Journal des débats 1988-déc-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the rapid and continuing growth in Peel region in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors and further recognizing the existence of a very busy international airport in Peel, the location of Peel between Hamilton/USA and Metro/southeast Ontario and the significant increase in the number of medium and heavy trucks in Peel, this Legislature strongly urges the Minister of Transportation to direct the continuation of Highway 407 westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

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

Mr. Offer: I will first indicate that I will be reserving some time at the end in terms of my windup.

In dealing with this matter, we are dealing with a matter of extreme importance to the Peel region. I have had the occasion of meeting with a number of members from the region of Peel. I have met with my colleagues the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Sola), the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) and the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland).

I think that on an issue such as this there are no politics; there is not political partisanship. It is a need on which all of us speak in one voice, and that voice is urging the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) that when the decision to continue the building of Highway 407 is made, it must be made such that it proceeds westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

I have been fortunate to have received a report by the region of Peel. That report was carried out by the transportation policy division of the Peel planning department under the direction of Peter Allen, the commissioner of planning, and Douglas Thwaites, the director of the division. This was a study team dealing with the whole question of transportation in the Peel region. That team was made up of Dr. Ali Mekky, project manager and senior planner, Jack Thompson and Rick Warner as intermediate planners and Ray Backie as junior planner.

To begin, I think we have to give some backdrop to this resolution. In November 1987, regional council received a letter, dated October 20 of that year, from the Minister of Transportation confirming the immediate construction of Highway 407 from Highway 400 to Highway 427. It was noted in the letter that, “The first section of Highway 407 will include a transitional extension westerly on the Highway 407 alignment to ensure good traffic distribution around the Highway 407-427 interchange.” In addition, the Ministry of Transportation staff indicated, “A similar extension is to be required to Dufferin Street to distribute around the Highway 400-407 interchange.”

No one disagrees with that decision by the Minister of Transportation. It was a good decision; it was a right decision; it was a necessary decision. But as I say that it was good, right and necessary, so too I state that it is good, right and necessary that the next decision by the Minister of Transportation be made in dealing with extending Highway 407 westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

The region of Peel’s report was based on two very important reasons: first, to assess the urgency of Highway 407 being extended into Peel and, second, to assess how the need to extend Highway 407 into Peel compares with the need to extend Highway 407 easterly from Dufferin Street. That is important, because what we are dealing with here is comparing the relative needs, comparing the relative growth in all of the regions each to the other. Obviously, the three regional municipalities most affected by decisions on the construction scheduling of Highway 407 would be Metropolitan Toronto, York and Peel.

Therefore, in determining the appropriate priorities for the next stage and subsequent stages for the construction of Highway 407, the region of Peel -- and my remarks today are largely borrowed from that report because that is a good, exhaustive and extensive report. This report studies all the sections of Highway 407 from Highway 403 in the west to the east Metro transportation corridor in the east. Not only does it deal with the particular areas and their relative growth patterns, but it also deals with different time frames, from the mid-1980s to the turn of the century, up to 2010, I believe.

I would like to, if I might, talk about three criteria for comparison, the first being population. The study by the region indicates that the future growth in both population and employment within the Highway 407 corridor is higher in Peel than in Metro and the region of York combined. This is not a political decision; this is a fact based on empirical evidence.

1010

The region of Peel has been quite exhaustive in making it very plain that in terms of population growth, the growth in Peel from 1985 to 2011 will exceed the rate of growth in both York and Metro combined. Population growth from 1985 to 2011 in the corridor in Peel is projected to be about 366,000. In Metro, it is approximately 4,500 and in York, about 270,000, for a combined Metro-York total of about 274,500, which is over 90,000 less than that in Peel.

A second factor for comparison is the one dealing with employment growth. When we talk about employment growth, we are talking about the increase in jobs within a municipality, still using the same time frame, 1985 to 2011. In that period, that increase is slated to be projected at about 245,000. In Metro, it is projected to be about 74,000 and in York, about 121,000. Again, the projection for the combined York and Metro growth is about 50,000 less than in Peel alone.

We are not saying that York is not experiencing, in many ways, the same type of dynamic growth that is found in the Peel region. We are saying, however, that the growth in Peel, in terms not only of the residential but also of the industrial, commercial and retail sectors, is of such magnitude as to warrant the Minister of Transportation making the decision to extend Highway 407 westward.

