member has given me, I believe the cheque should have been for significantly more than the amount the honourable member has referred to. If he would like to return it, I would be delighted to look into it, see what the appropriate compensation is and send it right along to Miss Boyd.

Mr. Wiseman: I understand that under the jurisdiction of the federal courts they have amended that payment to witnesses to something more reasonable. I understand from a lawyer in my area that as the Attorney General said, the fee is set through regulation. In fairness to witnesses who come forward to do their duty, I ask him if he will try to put through a change to the regulation to bring it at least equal to the compensation the federal government is paying at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am very sympathetic to that. The honourable member’s leader, of course, is always saying we are spending too much money, but certainly, if the honourable member can persuade his leader we should be spending more money on matters of this type, I would be very delighted to have his support in that major effort.

In so far as this cheque is concerned, it seems to me fairly clear it was erroneously made out. Perhaps the honourable member will return it. He said he would but I do not have it yet.

Mr. Wiseman: I have returned it.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Ah yes; here it is. “Return to Sender.” I thank him. I will look into it and see it gets corrected and sent out as quickly as possible.

PROPOSED PULP MILL

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. In view of the need to assure proper end use of timber resources in northern Ontario, the announcement that the governments of Alberta and Canada are funding a new experimental pulp mill in the northern part of that province, and in view of the need to process more of our natural resources in the north to diversify the northern economy, will the minister facilitate the establishment of a new chemothermomechanical pulp mill in the Wawa area to process hardwoods, by directing Ontario Hydro to implement the recommendation of the legislative committee to emulate the practice of Hydro-Quebec by providing preferential electricity rates in the northern part of this province?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I can conceptually answer the honourable member’s question by saying that many of the objectives he enunciated are objectives this government would like to see implemented through a vehicle like Ontario Hydro in terms of its supply-side generation policies.

With respect to the specific project the honourable member referred to, I would be more than pleased to have my officials look at the precise facts to determine how we can best co-operate in terms of meeting the objectives of the government and Ontario Hydro.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Cousens: “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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I present these 533 signatures properly placed before you with the hope that the government will do something about it.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

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

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

“Whereas the crown in the province of Ontario continues a lengthy and expensive prosecution against the Church of Scientology; and

“Whereas at no time in recorded history has an entire church been charged with a criminal offence for the actions of individuals, and freedom of religion in the province is at risk; and

“Whereas the alleged offences occurred over a decade ago and those responsible have been expelled from the church or rehabilitated,

“We petition the Attorney General and the government of Ontario to withdraw the charges against the church and end this prosecution.”

This petition is signed by some 450 residents and I submit it with the caveat that I will sign this petition, as I am obliged to do, in order to allow the petition to be entered into the record, and for no other reason.

1500

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Henderson: “To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

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

“Whereas we strongly oppose Sunday openings, we believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain a common pause day.”

This petition is signed by about 150 constituents and residents of the Metropolitan Toronto area and by me.

CAMPING RESTRICTIONS

Mr. Pope: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

“We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Ministry of Natural Resources to remove all ‘No Camping’ signs posted at several locations within the limits of the district of Cochrane. We also petition the ministry to make campsites available in the district without a day limit. As it now stands, ‘No Camping’ signs have been posted in areas of existing campsites and we feel this is unfair to all taxpayers. Dump sites could be made available at these sites to protect the environment and water source.”

This petition is signed by over 200 residents of the communities of Iroquois Falls and Timmins and I have signed it myself. It was delivered by Robert Joanisse, and I support the petition.

USE OF LOTTERY PROFITS

Mr. McClelland: 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:

“We agree with the intent of Bill 119, to divert a portion of lottery profits to help with the funding of hospitals, and we respectfully urge the parliament of Ontario to pass this bill into law as soon as possible.”

It is signed by 492 residents of the town of Caledon and I have affixed my signature to the petition.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Eves: 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:

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

This petition is signed by 131 teachers employed by the West Parry Sound Board of Education and I have affixed my signature to it itself.

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. McLean: I have a petition signed by 36 parents of children in the Simcoe County Board of Education school system to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“We, the undersigned, are opposed to the use of multifaith prayers and readings in Simcoe County Board of Education schools.”

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Furlong 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 Pr73, An Act to revive George A. McNamara Memorial Foundation;

Bill Pr75, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on Bill Pr73, An Act to revive George A. McNamara Memorial Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. McLeod moved first reading of Bill 199, An Act to amend the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The minister may have a brief explanatory note.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Just a brief introduction: The purpose of the proposed legislation is to amend the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act to give Ryerson the authority to grant new baccalaureate degrees consistent with the objects and purposes of the institute.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 193, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

PSYCHOLOGISTS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Caplan moved second reading of Bill 196, An Act to amend the Psychologists Registration Act.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I will be brief. I have spoken with the critics from both the opposition parties and explained that the Ontario Board of Examiners in Psychology is responsible for regulating psychologists under the authority of the Psychologists Registration Act, which was originally passed in 1960 and has never been amended.

The act constitutes a board of five members with a quorum of three. This amendment will increase the size of the board to allow due process. It will also include, for the first time, the participation of public members on the board. I will be pleased to answer any questions any members have regarding this particular amendment, which will allow for a discipline hearing to go forward.

This bill is considered by the association to be a housekeeping amendment to allow it to get on with its business as a self-governing profession.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly, we will be supporting this amendment.

I would not necessarily say this is simply a housekeeping amendment. As described in the compendium of information, the amendment is necessary because there is an emergency situation. One wonders, when we are dealing with these types of legislation regulating the professions and we get into emergencies like this -- my understanding is that the first request for this amendment was made in the late 1970s. We are now in the late 1980s and we are finally dealing with an emergency situation. God only knows what would happen if there were a crisis.

However, we will be supporting this because we understand and agree that it is necessary to have additional members to deal with concerns and have a quorum and all the rest of the things that are important. We will be supporting it and at House leaders’ meetings we were happy to facilitate this getting on the agenda today.

Mr. Eves: Our party as well will be supporting this proposed bill. It basically increases the number of the members of the Ontario Board of Examiners in Psychology and adds three lay people to the board. This bill will allow the Ontario Board of Examiners in Psychology to deal with the growing number of complaints and disciplinary matters.

The current legislation provides for five board members and no committee structure to handle complaints and discipline. As a matter of principle, and in order to ensure due process, complaint and discipline committees hearing the same case should not be composed of the same members. Currently, the board finds itself in an emergency situation where some major disciplinary hearings cannot proceed because three board members have previous knowledge.

The proposed increase of the board to 10 members, three to be lay members, with a statutory quorum of three, will allow the board to establish a de facto discipline committee. In the current act, there are no lay members. Adding public members to the board will bring the Ontario Board of Examiners in Psychology closer to the model established in the Health Disciplines Act.

We in our party, as I said, support the bill. The Ontario Psychological Association has been pushing for these changes for quite some time, as my colleague in the official opposition has indicated, because of an increasing number of complaints before the board of examiners. The volume of disciplinary cases currently before the board has doubled since 1985.

1510

They had been expecting the proposed new Health Disciplines Act, which is now being developed by the health professions legislation review, to legislate these changes. The fact that the minister has had to introduce these amendments is perhaps an indication that there are indeed problems being experienced by the health professions legislation review. Notwithstanding that fact, we feel that these changes are necessary at this time and we are in full support of them.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to thank the members of the opposition and members of this House and the opposition House leaders who have made it possible for this bill to proceed.

The critic for the third party referred to the health professions legislation review, which has been ongoing for some five years. I am hopeful that we will soon have the report of that task force and that we will then begin the legislative process. But because that is sometimes a lengthy process, the urgency of the situation arising for psychology is such that I felt it was wise to bring forward this amendment to allow for discipline hearings to proceed. As far as I am concerned, this is a matter of protection of the public and in the public interest.

I would like to express my thanks to members of the Legislature.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

SOUTH AFRICAN TRUST INVESTMENTS ACT / LOI SUR LES PLACEMENTS SUD-AFRICAINS DÉTENUS EN FIDUCIE

Mr. Offer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, second reading of Bill 9, An Act permitting Trustees and other Persons to dispose of South African investments.

M. Offer, en l’absence de l’hon. M. Scott, propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 9, Loi permettant aux fiduciaires et à d’autres personnes d’aliéner les placements sud-africains.

Mr. Offer: Today, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), I am presenting for second reading the South African Trust Investments Act. Many people, including members of this House, have expressed concern that despite the nature of the government in South Africa, a large number of corporations incorporated or managed outside that country have subsidiaries there or carry on business there.

These companies are seen as directly or indirectly supporting South African government policies since they contribute in some measure to the economic prosperity of the country, to the benefit largely of the white minority. As a result, many people in Canada believe these companies should stop doing business in South Africa.

Many have already accepted for themselves a policy of divestment. That is a policy by which shares in South African companies or companies doing business there are disposed of. Many institutional investors, such as pension funds, have expressed to government their desire to participate in a voluntary program of divestment of assets relating to South Africa.

The problem is that these investors face a legal barrier to divestment, and that is the law of trusts. The law now imposes a legal obligation on trustees to maximize the economic return to the fund. Buying and selling on moral or political grounds is forbidden by law if this reduces the profitability of the investment portfolio.

The purpose of this bill, I believe the first of its type in Canada, is to permit the divestment of trust assets on the grounds I have set out. It is an option that, under the bill, will be opened to a wide number of trusts, charities and pension funds in Canada, whereby the beneficiaries and trustees of those funds can express in a voluntary way their disapproval of the policy of apartheid in South Africa.

The government does not wish to impose on the people of Ontario one view of how to contribute to a solution of the deplorable problem in South Africa. The bill does not compel divestment; neither does it allow the trustees on their own to be moral at the expense of investments held for the beneficiaries, for it is not the trustees’ money here. Therefore, the consent of the beneficiaries is required for a divestment policy. However, we do wish to respond to what we believe is a clearly felt desire by a number of trusts to take this kind of action with the full accord of the beneficiaries.