A third factor I would like to bring to the attention of this House is what is known as employed labour force. That is measured as those people living in an area who work either within or outside of the municipality within which they live.

Again, we will use the time frame 1985 to 2011 because in that time frame it is anticipated that the ELF, or employed labour force, in Peel will be over 200,000. This is important because in Metro, it is projected to decrease by about 6,000 while in York it is projected to increase by about 130,000. This results again in a Metro-York total of about 124,000, which is almost 85,000 less than in Peel.

When we take a look at this one aspect, this one criterion, the growth in employed labour force in the corridor in Peel is so great that it exceeds York’s projected 2011 growth figure of about 130,000 10 years earlier. I know, and certainly from my discussions with my colleagues the member for Mississauga South, the member for Mississauga West, the member for Mississauga East, the member for Brampton North and the member for Brampton South, they are all well aware of the vast growth that is taking place in all our ridings in terms of the residential, commercial and industrial sectors. This cries out that there is an absolute urgency that Highway 407 be extended westward from Highway 427.

When that initial decision was made by the Minister of Transportation -- I know that the member for Mississauga South is in the House and we were members of this Legislature at that time -- for the provision of the first stage of Highway 407 from Dufferin Street to Highway 427, I know the member for Mississauga South will recall that I said that decision was good for Peel and would be of assistance primarily to Mississauga and Brampton in terms of traffic going easterly and that would result in a positive impact in the Peel region. I was able to justify, I was able to speak strongly in favour of that decision by the Minister of Transportation. That decision was made, that decision is right, but that decision is now in the past. We are now looking upon future decisions. I think it is absolutely essential that this House -- I hope to have the support of all members of this Legislature in urging the Minister of Transportation to make certain that when that decision is made, it is made in such a way that Highway 407 will be extended west from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

In the time permitted -- and I take note that it is winding down quite rapidly -- there are five factors specific to the Peel region which I would like to touch on.

The first factor is one which I have spoken about in terms of comparison with York and Metropolitan Toronto, that is, the growth in population in Peel. In 1971, the population in Peel was about 260,000, which was about the same as Halton and Durham. At present, the population of Peel in 1988 is about 644,000, which equals that of Halton and Durham together. Between 1971 and 1985, the population of Peel increased by about a third of a million, which is, as is very easily understood, a substantial increase compared to other regions. Peel’s growth was more than that of Metro Toronto, York and Halton combined.

I indicated earlier and I would like to reiterate the large increase in employment in Peel as a second factor. I indicated earlier and I would like to reiterate the large growth in employed labour force in Peel.

One factor I have not indicated, which is very critical and very topical at this point, is the presence of the Lester B. Pearson International Airport. As we all know, that is located in Peel and adds large volumes of traffic to Peel’s road network. This international airport is one of the busiest airports in North America and serves Canada’s largest business and travel area. This is the primary terminus for over 65 air carriers and the base for over 20 general aviation operators.

We know from recent reports that there is some concern with the operation of the airport, that that is being looked at and rectified. We also know that a third terminal is being constructed and that a further runway is being discussed. All this will add a greater urgency to the necessity of Highway 407 to be extended westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

A fifth point which I would like to bring to the members’ attention is very peculiar, that is, the large number of medium and heavy truck movements in Peel. In Peel, due to the large industrial, commercial and service activities growth in Peel, as well as its location between the United States and Metro, many of the main arteries in Peel carry significantly high percentages of truck traffic.

The continued growth in Peel has attracted over 300 trucking companies to base their operations in Peel. This is a factor that is very specific to the Peel region and again cries out, demands, that the Minister of Transportation, when making that decision as to the further extension of Highway 407, have that extension go westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

1020

I have indicated in my opening remarks that I will reserve some time to wind up. I ask all honourable members to support this resolution based on the criterion of comparison and the criterion of factors related specifically to the Peel region in urging the Minister of Transportation, when ready to make the decision, to extend Highway 407 westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

Mrs. Marland: It is a pleasure for me to rise this morning in support of the resolution of the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), his resolution being:

“That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the rapid and continuing growth in Peel region in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors and further recognizing the existence of a very busy international airport in Peel, the location of Peel between Hamilton/USA and Metro/southeast Ontario and the significant increase in the number of medium and heavy trucks in Peel, this Legislature strongly urges the Minister of Transportation to direct the continuation of Highway 407 westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.”