Honourable members may be interested to know that our bill goes well beyond many statutes with a similar purpose in the United States in that it applies to trusts in the private sector, and not only those that invest public money. It also applies to pension funds that are, legally speaking, not trusts but corporations. Likewise, charitable organizations and foundations are empowered to divest, whether or not they are trusts.

For these reasons, I invite the House to let all these organizations express their views without the impediment that has up to now prevented many of them from doing so.

Mr. Hampton: This is an important bill. We want to acknowledge that. It is an important bill, given the climate in terms of human rights around the world. We are glad that the government has finally spoken on this issue, although it has taken it some time.

We intend to support this bill in general, although not because we are happy with it. In fact, if I may say, we have significant displeasure with it. However, it having taken the government this long to get this far, we realize it is very likely that no matter how much we might protest, no matter how much we might want to move the government to go further, it is very unlikely that it will go further. So we will support the bill.

However, we think the government has taken the weakest way out. The government could have brought in a much stronger bill. The government could have made a more forthright, a more direct, a more persuasive statement through this bill than it has chosen to do. We are disappointed about that. However, we recognize that the government has an overwhelming majority and we recognize we cannot fight it to the wall on every issue.

So in this case we will propose -- and I will be showing my amendment to the parliamentary assistant a little later on -- one amendment to the bill in the hope that the government will recognize the wisdom of our amendment and will go along with it. I will be getting to that in a moment.

I want to make some comments just generally about this bill and generally about the situation in which it presents itself. I said moments ago that I thought the government was taking the easy way out, was making a weak statement, was doing as little as it could in this area. I want to refer to some of the documents that provide the history on this, just to back up my position.

Someone was kind enough to turn over to us a cabinet submission given back in 1986, where all of the issues are canvassed. It was submitted to cabinet by the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and, if I am not mistaken, the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and one other ministry as well. It canvasses at some length the government’s options in this area. It goes through at some length what some other jurisdictions have done and what could have been done by the government.

1520

Let me just peruse some of those things. The parliamentary assistant has said what the bill is about. The bill provides for voluntary divestment by public and private trusts, public and private pension funds and so on. Basically, it says trustees are not liable for monetary consequences of such divestment decisions provided they have obtained majority approval or, in some cases, have reason to believe that they have majority approval.

What that does not do is require even this government to divest. It does not even require this government to sit down and say, “We are going to divest X, Y and Z.” As the parliamentary assistant knows, the government has control over or has a part in some investments that continue in South Africa, and the government is in a position where it could make a direct statement on these.

If this legislation provided for mandatory divestment, if this legislation said there shall be mandatory divestment of pension and investment funds in South Africa, the government itself would be mandated to divest. I suppose the government might have to make some difficult decisions, but it would place the onus on the government to divest immediately some of the holdings or trusts or pension funds that have South African investments.

That would be a wonderful indicator to the private sector of where Ontario stands, but sadly, the government of Ontario has chosen not to do that. It has chosen not to go the mandatory divestment route, and I am very sad that it has chosen the weak route that it has and very sorry about the consequences that will flow from that.

There is much more that the government could have done. If divestment were mandatory, for example, I suggest that the government would then have to define clearly the South African investments which trusts are required to sell and avoid. The government would then become involved in saying to banks, investment institutions and corporations: “Look, these are investment funds, These are trust funds; these are business opportunities you should avoid.” I think that would be a wonderful statement for this government to make. It would be a wonderful statement for Ontario to make.

Likewise, if divestment were mandatory, we would not have to worry about getting the consent of beneficiaries. Clearly, from the parliamentary assistant’s statement, he is concerned about that. He is concerned that we go through the process of getting the consent of beneficiaries.

Well, let’s just look at that for a minute. I will concede just for a moment what the government’s concern appears to be. It does not want to appear to be intruding on or interfering with what it would term the legitimate business decisions of a trust fund, pension fund or investment fund. But I want to say to the government that if ever there was a case, if ever there was a time to interfere with, to give some direction on so-called legitimate business investments, pension investments and trust investments, now is the time. This is the time. This is the place to do it. If ever there was a time, this is it.

It would be a wonderful statement, again, for Ontario to make in terms of the direction it would give to the private sector, the example it would set for the private sector, a wonderful example it would set for the federal government, a wonderful example it would set for all the other provincial governments in the land. It would be a very good day, because really what the government has said in its position is that some very important, very basic human rights, which too many of us pay lipservice to, are once again going to get second consideration to how much interest someone is going to earn, to someone’s property.

Property rights and money in this most basic of all human rights situations are going to come first and foremost among human rights. When you have boiled down all of the wordage, that is what comes out of the government’s statement. We have to go through the delicate and difficult operation of finding out, in some cases, who the beneficiaries are and securing their agreement before someone’s basic human rights can be recognized. In the contest between property rights and human rights, in this government’s eyes property rights have won out again.

So divestment is optional. The trustees cannot make individual decisions about the extent of divestment. They have to obtain permission and they have to ensure that the people who are beneficiaries or hold an interest in the investment fund also agree that human rights should come before property rights. That is not going to happen here.

Some very worthwhile comparisons can be made. The parliamentary assistant said that the bill that has been presented compares very favourably with United States jurisdictions and jurisdictions elsewhere. Perhaps it does in some respects, but in other respects it pales in comparison; it is sad in comparison. Let me briefly refer to some American jurisdictions.

About 20 states and 80 cities in the United States have passed laws requiring divestiture of stock in companies doing business in South Africa or prohibiting state and local governments from giving contracts to such US companies. According to the United States voluntary body, the Investor Responsibility Research Center, some states have required that no public funds be invested in companies that do business in South Africa unless those companies comply with certain guidelines: equal wages and open promotion policies for all races.

I suggest that if the government had looked carefully at what some of these US states and cities have done, it would have had a model. I do not suggest it has to adopt every letter from A to Z of what has been done by US states and some US cities, but I think the government would have found some very good models which it could have used to do more and to give a better statement to the world, the private sector in Ontario, the federal government and all the other provincial governments in Canada.

Let me just give another example: the state of California. A California bill requires divestment of shares in companies doing business in South Africa by the public employees’ retirement system. In other words, California has come out and said: “Any pension fund or any retirement fund that the state of California has some control over or some input in, divest. Even if we lose money, we divest. Human rights in South Africa are more important than the money we may lose on the divestment.”

They have said that the public employees’ retirement system must divest; they have said that the state teachers’ retirement system must divest, and they have said that the University of California’s investment fund must divest. In American dollar terms, those funds in California amount to about $11 billion of investments in companies doing business in South Africa. They have made a statement which counts. How pale is our statement in comparison.

1530

The California bill is even more specific than that because it says beginning January 1, 1988, until January 1, 1991, state trust funds must divest annually of one third of each of their investments in companies doing business in South Africa. The bill indemnifies trustees from claims and judgements that may arise from divesting.

I want to say to the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General and to the government that all of these models were out there for them. They could have looked at all of them. They could have picked and chosen. They did not even have to go all the way. There were models out there that would have allowed them, as California has done, to require divestment of one third of the remaining divestment each year. They could have done that, but they have not.

I merely want to say again that we have an Ontario Human Rights Commission; we have ministers of Citizenship and Culture; we have the Attorney General in charge of law enforcement. We attend many of these conferences. We claim to support multiculturalism; we claim to support basic human rights. But when the test comes, when the time comes to put words into action, Ontario fails miserably. That is a very weak statement. It is not a statement that Ontario can be proud of and it is not a statement that this government can be proud of. In fact, it has probably done next to the least that it could do. It probably picked the option of the lowest common denominator.

We recognize that the government has an overwhelming majority. We recognize that we could try to delay this as long as possible. We could argue and fight about this. We wish the government had done so much more. We will support the bill, but we will put in an amendment which we hope will go some way towards pushing them a little further in making a little better statement than it has made here in this bill.

We are not proud of this bill by any means, but it is a step in the right direction. We recognize that this is indeed a Liberal government. Liberals move slowly in terms of progress; one has to pull them along, so we will try to pull them along as fast as we can here. But while we do it, we say, “Shame on you for putting property rights in front of basic human rights at this time when you had the opportunity to do more.”

Mr. Farnan: I would like to rise and acknowledge the fine speech that this House has just heard from the member for Rainy River on an issue that is extremely important. The member has very clearly outlined the range of possibilities that the government had in bringing forward this legislation and its failure to take any meaningful action.

I would make one simple statement to the government House leader, who is engrossed in a private chat while this important bill is going through. What kind of message does this kind of lukewarm legislation give to, let’s say, our children as our children look at this House and ask, “What kinds of principles does this government work on?” I think we have to say that we have given our children today a message that is unworthy.

Human rights have to be predominant and human rights are not protected by either silence or apathy. I look upon this particular piece of legislation as apathy. It is apathetic. Basically, as my friend asks, how long must we push a Liberal government before it is prepared to take a reasonable stand on this particular issue?

I know some of the members of the government party, such as Mr. Velshi, have spoken in the House on this issue. I have to admire the stand Mr. Velshi has taken. It must be an extreme embarrassment to the member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi) to sit there with this piece of legislation. I hope there is a vote on this piece of legislation in order that Mr. Velshi can record his dissent.

Mr. Sola: I would just like to respond. I do not think this government has to take a back seat to any government in the world when it comes to respecting human rights or when it comes to multiculturalism. The comments of the opposition just show how myopic they are and how narrow-minded that they only believe in mandating --

Mr. Pouliot: You are pathetic. These are people of vision.

Mr. Reycraft: He doesn’t disagree; it is a myopic vision.

Mr. Sola: I think it is a myopic vision. The members opposite just seem to think in terms of dictating to other people. This government has shown that we believe in democracy. We show the way, but we also allow people to make up their own minds.

I think this bill may not be strong enough to suit some people. As far as I am concerned, it is not strong enough in one way, in the fact that there are other regimes that have equal disregard for human rights that we should also be focusing on, not just the one regime.

I support the bill and I support strong measures against South Africa, but I resent the statements made by the opposition that this government is very soft on abuse of human rights because I think this government has shown that it is at the forefront in the world, not just in Canada, in regard to protection of human rights.

Mr. Hampton: I thank my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) for his comments. I wish to respond to the government members by saying only this: If the members care to look at their own cabinet document that was placed before the government, it sets out all of the options. It sets out how far the state of California went. It sets out how some other American states and US cities have gone. It sets these out.

If the members want to look at their own cabinet document and then see how little the government has done here with how much it could have done with the models that were available from other states and other cities in the United States, they will see very clearly what a weak statement this is on behalf of the government of Ontario. It really adds very little to a generous and basic statement on human rights.

1540

I see that Mr. Velshi is here. He must not be very happy with what the government has produced. I think he would have liked to have seen a lot more than what this government has produced. I repeat my statement: There was a lot more there the government could have done, but the government has chosen the easy way out, the lowest-common-denominator way out. I am sad to see it has done that and I would implore the government to go the extra steps further, to really make a meaningful statement on this important issue.

The Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed with the next speaker, may I remind members that parliamentary tradition requires that you refer to the members by their riding names as opposed to their family names.

Mr. Eves: We rise to support the proposed legislation.

This bill would allow trustees of trusts and persons responsible for managing and investing the assets of registered charities and pension funds to dispose of South African investments without committing a breach of duty, even if the value of the property they manage decreases as a result.

Trustees and persons responsible for pension funds would be required under this bill, before they dispose of a South African investment, to obtain the consent of a majority of identifiable beneficiaries, if there are not more than 100, or satisfy themselves that a majority of the identifiable beneficiaries would consent if there are more than 100.

Under present law, these persons have a duty to invest the property they manage in reasonable and proper investments without consideration of moral issues. This has caused a great deal of problems for many, including but not limited to university campuses and within unions where funds have been invested in South Africa in the past. Although many wish now to dispose of those investments on moral grounds, they are prevented by law from doing so.

I think this is an indication of this provincial Legislature’s support of the federal government’s economic boycott of South Africa and I think members of the House should support the legislation.

Mr. Sola: I would like to commend the member opposite for the positive approach he has taken to this legislation and I would just like to say that I agree with his viewpoint.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure for me to wind up this debate.

First, may I agree with the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) that this is an important bill and an important step. Where I would like to disagree with the member for Rainy River, if I may, is that it is not this government’s first step.

This legislation adds to other actions that this government has taken with respect to South Africa. For instance, Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the actions of this government in wine sales, in rules for government purchases, in an increasing demonstration of this government’s views on the racial policies of the Republic of South Africa.

This particular legislation is important in that it removes a legal barrier in the law of trusts that has prevented people responsible for investing money on behalf of others from disposing of investments in companies doing business in South Africa.

I listened carefully to the comments of all members and I thank them for their support of this legislation.

I think it must be put on the record that when the member for Rainy River talks about other jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, it must be stated that those pieces of legislation apply only to the public type of funds. This legislation goes further in that it applies not only to the public source but also to the private source.

By this legislation, we are trying as best as possible to persuade businesses with subsidiaries or operations in South Africa to break those links. We believe there is a substantial body of opinion that is urging -- and I believe all members of this House urge in one voice -- the breaking of those links.

However, we have to make certain that the law of trusts does not impose a penalty on those charged with the duty of looking after the trusts, that they will not contravene the law of trusts. This bill removes that legal barrier. This bill solves that problem. This bill provides, as has been stated, that there will not be any breach of any legal duty by trustees in selling or refusing to buy South African investments, even if their action results in a loss to the trust.

Finally, this bill applies to all trusts, charities and pension funds. This is a very large step forward, and maybe more important, it is another step that this government has taken with respect to its position and its opinion on South African policies.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plénier de la Chambre.

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comité plénier.

SOUTH AFRICAN TRUST INVESTMENTS ACT / LOI SUR LES PLACEMENTS SUD-AFRICAINS DÉTENUS EN FIDUCIE

Consideration of Bill 9, An Act permitting Trustees and other Persons to dispose of South African investments.

Étude du projet de loi 9, Loi permettant aux fiduciaires et à d’autres personnes d’aliéner les placements sud-africains.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of this bill? The member for Rainy River -- with section numbers, please.

Mr. Hampton: I want to move an amendment to subsection 4(2) of the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other proposed amendments to this bill? There are no others.

Shall sections 1 to 3 of the bill carry?

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 1 à 3, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

Section/article 4:

The Deputy Chairman: Shall subsection 4(1) carry? Carried.

Mr. Hampton moves that subsection 4(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“If there are no more than 100 identifiable beneficiaries of a trust or pension fund, section 3 applies only if the trustee gives written notice to the identifiable beneficiaries of the proposed transaction and the trustee does not receive, within 60 days after giving the written notice, notice of opposition to the transaction from a majority of identifiable beneficiaries whose combined beneficial interest in the trust or pension fund comprises more than 50 per cent of its assets.”

1550

Mr. Hampton: The reason for this amendment is that if you read through subsection 4(2) of the bill, in our view the way it is written now would probably provide or result in a significant obstacle to divestment. Subsection 2 as it is worded means the manager of a trust or a pension fund would have to get the consent of a majority of the 100 identifiable beneficiaries and they would have to hold more than 50 per cent of the trust fund or pension fund assets. In other words, he would have to go out and actively get their consent.

That could provide a mechanism for a roadblock whereby consent could be held back for quite a long period of time. Just in the process of getting consent for the divestment, months or years could pass. The intent of the amendment we have proposed is much like the argument that has often occurred in the trade union movement. I believe it is an argument occurring right now with respect to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). It is the opting-in or opting-out type of situation.

What we would like to see in subsection 4(2) and what we intend by our amendment is to have a situation whereby once the manager gives written notice, if you have a situation where there are 100 identifiable beneficiaries and no more, if he does not hear a negative answer from a majority of the identifiable beneficiaries within 60 days, then he can divest. It streamlines the period and it streamlines the process a great deal.

I have already said we do not think it goes far enough. I have already said we think it should have gone a lot further in terms of its basic principles, but we will accept the government’s basic principle. In my view, if the government wants to give effect to this legislation and if it wants to make its basic principle more effective in terms of a time line, more effective in terms of process, then we urge the government to adopt this process.

If you do not hear back within 60 days from a majority of the identifiable beneficiaries whose interest comprises more than 50 per cent of the pension fund or the investment fund, if you do not get a negative answer from them within 60 days, you are free to divest. We think it makes eminent good sense to do it that way.

I say again, if the government does not have this kind of procedure in subsection 4(2), it invites the kind of system, the kind of process whereby years can go by and a long, lengthy, difficult lobbying persuasion process has to be engaged in before divestment can take place. As I have said, we think that the way subsection 4(2) is worded at this time really could provide a very strong roadblock to divestment. It provides the kind of convenient wording, the kind of convenient mumbo-jumbo that effectively makes divestment in these circumstances very difficult to achieve.

If the government wants to give effect to the principle it has tried to embody, if it wants to make that process meaningful, we urge the government to get rid of the wording that is there and adopt a process whereby if the identifiable beneficiaries do not actively say, “We don’t want divestment,” then the manager of the trust fund can divest.

Just for a minute, let me go into the difference in the two situations in the real world. If the government follows the amendment we would like, it would provide a mechanism whereby those people who do not want divestment, those institutions that do not want divestment, may have to identify themselves. They have to make a statement. They have to say, “No, we don’t want divestment.”

I say to the minister that if there is a pension fund out there, if there is a corporation out there, if there are interests out there that are saying “no” to divestment, I think it is only good and proper they should have to make that public statement so those people in our society who really are concerned about human rights will be able to go to them and say: “Why did you do this? Why did you actively take the step of opposing divestment?”

The amendment we have put in really requires someone who opposes divestment to take that active step. If they do not oppose divestment, if they want divestment, all they have to do is sit there and say nothing and divestment will occur.

I say to the government that if it really wants to give effect to the principles of its own bill, it should adopt this process and make those who oppose divestment in South Africa stand up and identify themselves.

If the government adopts this process, it will have done a very good thing. It will have taken a very progressive step. It will have provided the enabling mechanism for its own principles to take effect. I urge all members of the House to consider this. I urge the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General to consider it very carefully, because as I say, it merely gives greater effect, quicker effect, to the principle he has already sought to embody in this legislation.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure for me to rise in response to the member for Rainy River, in particular with respect to the amendment he has brought forward to subsection 4(2).

I would like to state at the outset that we believe this bill is one that is important. We believe it is an important step forward. We believe it is an additional step this government has taken with a view to expressing its position against South African policy.

We understand very well what the member for Rainy River has indicated in his amendment. I will use this time just to bring to light some of the points he has made.

It is my understanding that if there are no more than 100 beneficiaries of a trust, then the trustee need only give written notice of his or her intention that he or she is going to divest or take advantage of section 3 of this legislation, and if after giving such written notice he or she does not receive greater than 50 per cent objection, then the trustee is free to divest of that particular matter without --

Mr. Hampton: Without consent? It says now they have to consent to --

Mr. Offer: The member for Rainy River is saying that the wording of the act says they must consent. To be clear, I am reading from the member for Rainy River’s amendment.

Mr. Hampton: Okay; I apologize.

Mr. Offer: Apology accepted.

Basically, he is stating that if the trustee does not receive objection to that intent to divest by greater than the “majority of identifiable beneficiaries whose combined beneficial interest in the trust or pension fund comprises more than 50 per cent of its assets,” then the trustee is free to take advantage of section 3 of the act; in other words, to divest.

1600

I have absolutely no objection to that amendment. It is my intent to support that amendment. We understand that with respect to this whole question, there are going to be issues that trustees are going to have to come to grips with. They are going to have to come to grips with what stocks to divest and the timing of divestment. They are going to have to come to grips with the amount of South African connection needed to justify that divestment. They are going to have to come to grips with the best way to approach the beneficiaries for their consent. I have no doubt there are other issues that the particular trustees will have to come to grips with.

I feel the amendment moved by the member for Rainy River goes forward in taking out of consideration one of the issues the trustee would otherwise have to come to grips with, that being how to get in touch with and acquire consent for those beneficiaries.

It is my intent that I will support the amendment to subsection 4(2) and ask all members of the House to join with me.