I think at the outset it is important to place on the record the ongoing struggle that the region of Peel seems to have as the poor cousin of Metropolitan Toronto. I think it is significant to tell you that at the end of 1985 and very early in January 1986, there was quite a lot of concern expressed in the region of Peel by two very important people, in terms of intermunicipal transborder transportation planning. One of those people is Peter Allen, who is the planning commissioner for the region of Peel.

Mr. Allen was trying to make a very strong statement at the beginning of 1986 about his concern as to where the transportation corridors were going to be. I think it is important for all of the regions around the Golden Horseshoe area to work together. Obviously, no growing region should have or does have priority over another, but also it stands to reason that where we have traffic flow between municipalities and between regions, there is no way that once the car, for example, driving east from Mississauga hits the Etobicoke border that it has any choices about continuing through Etobicoke if it is on its way to downtown Metro and, of course, the same in reverse.

The regional officials have said that within 15 years Peel, York and Durham regions combined will have surpassed Metro in population, if present trends continue. With Halton added, the four regions and Metro will have more than five million people compared with two million in Metro. In 1986 alone, those regions of Peel, York, Durham and Halton had hoped to undertake nearly $2.5 billion worth of residential, industrial and commercial development, which was up 20 per cent over the two previous years. Now we know that prediction has been surpassed in the region of Peel.

Mr. Allen, the planning commissioner for Peel whom I mentioned a few moments ago, said in a report that: “Peel was not consulted when Metro’s rapid transit plan, called Network 2001, was prepared. Traffic at the Peel-Metro border is expected to double in 25 years, but the present road capacity cannot be significantly increased.”

I think that statement shows the need for consultation among all the regions and also emphasizes the very important role that the provincial government must play in overseeing the planning for all of these areas together. Peter Allen also noted that Metro’s population is expected to show only slow growth between now and the year 2011, while Peel’s increase alone will be to 1.1 million people.

Frank Bean, who is himself a former Mississauga city councillor and the longest-serving regional chairman in Ontario, said the neighbouring regions sometimes get the impression that Metro regards them as poor cousins. Mr. Bean also said he has impressed upon the Metro chairman, Dennis Flynn, that Metro must realize it is not living in a cocoon. I guess now, since the election last night of Alan Tonks as Metro chairman, that Frank Bean at this point will have to start emphasizing his concerns to the new Metro chairman.

At this point, I think it would be appropriate to congratulate Frank Bean, as of last week newly re-elected as chairman of the region of Peel. Going into 1989, Frank Bean will in fact be entering into his 10th year as regional chairman. We appreciate the work, dedication and commitment that he has given to the region of Peel in his role as chairman. We share with him the concerns that he has been trying to express over his years in that position and with regard to this particular problem of transportation corridors.

Mr. Bean has also said in the past that if Metro is not prepared to be more sensitive to the neighbouring regions, they will have to make a joint pitch to the Ontario government for fairer treatment. That is the pitch that I think is being made here this morning, and it is one that I am hopeful the Ontario government will listen to and recognize, because it is not an unreasonable request.

The importance of the extension of Highway 407 west from Highway 27 to Highway 10 is certainly well demonstrated when you look at the population increases, particularly when we have a very extensive report that describes the anticipated growth in the areas to be served by Highway 407 as follows: From 1985 to 2011, the population increase alone in that area will be 55 per cent and the employment increase will be 72 per cent. In both cases, over 55 per cent of the total growth anticipated is projected to occur within the boundaries of the region of Peel.

From an operational perspective, the modelling that has been done indicates that even if built by 2001, Highway 407 in Peel will be operating at capacity at the time it is built with significant sections operating under forced-flow conditions. I think those of us who have to commute today on the Queen Elizabeth Way understand very clearly what forced-flow conditions mean.

1030

Conversely, the sections of Highway 407 within York will operate significantly better and will have the ability to accommodate some future growth. This indicates a need for a higher priority being given to the Peel section. From a user-cost perspective, which I am sure the government is always concerned about, the relative benefit-cost ratio for the extension west through Peel compared with east through York is very significant. This means that every dollar spent to extend Highway 407 into Peel region will reap over five times the benefit to its users compared to an extension to the east through York.

We would also like to place on the record that future extensions should include the construction of Highway 407 west of Highway 10 to Highway 401 with the objective of this section being operational by the year 2001.