Mr. Eves: We also have no difficulty with the amendment proposed by the member for Rainy River. It will help somewhat to streamline the process and the procedure. We will be glad to support it as well.

Mr. Farnan: It is always a pleasure to be present when a member with a fine legal mind brings his skills to address, clarify and refine a fine legal point. Such an individual is the member for Rainy River. His contribution results in a better, more understandable, more precise and more effective piece of legislation. I can see why the member for Rainy River is going to make an outstanding Attorney General when the New Democrats form the next government.

I obviously support the very excellent amendment that streamlines the divestment procedures contained in the bill. The quality of the contribution of my colleague the member for Rainy River is reflected in the fact that the government sees the logic of the position he puts forward and asked for agreement of the House. I commend the government for reflecting my colleague’s expertise and abilities, and I can see this amendment now passing unanimously.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I do not take issue with the quality of mind of the member for Rainy River or with his perspicacity or legal training, but I would point out to the member for Cambridge that I think the grounds upon which the third party and this government support the amendment is that it will streamline the decision-making and facilitate a resolution of an issue that might drag on for years and years, not on the grounds, as suggested by the member for Rainy River, that what we now have is an opportunity to force the opponents of apartheid to stand up so that they can be publicly identified and publicly pilloried from post to post. That is a distinction that I think is important.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

L’article 4, modifié, est adopté.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Les articles 5 et 6 sont adoptés.

Mr. Offer: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman: Have we called subsections 4(3) and 4(4)?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes. We did those prior to consideration of the amendment.

Mr. Offer: I do not think we did. My recollection is that we asked for subsection 4(1) and then we went to subsection 4(2). If it is the ruling of the chair that we have done subsections 4(3) and 4(4), so be it, but my recollection is that we have not.

The Deputy Chairman: I asked for the vote and we voted on the motion whether or not section 4, as amended, would carry, and section 4, as amended, includes subsections 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4).

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

Le projet de loi, modifié, devra faire l’objet d’un rapport.

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

À la suite d’une motion présentée par l’hon. M. Conway, le comité plénier de la Chambre fait rapport d’un projet de loi avec certains amendements.

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Offer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, second reading of Bill 150, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984.

Mr. Offer: As the Attorney General indicated when this bill was introduced, its purpose is to allow journalists to use tape recordings in courtrooms as a means of assisting them in taking notes.

The idea for this amendment came from the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association. They were concerned about a study that indicated significant problems with the accuracy of quotations in the news coverage of court proceedings. They recommended that journalists be permitted to use tape recorders in courtrooms to assist them in taking notes as a means of improving the accuracy of their reporting. The recordings would not be broadcast.

The suggestion has received the support of the Ontario Courts Advisory Council, the Bench and Bar Council and the Ontario Court of Appeal. This legislation will assist in improving the accuracy of the news coverage given to court proceedings, and I ask all members to join with me in the passage of this bill.

1610

Mr. Hampton: In the brief period when I was a practising lawyer -- and I have to admit I was a practising lawyer for only about three or four years -- I wish somebody had paid me $10 for every time a newspaper or radio reporter had misquoted and misreported what happened in a given trial or in a given hearing. I wish that all of those people who had their reputations injured, or who had something misspoken about them by the press in terms of their reporting of a trial or a hearing, had similar compensation for what took place.

I can only say it is about time that modern technology of this type -- I guess it is not even modern technology now; I guess you could call it almost ancient technology in terms of how long recording devices have been around -- it is about time that this sort of sound reproduction technology was made available to the courts to provide for more accurate reporting of what is happening.

While the press says that freedom of the press must always be recognized, that the freedom of the press to report on what is going on must be one of the paramount values in our society, it is indeed frustrating when one repeatedly sees activities that go on in the court being misreported or misrepresented in the press. When one asked the question “How did this happen?” too often the answer came back, “Well, I was trying to take the best notes I could, but things were happening so quickly that I guess I didn’t get it all down right.” That excuse should now be by the wayside. As a result of this, we should have accurate reporting, or at least no excuse for inaccurate reporting, of what happens in our courts and in our administrative tribunals, where this sort of sound recording has not been permitted in the past.

I commend the parliamentary assistant for bringing this forward. I can only ask, why did he not bring this forward in the first six months of minority government? It was obvious then; he should have brought it forward then. It is long overdue. In any case, I commend him for bringing it forward. It is about time and, I say again, I hope that it does result in accurate reporting of what happens in the courtrooms of Ontario from now on.

Mr. Eves: The bill would allow journalists to use tape recorders in court rather than take notes. The tapes could be used only for notetaking and not for broadcast or reproduction. I think this is a long-overdue concept and should be supported.

A 1986 study of the accuracy of quotations used by 10 newspaper reporters who covered the 15 days of the Colin Thatcher murder trial in Saskatchewan, for example, found that between 45 per cent and 72 per cent of the quotations contained nontrivial errors. In other words, approximately half the quotations contained errors that distorted meaning.

The use of tape recorders would greatly improve the accuracy of quotations. The Supreme Court of Canada permits such use, and the Ontario Courts Advisory Council and the Zuber report have endorsed such use. We will be supporting this legislation.

Mr. Offer: Let me first thank the honourable member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) and the honourable member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) for their support of this legislation.

The bill is not terribly lengthy in pages or sections, but it is extremely important in making certain that there is an accuracy in the reporting of court trials. This particular legislation is a fundamental step forward in making certain that that accuracy is available to all media. I thank the members for their comments and I urge all members to support this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT ACT / LOI SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX INTERVENANTS

Mr. Offer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, second reading of Bill 174, An Act for the establishment and conduct of a project to provide funding to intervenors in proceedings before a joint board under the Consolidated Hearings Act, 1981 and before the Ontario Energy Board and the Environmental Assessment Board and to provide for certain matters in relation to costs before those boards.

M. Offer, en l’absence de l’hon. M. Scott, propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 174, Loi concernant la mise sur pied et la direction d’un projet visant à fournir une aide financière aux intervenants dans des affaires instruites devant une commission mixte créée en vertu de la Loi de 1981 sur la jonction des audiences, devant la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario et devant la Commission des évaluations environnementales et visant certaines questions relatives aux dépens adjugés par ces commissions.

Mr. Offer: This Intervenor Funding Project Act was drafted in recognition of the need for a regularized system to provide for the funding of interveners before administrative tribunals. In particular, public interest interveners often find it difficult to mount effective intervention in the absence of financial assistance.

The Ministry of the Attorney General views the provision of such funding as an important component of an accessible justice system. The act creates a three-year pilot project which provides for funding of interveners before the Environmental Assessment Board, the Ontario Energy Board and the joint board, the latter in respect of matters over which the Environmental Assessment Board would normally have jurisdiction.

Under the scheme in the act, the proponent of the matter before the board would pay the costs of funding. An intervener would be eligible for funding in relation to cases which affect a significant segment of the public and which affect a matter of public interest.

A funding panel of the board will assess the intervener’s application for funds based on a number of criteria, including whether the intervener has tried to raise funds elsewhere and whether it has an established record of concern for the issue. The board will also set terms and conditions for the funding.

Finally, the legislation also broadens the authority of the affected boards to make costs awards beyond traditional court-based criteria to more accurately reflect the nature of the administrative hearing process. The Environmental Assessment Board will, for the first time, also have this authority to make costs awards.

Since the introduction of this bill in June 1988, the Ministry of the Attorney General has consulted extensively with affected individuals and groups both within and among the public and, as a result, will be proposing several amendments which reflect the results of this consultation. I have shared these amendments with my colleagues of both parties.

We are confident that the act will greatly assist the participation of interveners before the affected boards.

1620

Mrs. Grier: Certainly we on this side, in my party, plan to support Bill 174 and welcome its long-awaited arrival in this House.

The question of intervener funding is one which environmental groups, citizen groups and lobby groups of all kinds have been discussing for quite some time. It was an issue in the questionnaire that was sent to all candidates for this House prior to the 1985 election, when the members opposite and their party indicated their support for intervener funding.

In fact, when I came to this place I think the question of when we might see some action on that promise was one of the very first questions I raised in this House. I raised it with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) on July 10, 1985. It has certainly taken a long time to prepare the legislation and get to this point. Again it was an issue in the 1987 campaign and again we were promised intervener funding.

We welcome it; it has been long promised and long pressured for and it is long overdue. It is rather unfortunate that what we have is a pilot project and, to a very large degree, half measures rather than the complete and comprehensive intervener funding that I think we in this party would like to see in place in this province.

However, having said that, let me clearly indicate that even this is a great improvement over the ad hoc system with which we have been working for the past two or three years. The difficulty with an ad hoc system, of course, is that for the groups which seek intervener funding, there is no degree of certainty that they will get funding, how that funding will be determined or what the level of that funding will be. The procedure and the criteria are not only unknown and ad hoc but are sometimes very hard to find out.

I regret that having sought public comment on this bill, which the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) did after he tabled it in June, he does not appear to have listened to it. I certainly plan to move some amendments that I hope will respond more effectively to that public comment than have the Attorney General and the parliamentary assistant in the amendments they intend to put before the House this afternoon.

The public comment was unanimous in its request to the Attorney General that the scope of the legislation be broadened. The Toxic Waste Research Coalition and the Canadian Environmental Law Association both stressed the need to broaden the bill to include the Ontario Municipal Board. The Consumers’ Association of Canada indicated it would be desirable if the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board be included in the legislation. I plan to move amendments to broaden the legislation to include both of those bodies.

If we really want to do what intervener funding is supposed to do, which is to encourage effective participation by all groups in society in the decisions that are made before administrative tribunals, surely we cannot begin to limit the number of administrative tribunals which that intervener funding will be available for.

If we exclude the Ontario Municipal Board, we may well find ourselves before a joint board hearing with a member of that panel from the Ontario Municipal Board, a panel that is not eligible for intervener funding, sitting with a member from the Environmental Assessment Board, which is eligible for intervener funding.

If we really want to encourage effective participation in the process, we have to make sure that at all stages and all forums in the process funding is available.

Another necessary criterion or component or reason for intervener funding is to make sure that all issues will be aired before a decision is made. Without intervener funding, it has been very difficult for a citizens’ group, a ratepayers’ group or a municipality in many cases to participate in hearings which are growing ever more complex, ever more technical and, I regret, ever lengthier. Intervener funding is very necessary if all the aspects, all the special interests and all the issues that ought to be considered by a board are to be thoroughly aired.

The third reason for intervener funding is so that the participants can participate on an equalized basis. That is why it is so important that, as opposed to getting costs at the end of a process, we have intervener funding, which will authorize the expenditure of funds in advance of a hearing and enable a citizens’ group to hire some technical experts, some consultants and to make sure that the evidence they present is effective and in some way commensurate with that of the proponent.

The other couple of difficulties we have with the bill relate to the criteria that are set out in section 7, and I will be asking the House to support repeal of a section that provides that an intervener, in order to qualify for funding, has to have an established record of concern and a commitment to the interest. In our opinion, that has the potential to be used by a panel or board determining intervener funding to exclude groups that may not have had a long-established record of concern because the issue on which they are intervening is one of very recent origin and they have only discovered that a pathological waste incinerator is to be built in their backyard; they do not have a long history of concern about the issue because the issue was not there until the particular hearing was called for or established. I hope that other members will support that amendment.

A much more fundamental difficulty we have with the bill is also one that was pointed out to the Attorney General in the submissions from the Canadian Environmental Law Association and other groups. That, of course, is the whole question of the fees to be paid for lawyers. Not being a lawyer, I hate to come and support an increase in tariff for lawyers, but if the objective of the legislation is to equalize the status of the proponents, I think it is unfortunate that the Attorney General includes in the bill that the legal fees will be paid at the legal aid rate under the legal aid plan in effect on the day of the award for work necessarily and reasonably performed.

From his own personal standpoint, I am sure the parliamentary assistant would welcome the amendment that I propose to put, which is that remuneration for lawyers be at the rate paid to private sector lawyers retained by ministries of the government. That is an amendment that would be welcomed not only by the legal profession but by the groups that might benefit from this legislation and is a very critical amendment if in fact we are to achieve what the bill purports to achieve, which is a level playing field, that wonderful phrase that we have all become familiar with. Surely, if intervener funding is to do anything, it is to establish a level playing field so that all the players are at least starting from the same point.

Having said that, we welcome the bill, we will support the bill and we look forward to some detailed discussion of the amendments that I have outlined.

Mrs. Marland: We too, in the Progressive Conservative caucus, will be supporting Bill 174, the Intervenor Funding Project Act. In understanding the substance of the bill, we still do have some amendments which we will be presenting.

We are certainly recognizing that Bill 174 establishes a three-year pilot project to investigate the use of intervener funding to give public interest interveners easier access to the three regulatory tribunals, the Environmental Assessment Board, the Ontario Energy Board and a joint board appointed under the Consolidated Hearings Act and composed of members from the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Municipal Board.

The bill also gives the Environmental Assessment Board the power to award costs, and we certainly see this as a forward movement to improve the situation for people who want to advocate on a particular issue. Joint boards and the Ontario Energy Board already have this power. As a result, certain provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act will become obsolete and will be repealed in sections 17, 18 and 20.

In addition, joint boards, the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Energy Board will be given the authority to award costs using different considerations than are used by the courts.

I think the bill recognizes a very important fact, and that is that the Environmental Assessment Board’s 1986 annual report credited interveners with contributing important evidence to its hearing. The board stated that having equal resources available to intervener groups would greatly enhance the quality of the hearings by giving interveners the opportunity to raise and canvass important issues that otherwise might not have emerged.

1630

In the past, the government has offered intervener assistance on an ad hoc basis. This pilot program is the first step in equalizing treatment of groups with a legitimate and serious intention of intervening in an environmental or energy-related hearing. In the past, it certainly has always seemed that a lot of the hearings were conducted with a lot of ammunition, power and clout behind the proponent.

Obviously, in order for hearings to be fair, if there are legitimate opposing views, those views should be able to be presented; however, the public does not have the same kind of funding available to it, in most situations, as does the proponent. The interests of the public may be those that are very sincerely and well presented, but the public is limited by the fact that it does not have access to the kind of money that, very often, large corporations and business entities and even some individuals have when these questions are referred to any of these boards for consideration.

I think we are moving in a positive direction in terms of providing some intervener funding. I will have some questions about when that funding is available to the intervener groups, and those questions will come up during my amendment. I also have some questions of clarification about some of the important sections of the act, which will also come up when I place my amendment. I will simply refrain from duplicating those comments and will place them at the time that I place the amendment.

Mr. Offer: First, may I indicate our pleasure in the support that has been indicated by the honourable member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) and the honourable member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), both of whom have a long history surrounding environmental concerns.

I take note of certain concerns which have been raised by both of the honourable members and I look forward to dealing with those concerns in some detail when we move to the committee stage of this bill. We too will be proposing certain amendments, amendments which I have shared with honourable members opposite. I believe this will result in a greater explanation and clarification of this extremely important bill which will be of great assistance to many groups throughout this province that wish to have not only intervener status but funding at, for instance, the Environmental Assessment Board level.

On that, I close this debate on second reading.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plénier de la Chambre.

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comité plénier.

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT ACT / LOI SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX INTERVENANTS

Consideration of Bill 174, An Act for the establishment and conduct of a Project to provide Funding to Intervenors in proceedings before a Joint Board under the Consolidated Hearings Act, 1981 and before the Ontario Energy Board and the Environmental Assessment Board and to provide for certain matters in relation to costs before those Boards,

Étude du projet de loi 174, Loi concernant la mise sur pied et la direction d’un projet visant à fournir une aide financière aux intervenants dans des affaires instruites devant une commission mixte créée en vertu de la Loi de 1981 sur la jonction des audiences, devant la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario et devant la Commission des évaluations environnementales et visant certaines questions relatives aux dépens adjugés par ces commissions.

Mr. Offer: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to standing order 8(b), may I have permission to occupy a seat in the front row of the House and have staff members for assistance?

Agreed to.

Mr. Offer: I believe that we have provided amendments to subsections 3(4) and 7(1), clause 7(3)(b), subsection 7(5) and section 12a. That is an addition to section 12.

The Deputy Chairman: Do you have other amendments to section 12?

Mr. Offer: We do, to subsections 12(1) and 12(3). Section 12a is an addition; as is section 20a.

The Deputy Chairman: Does that complete the government amendments?

Mr. Offer: Those are all the government amendments.

1640

Mrs. Grier: I have amendments to section 1, subsections 7(2) and 7(3), and sections 16, 17 and 19.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. The third party’s proposed amendments. The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs. Marland: I have amendments to clause 3(1)(a), subsections 5(1), 5(2), 5(3) and 5(4), and clauses 7(2)(e) and 7(3)(a). That is the end of my amendments.

May I just ask something, maybe through you to the parliamentary assistant? Where the words “struck out” have been used -- let me just give an example; I guess it is in the New Democratic Party amendments. I realize the same department has drafted all of our amendments. Where it says the bill be “repealed,” is it correct to say “repealed” or “struck out?”

The reason I ask that is, if we have gone through first and second readings, is the bill perceived as being passed to a point where it has to be repealed before third reading and therefore we use the word “repealed” rather than “struck out”? If we have not had third reading, does the bill need repealing or do the words need to be “struck out”? It is a technical question.

The Deputy Chairman: If I might interject, legislative counsel has prepared these amendments and I think it is for us to assume that they are adequately prepared from a legal perspective.

Mrs. Marland: The government’s motions are using the words “struck out,” and in the NDP motions it says “clause such and such of the bill be repealed.” I just wonder how you can repeal something that has not received third reading and been proclaimed?

Mr. Offer: I think the question, though, initially posed to me by the member for Mississauga South had to do with amendments proposed by the member of the NDP, so I was just wondering if we might want to get response by that member.

The Deputy Chairman: The legislative counsel has passed a note to clarify the situation, and he indicates that the wording should be “struck out” and that the copies will be corrected.

Mrs. Grier: Do I take it then that whenever my amendment says that it be repealed, that will be changed to “struck out”?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Grier: Thank you. I think that is an appropriate change.

Section/article 1:

The Deputy Chairman: We can now begin with the amendments. First, the amendment to section 1.

Mrs. Grier moves that section 1 be amended as follows: That the definition of “board” be amended by striking out the words, “or the Environmental Assessment Board,” and by inserting in lieu thereof the words, “the Environmental Assessment Board, the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board or the Ontario Municipal Board.”

Mrs. Grier: These are amendments which would of course broaden the scope of the bill and the number of bodies to which the bill applies. I think it is very important, particularly in the case of the Ontario Municipal Board, that this amendment be approved. As I said in my remarks on second reading, the bill applies to a joint consolidated board which may well be made up of members of the Ontario Municipal Board and the Environmental Assessment Board. It seems to me anomalous to have one of those subject to intervener funding and the other one not. I think that this amendment would go some way, obviously, to resolving that.

The other reason it is important the Ontario Municipal Board be included as a provision for intervener funding is that we are finding more and more that the environment is a consideration. I know, certainly in my own experience and I suspect in that of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), many groups and individuals objecting to issues under the Planning Act and asking for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing are also raising environmental objections, and are frequently seeking that projects be designated under the Environmental Assessment Act so that the environment can be considered.

I suspect the government may well want to consider that if it refuses to accept this amendment of including the Ontario Municipal Board, what it is in fact doing is inviting every group that has an objection under the Planning Act to a project to seek to have that objection, that hearing, broadened to include the Environmental Assessment Board, and therefore be subject to a joint board, so that it will qualify for intervener funding. I think that would be an unfortunate encouragement of perhaps complicating the hearing process into issues that may not require a joint board.

There is, I am sure, the fear on the part of the government that if you include the Ontario Municipal Board, everybody who has an objection to his neighbour’s garage or a committee of adjustment decision is going to be seeking intervener funding to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board. Obviously, if you look at the process included in this bill, the funding panel has the right to determine whether or not intervener funding is justified. I think it is highly unlikely that a citizen with a very direct private interest in an issue, such as an objection to a neighbour’s expansion or a committee of adjustment decision, is going to qualify for intervener funding under the criteria that are set out so explicitly under section 7 of the bill that is before us today.