I hope that the Minister of Transportation and the cabinet of the Ontario Liberal government will support this resolution and solve the traffic problems in Peel.

Mr. Mahoney: It is Mississauga day in the Legislature, I guess, with the member for Mississauga North’s resolution. Obviously I am pleased to rise in support of it, but I would like to give members of the House and you, Mr. Speaker, some information to justify the request that this section of Highway 407 be moved up in priority and be the actual first leg of Highway 407 built, rather than going to the east, which I must admit would be contrary to the wishes of some of our honourable members who represent areas in Durham, York and other parts of the province.

Mr. Ballinger: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mahoney: The member for Durham-York says “Hear, hear,” but while there is no denying that there is growth in the east and on the north boundaries of Metro, clearly there is also no denying that the growth rate in Peel has been surpassed by no area in the entire country and, for that matter, in North America. The growth figures are quite clear, and they are substantial.

In 1974, the Regional Municipality of Peel Act created the new region of Peel and the new city of Mississauga merged from smaller communities such as Streetsville, Port Credit, Cooksville and the then town of Mississauga, and many villages, such as the villages of Malton and Erindale. All of these communities came together to form the city of Mississauga in 1974.

The population at that time was about 120,000 people. In 14 years, that population in Mississauga alone has grown to approximately 410,000 people. It is unprecedented growth and with that growth, of course, as anyone trying to get out of Mississauga this morning would agree, there are severe traffic problems. In fairness, the traffic problems this morning were caused by a substantial power failure to some 40,000 customers in the Mississauga and Milton areas, but it just really drove home the fact that the volumes of traffic, when a problem occurs such as a power failure or a bad storm, is so substantial that it simply becomes catastrophic and impossible to move throughout the city.

It is interesting also to go back a little bit in history. The member for Mississauga South will recall when both she and I were serving as members of city council and the debate in the late 1970s and early 1980s was raging about whether or not to build Highway 403 through the city of Mississauga. Indeed, as the city councillor in the area where Highway 403 was going through a substantial number of backyards, I was very actively involved in that debate. It was not a question of whether or not the residents in my community wanted the highway. It was really a question of where it was to be located.

Originally, we were told that it was going north of the hydro towers. It turned out that the ministry had planned, under the then leadership of James Snow, the Minister of Transportation and Communications of that day, to actually build the highway south of those hydro lines, and residents will recall that very acrimonious and difficult debate we went through.

In fact, the member for Mississauga South will recall that she and I and the mayor and others had to lead a delegation directly to Premier Bill Davis’s office, to ask him to intervene and convince the minister of the day to put up proper noise berms and sound attenuation walls to protect the residents in the Erin Mills community and the central part of the city of Mississauga from the expected increase in noise from the traffic.

In any event, the highway opened. I remember the day well. There was not a car on it; we had a ceremony and there was a ribbon-cutting. At that time, as members can imagine, the major east-west arteries through Mississauga were the Queen Elizabeth Way, Dundas Street and Highway 401 at the top. It was curious to see how short a time it took before Highway 403 became almost another parking lot.

The traffic volumes have risen substantially. It is literally “stop and go to slow,” to use the radio announcer’s colloquialism, in rush hour traffic. It is hard to understand where all the cars come from. Clearly, they came from the growth in our region and regions to the west of us. I should tell the members also that it is not just residential growth and it is not just residential communities that this extension which the member for Mississauga North refers to in his resolution will serve.

The city of Mississauga has been really thought of improperly, in terms of being a suburb. The reality is that it is a city unto itself and is a net importer of jobs each and every day into our city from areas outside of the city of Mississauga; in essence, meaning that more people come to work in our city every day than leave. The traffic flow is not only to the east; it is also very substantial to the west.

The member for Mississauga North referred to 300 trucking companies. I met with the Ontario Trucking Association yesterday in my role as a small business advocate. They informed me that Mississauga is considered the trucking capital of not just Ontario, hut indeed all of Canada. I think all you need to do is spend some time in the Dixie Road-Highway 401 area to find out that is true.

One of the previous speakers referred to Lester B. Pearson International Airport. I understand that we have problems again this morning: there were some 22 aircraft lined up on one runway to take off. But the reality is that we have the busiest airport in Canada, and one of the busiest airports in North America, sitting right in the middle of the city of Mississauga. How are we to get the traffic to and from?