Under section 7, the intervener has to represent a clearly ascertainable interest; that separate and adequate representation of the interest would assist the board; that the intervener does have sufficient financial resources and the intervener has made reasonable efforts to raise funding from other sources. All those criteria would in fact exclude the frivolous or vexatious objections qualifying for intervener funding.

The reason behind my inclusion of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board stems from the fact that it is my understanding that the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board has itself suggested that intervener funding be applied to that board. Anyone who has watched the hearing or participated in it -- as my friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Kormos) has this week in the first hearing before that board -- recognizes the complexity of that hearing and the very broad interest of that hearing to the consumers of this province. Surely it is logical that those people be assisted in making their case before that board, especially in view of the fact that the government has not appointed the consumer advocate that was originally to be part of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board.

The brief the Consumers’ Association of Canada submitted to the automobile insurance board, when looking for funding to participate in the hearings that are now going on, indicates that the board had stated it would request the OAIB be included within the intervener funding pilot project provided for in Bill 174.

1650

I do not know what status that request has or for what reasons the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) refused to include the board, but I think it is interesting that the board itself sought to be included in the bill. My amendment would certainly accede to that request.

The Consumers’ Association of Canada, in their submission on this issue, pointed out that it was important the board have interveners who are receiving funding in addition to costs before a hearing before that board. It also pointed out that the board did not have a track record in the awarding of costs and that therefore it was important to establish in this legislation that it was a board that could be considered when people were requesting costs or when intervener funding was being considered.

I hope members will carefully consider the amendment I have placed before them. I certainly look forward to the comments of the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Offer: To begin, “The principal purpose of the bill,” as very clearly indicated in the explanatory note, “is to establish a three-year pilot project to provide intervener funding to bona fide public interest interveners at hearings before joint boards under the Consolidated Hearings Act, 1981, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Ontario Energy Board.”

This is a pilot project. This piece of legislation is not intended to encompass at this time all boards to which it might be relevant. We have chosen these boards because in large measure these boards are familiar with not only the granting of intervener status, but also with the intervener funding type of award and the whole question of costs. We believe these boards are best able to provide real feedback on this legislation in the three-year period.

We are concentrating on boards with experience in funding interventions, and as I have indicated, in giving cost awards. The Environmental Assessment Board, for instance, has been distributing funding to interveners for a number of years on the basis of orders in council, while the Ontario Energy Board has substantial experience with cost awards.

The assessment at the end of the pilot project, which in the legislation currently before us is indicated as being three years, will determine whether this model is appropriate for other boards. But as this is a pilot project, it is our desire to have within that legislation boards with great experience in the whole question of funding interventions and the giving of cost awards.

As such, I cannot support the amendment put forward by the honourable member. I would like to indicate, however, that we have received information from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which has stated that apart from being in favour of this legislation, during the pilot funding project it will keep us apprised of significant developments as they arise, and that it is going to be pleased to consult with us at the conclusion.

As such, what we are looking at is an ongoing process of consultation, of looking at where the legislation is strong and looking at whether there are any weaknesses we see in the legislation. The important point is that this is a pilot project. It is incumbent on, and I believe the responsibility of the government in a matter such as this to use boards that have the greatest experience in matters such as this. That is why we cannot support the amendment put forward by the honourable member.

Mrs. Marland: We are supporting this amendment. I listened very carefully to the comments of the parliamentary assistant, the member for Mississauga West, and I respect the principal purpose of the bill.

Interjection.

Mrs. Marland: Pardon? I am sorry; I correct that -- the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer).

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Mississauga connection in this Legislature is becoming very –

Mrs. Marland: Amiable.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Amiable.

Mr. Ballinger: If I were next door to you, I would at least know your riding.

Mrs. Marland: Touché to the member from wherever he is.

Mr. Ballinger: Durham-York.

Mrs. Marland: Durham-York.

The principal purpose of the bill is very clear and certainly I understand it just as well as I am sure the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) does. However, the sincerity of the bill really can pivot very nicely on adding the two additional boards.

If the government is presenting this bill because it truly believes in the right of the public to be heard and to be heard realistically because they have some money and can afford their preparation to appear before these boards, then it would also follow, I say with respect, that the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and the Ontario Municipal Board would qualify equally as well as the other boards.

I think the parliamentary assistant has said very clearly that it is an experiment, that this bill is a pilot project. As a pilot project, I think it would behoove the government and benefit the people of Ontario far more to have it have the benefit of being a pilot project covering all of these boards. I think the rights of individuals to be heard and the support through intervener funding is very necessary and very realistic.

I cannot see why we would narrow the scope in a pilot project rather than broaden it. It may well be that the government is perfectly right. It may well be after three years that we will decide -- certainly, it will be us that will be deciding in three years’ time -- that all of these boards do not need to be covered by intervener funding.

In the meantime, it makes sense to include them and we certainly are supporting this amendment.

Mr. Neumann: I rise to support the position taken by the parliamentary assistant on this amendment. It should be noted that as he has stated, this is a pilot project and I believe now is not the time to experiment with the Ontario Municipal Board.

One of the priorities of the government is to move forward with housing projects across Ontario and we are trying to find ways to expedite decision-making with respect to housing. I believe extending this experimental approach to the Ontario Municipal Board, which has been established and has been functioning fairly well for a number of years now, could perhaps jeopardize the process of expediting decisions in the land use decision-making of this province.

Furthermore, decisions before the Ontario Municipal Board usually receive a fairly full hearing at municipal councils prior to getting to the municipal board. I believe there is ample opportunity there for people, rather inexpensively, to have their say and have their position put forth to that local level of decision-making.

I support the position taken by the parliamentary assistant to restrict the application to the boards mentioned in the bill.

Vote stacked.

1700

The Deputy Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that the definition of “joint board” in section 1 be amended by striking out “or the Ontario Water Resources Act” and inserting in lieu thereof “the Ontario Water Resources Act or the Planning Act, 1983.”

Mrs. Grier: The implication of this amendment, of course, is to be consistent with the previous amendment to add the Ontario Municipal Board to the bill. The reasons are as stated in our discussion of the earlier amendment. I think that even if the government members are not prepared to accept the earlier amendment, which explicitly includes the Ontario Municipal Board, I hope they will at least agree to broaden the act to include the Planning Act in addition to the other legislation enumerated, because in my opinion that would at least provide the Ontario Municipal Board with the option of awarding intervener funding on an ad hoc basis if it wished to do so.

Mr. Offer: Basically for the reasons that were indicated earlier on the first amendment by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, we cannot support this amendment. Once more, we state that this is a pilot project. It was not intended to encompass all boards. The boards selected under this legislation are those with experience not only in funding interventions, but also in giving the costs award. The amendment, as proposed by the honourable member, would in many ways encourage many to use in going to the joint board. Accordingly, we cannot support this amendment.

Vote stacked.

Section 2 agreed to.

L’article 2 est adopté.

Section/article 3:

The Deputy Chairman: Mrs. Marland moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“3(1a) Where a board has been ordered by the minister to hold a hearing, it shall immediately give notice of the hearing to the public, to any person who has made a written submission to the minister and to such other persons as the minister considers necessary or advisable.”

Mrs. Marland: At the moment, the requirement for notification by the board under subsection 12(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act only says that the board must give reasonable notice. It does not define “reasonable,” so a board could sit on the notice for as long as it wanted. I am not suggesting that any particular board necessarily does or necessarily would not.

The point is that part of the problem for the opposing view in any of these hearings in front of any of these boards is the fact they go in with far less preparation time, and obviously, by the necessity of this bill, far fewer resources. So we feel it would be an advantage to require the boards, as soon as the hearing date is established, to notify the public. At least that way they have the maximum amount of notification time to prepare for the hearing.

We hope that if this requires the board to notify the public of the hearing and of the intervener rights as soon as the order is received by the minister, then it will follow that the hearings for the intervener applications will also be as early as possible in the process.

I think part of the problem is that interveners do not know whether they are going to be granted any funding, and certainly, as individual citizens, they are not going to be in a position to go out and hire planning consultants, environmental consultants or any other kinds of planning specialists, because they simply cannot afford to do so without the intervener funding being in place.

We feel this amendment is not major in terms of its addition, but we feel it is significant and follows the intention of the government to be as fair, open and helpful as possible to the citizens of the province by introducing a bill that deals with intervener funding in the first place.

We are quite sure that the government would want to support the fact that the notice to the public would be immediately upon the order of the minister that the hearing be set rather than having someone else try to define what is reasonable, as it now is worded.

1710

Mr. Offer: I have carefully gone over the amendment by the honourable member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland). We cannot support the amendment on the basis that we do not believe it is necessary.

What we are talking about specifically in the Environmental Assessment Act is that there are, right now, notice provisions. Granted, they are deemed reasonable, but the particular boards have determined how they are going to be giving notice within their particular act.

When the member talks about the funding provision, what she is talking about is a matter that is going to proceed after the determination of intervener status. Section 3 has the matter of intervener funding put in the middle or within the current application before, for instance, the Environmental Assessment Act, and it would be up to the board to determine the reasonable notice provisions.

Right now what we have is a question of intervener status and then they go on to the hearing. What we are saying is that with this legislation there will be intervener status determination and then will follow intervener funding determination and then on to the hearing.

Accordingly, the notice provisions which the member has indicated in clause 3(1a) is, in our opinion, unnecessary to accomplish what it is that she wishes to accomplish.

Mrs. Grier: I am happy to support the amendment moved by the member for Mississauga South. It seems to me if the objective of this legislation is merely a pilot project, as the parliamentary assistant has so often pointed out to us, it is important that every opportunity for public notice be given and that the public be given the broadest possible opportunity to participate in the intervener funding, because it is not general legislation and people may well not be aware of the opportunity to apply for funding. As I say, we will support the amendment.

Mr. Ballinger: I am very pleased to stand and not support the proposed amendment by the member for Mississauga South. In the short time I have been in the Legislature, there are many times that I have publicly wanted to support the member for Mississauga South but, unfortunately, this is not one of those times.

I think the proposed amendment really does cloud up the proposed second reading of Bill 174. I think the original amendment by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore had some merit in philosophy.

I want to reiterate what was said by the parliamentary assistant for the Attorney General, the member for Mississauga North, that this is a pilot project. I think that what we are trying to do with some of these amendments is predetermine some of the outcome of the pilot project, and quite frankly, that is not the intent of the bill.

From my point of view as a rookie in the Legislature, I think the purpose of pilot projects is to put forth the idea and then at the end of the three years, it is to be hoped that we have an opportunity to assess whether or not the bill is working.

With the greatest respect for the member for Mississauga South, maybe again at some future date I will have an opportunity to support her, but certainly not on this amendment to Bill 174.

Mrs. Marland: I do not think the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) should apologize for being a rookie in this House, because he is not a rookie in representing his people. He has a long record of service in municipal government. Through that long record I am sure he would recognize, had he had the time -- and I recognize that time is always a factor for all of us in understanding these bills.

Certainly I respect the fact that he does not have a copy of the amendment; however, if he did I am sure he would actually support it because the amendment does not cloud up, to use his words, the intent of this bill. The amendment simply expedites the process of public accessibility of the same kind of information that the government has when the minister issues the order that there will be a hearing. It simply says: “There’s going to be a hearing. Let’s let the public know as quickly as possible.”

I am rather surprised that the government would not wish to get that information out as quickly as possible to the public, therefore giving them maximum access to preparation for the hearings that they could have by knowing about it as early as possible. I think it would be in the interest of the public. However, we are certainly well aware of the numbers in this House at the moment, so it is regrettable that that amendment will not be supported by the government that professes to be full and open, with no walls and barriers.

I will refrain from further comment.

Mr. Offer: I would like to make a small comment, primarily with respect to the point made by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in terms of notice.

The way I heard it was that there would be possibly no notice given to the groups. Specifically, subsection 3(2) states, “A board shall set out in its notices of hearing, (a) a statement of the right set out in subsection (1) ... .” Subsection 1 is the right to apply to the board for intervener funding.

In response to the concern raised by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, I believe the bill is very clear and puts a very strong onus and responsibility on the board in giving that type of notice.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Offer moves that subsection 3(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(4) After determining all issues related to intervenor status, a board shall not proceed further with a hearing,

“(a) until the last date for applying for intervenor funding has passed and no applications are received; or

“(b) until the funding panel for the hearing has advised the board that all applications for intervenor funding have been decided if any applications are received.”

Mr. Offer: Very briefly, the current legislation might cause some technical problem since it states that “a board shall not commence a hearing ... .” Depending on the nature of the proceeding, a hearing may have already been technically commenced when a determination of intervener status has been made.

This provision relates to requirements that all decisions in relation to intervener status and funding shall be made prior to commencing a hearing into the matters before the board. We believe that this particular amendment makes it quite clear that this possible problem, out of an abundance of caution, will not come about.

1720

Mrs. Grier: The amendment enhances the intent of the legislation and we are happy to support it.

Mrs. Marland: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could clarify this section a little further. It is not clear in section 3 what actually is the commencement of the hearing, whether the hearing commences with the notice that there shall be a hearing, whether the hearing commences after interveners’ status has been established or interveners have been given funding, or indeed after the hearing panel has sat down and started to hear evidence.

Where that question arises is in the wording of the government motion, where it says “a board shall not proceed further with a hearing.” That is not the wording in the bill. It is the wording in the government amendment. If the government can establish when the hearing begins, I think it is important. The government motion under subsection 3(4) says, “After determining all issues related to intervenor status, a board shall not proceed further with a hearing ... .” If the hearing has begun, then the government probably should not have the word “further” in there. It shall not proceed, in other words. A board should not proceed with a hearing once it is clarified when the hearing has actually commenced.

Mr. Offer: My response is that if we do not insert the word “further,” then indeed we will have the problem which we have indicated. Basically, there is a determination of intervener status, then there is a determination of funding and then comes the hearing. What we want to clearly indicate is that the board will not proceed further with the hearing until the funding determination has been completed.

This is an amendment out of some abundance of caution, because there could be the argument that when a board determines intervener status, it may have commenced the hearing, which of course would defeat the whole question of when we could go on with the intervener funding.

All we want to do is to be very clear that there is the intervener status determination, and then the board will not proceed with the hearing until the middle portion, which is before this House right now -- the intervener funding portion and determination -- has been completed fully.

Mrs. Marland: Then is it the intent through this wording that it is possible for a hearing to have commenced and for an individual or a group of individuals to obtain status and indeed funding after the hearing has commenced? Or is the bill saying that all those matters pertaining to intervener status and intervener funding have to be completed before a hearing begins, that we cannot have any late applications for intervener funding or status?

Mr. Offer: To respond, it is the position that intervener status determination is made, the intervener funding determination is made and the hearing then commences.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

L’article 3, modifié, est adopté.

Section 4 agreed to.

L’article 4 est adopté.

Section/article 5:

The Deputy Chairman: Mrs. Marland moves that subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by striking out the words “one person” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof the words “three persons.”

Mrs. Marland: The reason for this amendment is that we are suggesting that in the case of a joint board, the funding panel would be made up of one member from the Ontario Municipal Board and two from the Environmental Assessment Board, as an example. There is, I understand, presently more representation from the Environmental Assessment Board because the bill allows consideration of only the Environmental Assessment Act. We certainly have had that confirmed earlier this afternoon.

With these kinds of decisions, we feel that in fairness to whoever the panels are and certainly in fairness to the public and the government of the day, it would be in everybody’s best interests if the decision about the allocation of intervener funding were in fact not a decision of a single individual. We feel, on either side of that issue, that it would be of far greater interest to the public of Ontario if it were a three-person panel which decided that public funds would be used for intervener funding. It is then a very defensible position, because it is not the opinion of one individual as to the allocation of public money.

Since we are all custodians and trustees of public funds, I think that it behooves us to make sure that allocations of those funds are done as fairly and equitably as possible. Therefore, the decision of one individual perhaps could certainly be enhanced with the opinions of two others. That is the reason for the amendment.

1730

Mr. Offer: First, let me indicate that we cannot support the amendment put forward by the honourable member for Mississauga South. We believe that having more than one panellist will possibly cause some administrative problems. However, I would like to indicate that I think one of the concerns the member has issued is: “You have this one person making a decision. What recourse is there in the event that the decision is, in terms of the intervener funding, somewhat negative?”

For the information of the member for Mississauga South, we will be moving an amendment which is an addition to the legislation and it will be found in section 12a, which will give a person who has been turned down for intervener funding the right to appeal. This, I believe, will go some way to meet some concerns made by the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs. Grier: I think the expansion of the panel from one to three persons is an important safeguard and I am happy to support the amendment.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: Mrs. Marland moves that subsection 5(2) of the bill be amended by striking out the words “one person” in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof the words “two persons.”

Mrs. Marland: The arguments in support of subsection 5(2) are the same as I have already presented to the committee in subsection 5(1).

Mr. Offer: My comments in opposition to subsection 5(2) are the same as those in subsection 5(1).

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: Mrs. Marland moves that subsection 5(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(3) The chairperson of the Environmental Assessment Board shall name one of the members named under subsection 2 by him or her to be the chairperson of the funding panel of the joint board.”

Mrs. Marland: My comments for subsection 5(3) are the same as for the two preceding sections.

Mr. Offer: With respect to the amendment moved by Mrs. Marland in terms of subsection 5(3), we will be in opposition for the reasons set out in subsection 5(1).

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: Mrs. Marland moves that subsection 5(4) of the bill be struck out.

Mrs. Marland: When my other amendments pass at 5:45 p.m., there will be no need for this section because we will have three-member panels and there will no longer be a tie vote.

Mr. Offer: In response to the amendment to subsection 5(4), we believe that when the amendments to subsections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) of the member for Mississauga South are defeated in division, subsection 5(4) will be essential.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: Before we get to the next amendment, there are no proposed amendments for section 6.

Section 6 agreed to.

Section/article 7:

The Deputy Chair: Mr Offer moves that subsection 7(1) of the bill be amended by striking out “board” where that word appears and replacing it in each instance with the words “funding panel.”

Mr. Offer: The reason for this amendment is a drafting error. The provision relates to decisions by the funding panel rather than a decision by the board as a whole.

Motion agreed to.

1740

The Deputy Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that clause 7(2)(e) of the bill be struck out.

Mrs. Grier: This is the section of the legislation that sets out the criteria under which intervener funding can be awarded to an intervener, in clauses 7(2)(a) to 7(2)(h). I am suggesting that one of those criteria be struck out. The criterion I would like to direct the attention of members of the House to is clause (e), which says, “The intervenor has an established record of concern for and commitment to the interest.”

If that is all you hear, you obviously think that is an essential ingredient of an intervener’s participation, but if you read the entire section you will see that very many important criteria are established that would guarantee that an intervener in fact has a commitment: the intervener has to have made reasonable efforts to raise funding from other sources; he has to have attempted to bring related interests of which he was aware into an umbrella group to represent the related interests at the hearing; he has to have a clear proposal for the use of the funds; he has to represent a clearly ascertainable interest that should be represented at the hearing, and he has to indicate that the representation would assist the board in the determination of the issues at hand.

To require that there be an established record of concern and commitment to the interest is an unnecessary hardship being imposed by this clause. As I indicated in my opening remarks, it may well be that the intervener does not have an established record of concern, because the matter before the board may be one that has only lately come to his attention because it was a very recent proposal.

I use the example of an incinerator in some township that has never had an environmental group or a group opposed to or concerned with incinerators in the past. This proposal has come and a group has been formed to indicate its interest at the hearing before the board. I think to be disqualified from intervener funding because it has not had an established record of concern makes a mockery of the entire legislation.

I look forward to the support of the parliamentary assistant for this very sensible amendment.

Mr. Offer: We cannot support this particular amendment. This was included in order to ensure that a group or individual could not appear at the last minute and request funding and to ensure that responsible and committed groups were the ones to receive funding.

When we talk about the question of “established record of concern for and commitment to the interest,” we are talking about the interest before the particular funding panel or the board. We believe this provision will likely have the impact of encouraging groups involved in this matter to band together with more experienced groups, which should encourage a more coordinated and effective intervention.

Mrs. Marland: As the parties this afternoon will recognize, my amendment which follows, which I am not speaking to at this point, is striking a median here. We cannot agree with the parliamentary assistant when he says that they do not want people to appear at the last minute, that they must band together in advance and be organized and have, as the bill says, an established record of concern.

I have to tell the parliamentary assistant that when there was a secret burning of polychlorinated biphenyls at St. Lawrence Cement and people found out about it afterwards, then we went into, not a hearing under these acts, but certainly we went into hearings where intervener funding could have been something that would have been considered at this point.

We certainly sometimes look at a response of the public where it simply cannot have an established record. They certainly can have a commitment to the interest, however, and that is why we support the commitment to the interest. But who is going to lay down what constitutes an established record of concern? We feel an established record of concern is open to interpretation and it may, through its very interpretation, be inequitable for the applicants for this funding.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions?

We will proceed with the vote. Mrs. Grier has moved that clause 7(2)(e) of the bill be repealed. Is it the pleasure of the committee of the whole that the amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Just because we did have an earlier discussion and consent to take any stacked votes this afternoon at 5:45, the committee has been working very diligently and my colleagues tell me that there are a number of amendments yet to be dealt with and that some additional time is going to be required.

It would be my submission that the committee continue this afternoon to work its way through these amendments and we will carry over until tomorrow, and, subject to the House leaders’ discussions, hopefully we would -- again, subject to the approval of the House leaders and whips -- take those votes and conclude this matter tomorrow.

Mr. Eves: That proposal is certainly acceptable to us, and I understand it is acceptable to the official opposition, as well.

The Deputy Chairman: The next amendment is from the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs. Marland moved that clause 7(2)(e) of the bill be amended by striking out the words “an established record of concern for and a commitment to the interest” and by inserting in lieu thereof the words “a commitment to the interest.”

Mrs. Marland: As I said a few moments ago, we feel that there is too much latitude in clause 7(2)(e), as it is presently printed in the bill. There has to be someone to interpret what is an established record of concern. Who is going to say what an established record is? An established record of concern in one individual’s opinion may be very different than another’s.

We recognize the intent of the people who drafted the legislation to make sure that there are not facetious applications for government funding for intervention in hearing. However, we feel that if the wording says that there is a requirement to have a commitment to the interest, that commitment to the interest is far easier to interpret. It can be interpreted safely by a broader number of people and it still secures for the funding base, namely the government, the protection that yes, these people are committed to the interest of whatever the matter is that is going before these hearing boards. We feel that to make it a requirement in the protection of everybody’s interests, the wording “a commitment to the interest” is sufficient, and is not open to too much latitude in interpretation.

Mr. Offer: We will be against that particular amendment, moved by the member for Mississauga South, much for the reason given by myself in response to the amendment moved earlier by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. We believe that where an issue has been of concern to the public for some time, persons involved in the issues should be able to establish a record of concern, thereby meeting some of the concerns already raised by the honourable member.

1750

Mrs. Grier: We would be supporting this amendment from the member for Mississauga South. I think it is unfortunate that in their opposition to the elimination of this subsection, the parliamentary assistant has failed to describe what kind of a definition of a record of concern the government is looking for. I continue to believe that the inclusion of this section in any form may well have a very limiting effect on the operation of the legislation, so I hope that this amendment can be accepted.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Are there any other comments? May we proceed to vote? Mrs. Marland has moved that clause 7(2)(e) of the bill --

Mr. Offer: Dispense.

The Deputy Chairman: Dispense? Thank you. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment 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.

The Deputy Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that clause 7(3)(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefore:

“(a) if the proposal includes the use of lawyers in private practice, assess legal fees at the maximum rate of remuneration for private sector lawyers retained by ministries of the government as set out in those directives of Management Board of Cabinet in effect on the day of the award for work necessarily and reasonably performed.”

Mrs. Grier: This is the section that I referred to in my opening remarks where the bill provides that lawyers who would be acting for the interveners assess legal fees at the legal aid rate.

The intent of my amendment is to provide that those lawyers be paid at the same rate the government is paying private lawyers when it contracts out its own work.

In support of that amendment, I want to quote from two submissions that have been received by the government. The first one is from the Canadian Environmental Law Association in response to the request of the Attorney General for comment on this bill.

It says, “In particular, CELA cannot understand the rationale for subsection 3(a)’s attempt to limit legal fees to the legal aid rate in effect at the time of the award.

“If enacted, this subsection will clearly have a serious negative effect on interveners’ ability to retain their counsel of choice. Put shortly, this subsection will undoubtedly result in at least two undesirable consequences:

“First, fewer senior counsel will be able to take on lengthy public interest interventions before the boards;

“Second, the resources of public interest groups will be further strained if they attempt to retain experienced counsel by topping off the legal aid rate with their own funds.

“If the object of the act is to ensure that interveners are able to fully and effectively prepare and present their case, then it is clear that subsection 3 must be omitted because it unnecessarily hampers the interveners ability to retain counsel with experience in this specialized area of practice.”

The second quote that I want to read into the record is in a letter that was received by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) from no less a person than the chairman of the funding panel who has been dealing with intervener funding in the case of the Ontario Waste Management Corp. lengthy hearings.

On August 18, Mrs. Munro wrote to the Minister of the Environment saying, “The Ontario Toxic Waste Research Coalition has asked the panel to recommend to cabinet once again that legal fees eligible for reimbursement not be set at the legal aid tariff.

“They recommended that legal fees be reimbursed to eligible public participant parties at the rates employed by the provincial government when retaining nongovernment legal services.

“It was submitted that the OWMC application contains more than one facility and the issues are complex. Since the hearing on the application will be lengthy, counsel who are members of law firms will incur substantial personal financial losses if they act for their clients at the legal aid tariff.

“The parties also pointed to the fact that the Ontario Waste Management Corp., a crown corporation, is retaining legal counsel at private sector rates.” If ever there was an argument in support of the amendment that I am now putting to this legislation, surely that was it.

When OWMC, a crown corporation, wants to retain lawyers to support its position before an environmental assessment board, it pays private sector rates. The interveners are being asked to hire counsel and pay them only at the legal aid rates. If you are looking at a hearing that is going to take one, two, maybe three months, you are, in fact, subjecting those lawyers to severe personal financial losses.

Is that truly what we want to ask of the legal profession? Do we really want to have intervener funding and a level playing field before these administrative boards and tribunals?

I have discussed this amendment with the parliamentary assistant when I met with counsel for the Attorney General to discuss this bill. I suspect that his response to this amendment is going to be, “No, we cannot accept it.” I really regret that, because I think if there is one aspect of this bill that really undercuts the whole intention, it is this particular section. I hope that since our conversation some weeks ago the parliamentary assistant has been able to discuss this with the Attorney General. I look forward to a positive response to this amendment. I think if we do not get that we really have rendered much of this legislation meaningless.

Mr. Offer: We cannot support this amendment, but we would like to indicate that the use of legal aid rates under this legislation is a minimum and is guaranteed, win or lose.

The government has proposed an amendment to subsection 12(3), which I have shared with my honourable colleagues. This will permit the provision of additional costs at regular counsel rates at the end of the hearing according to the tariffs set by the boards.

In response to some of the comments made by the honourable member, many government programs use legal aid rates as the base -- for example, cases handled through the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund and all family and criminal legal aid cases. We believe that this program, and this particular section, draws a distinction between funding -- and that is prior to the matter being heard -- and the right and ability of those persons having intervener status at the end of the matter to apply for costs.

That is being proposed under subsection 12(3) by the government. We believe by doing so that comes to grips and meets the particular concerns raised by the honourable member.

Mrs. Marland: This is a very important section of this bill.

I do not know how much more time we have this afternoon, but would you like me to continue for one minute and then move adjournment until tomorrow?

The reason this is a very significant part of this bill is that when we are talking about the legal fees that will be available to the public and will affect their eligibility for funding, we are talking about the very essence of their accessibility to intervention itself. We are talking about whether or not the opponents of a proposal that has now been referred to any of these hearing boards will, in fact, be able to have fair representation.

I hear very clearly what the parliamentary assistant is saying about the fact that interveners can apply for costs at the end of the hearing; I understand that section of the bill very well. However, there are two gambles here for members of the public who want to take part in intervention. The first gamble is, they go for intervener funding. Judging from your comments earlier this afternoon, the public is going to get down on bended knee and pray to one panel member for intervener funding, not to three as my amendment would have suggested. The public is going to ask the opinion of one individual for intervener funding. Now, it wins if it gets it. It then proceeds with the hearing based on what it can afford.

On motion by Mrs. Marland, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

À la suite d’une motion présentée par Mme Marland, l’étude du projet de loi en comité plénier de la Chambre est ajourné.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: For the benefit of members, I thought I might give a brief business statement for tomorrow’s sitting, which is planned to be the final sitting day before Christmas break.

Tomorrow we will proceed, after routine proceedings, with the adjourned debate on Bill 174, Intervenor Funding Project Act, in committee of the whole, and, subject to the discussion of House leaders tomorrow morning, I would leave open the possibility that these matters will be concluded and the bill will proceed for third reading and perhaps even royal assent.

As well as Bill 174, we will do the third reading of the following bills: Bill 9, South African Trust Investments Act; Bill 121, Gasoline Tax Amendment Act; Bill 151, Personal Property Security Act, Bill 81, Election Finances Amendment Act; Bill 196, Psychologists Registration Amendment Act; Bill 87, Ontario Highway Transport Board Amendment Act; and Bill 88, Truck Transportation Act.

We will also deal with the second and third readings of Bill Pr66, Ariann Developments Inc. Act; Bill Pr73, George A. McNamara Memorial Foundation Act; and Bill Pr75, City of Sault Ste. Marie Act.

We will also consider any bills reported back from committee -- and we are expecting perhaps a couple of bills to be reported back from various committees -- and of course with his Honour’s permission we will give some royal assent tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

14 décembre 1988