We can talk about public transit systems, and we should be moving toward more viable ways of moving the public in public transit systems, but the reality is that our commercial, industrial and residential communities are extremely reliant on the automobile and the truck as methods of moving goods and people. We want to do all we can to encourage car pooling and van pooling and to take vehicles off the road wherever we can, but we have to be realistic and understand that the traffic is there and it must be moved.

Our city has experienced a tremendous growth in the high-technology area. I have had the opportunity to participate at the openings of the offices of a number of new corporations that have come in from the United States, perhaps as a result of free trade or perhaps just simply because their particular products are not subject to duties or tariffs in any event. But we have a tremendous increase in the number of high-tech industries that are opening in our city.

As a result of that, of course, our employment figures increase and those people have to get to work somehow. Both the speakers from Mississauga have referred to the region of Peel. I also have some statistics that I would like to share with the members. I would like to share some examples of improvements that would occur if Highway 407 were put into place, as requested in this resolution. For example, Winston Churchill Boulevard, according to region of Peel staff, would have a 25 per cent reduction in volume capacity ratio and the level of service would improve from a present rating of F to a D.

Mississauga Road would reduce 16 per cent in volume capacity ratio; Mavis Road, 17 per cent; Highway 10, 17 per cent; Highway 410 leading into Brampton, 21 per cent; Dixie Road, which is terribly congested, would reduce nine per cent, and Highway 7 across the top of Brampton would reduce up to 28 per cent in volume capacity. Adjacent arterial corridors such as Steeles Avenue and Derry Road will experience significantly reduced congestion, and there will be improved interchange operation at Highway 401, Highway 403 and Highway 410, and also at Highway 401 and Dixie Road which is a disaster area, and at Highway 401 and Highway 427.

1040

There would be substantially improved truck movements and improved safety. It really would allow for orderly growth. One of the downsides, if this decision is not made in the way the resolution lays out, is that there would be tremendous impact on land use development and future growth due to inadequate roadway facilities, according to the staff at the region of Peel.

In summary, I want to congratulate the member for this resolution. I totally support it. We cannot argue against growth in Durham, York or even in some parts of east Metro, but we must look at the facts. If we analyse the figures and the growth, the facts say clearly that the region of Peel is growing at the quickest rate. We have more problems and congestion and we need this extension very badly.

Mr. Charlton: I rise this morning to speak to this resolution presented by the member for Mississauga North. I will be supporting this resolution, but I want to say at the outset that I am not very happy about having to do that. I will go into a number of reasons why.

The fact we are here today debating a private member’s resolution to try to ask the government to do what it should have done anyway is the first reason I am not very happy about having to be here supporting this resolution today.

The second reason is an extension of that reason and of the fact that although in this Legislature and in the municipal councils around this province we have talked about planning till many of us have become nauseous, the need for this resolution is a reflection of our failure in the area of planning the development of this province in an orderly fashion.

We are still in a phase of development in this province where we bump from crisis to crisis, rather than thinking through the growth and development of the urban centres in this province and the interconnection between those centres, whether it be highway, rail or bus interconnection. I guess the member for Mississauga West mentioned it during the course of his comments, specifically about Highway 403 and Mississauga, when he essentially said, and I am not sure if this is quoting him exactly, that Mississauga had not developed properly, that it was a problem.

Mr. Mahoney: I did not say that.

Mr. Charlton: It is not an exact quote, but if he goes back to Hansard he will find the reference to which I am referring.

Mr. Mahoney: It is not even close.

Mr. Charlton: At any rate, the member was exactly correct -- we can all take the time to check his quote -- in terms of the inappropriate way the development has occurred.

I recall being in this Legislature 11 years ago when members were standing in this House talking about their fears of the way the greater Metro region would develop and about the transportation problems it would cause, yet in 1988 we are here yet again, trying to push to see put in place a partial resolution of the problems that were prophesied.

In Hamilton, we have just been through a 10-year battle that at some points got particularly nasty, around an east-west freeway across the top of the escarpment and a north-south freeway down through Redhill Creek Valley in order to try and resolve some transportation problems that had not been thought through and had not been planned for in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

Again, the member for Mississauga West made reference in his speech to the industrial growth that has gone on in Mississauga. Much of the debate around our expressway and freeway situation was around an industrial park; in fact, it had been placed where it never should have been placed in the first place.

We have a situation here where some of my colleagues from the north would likely have real difficulty supporting this resolution because of the disastrous situation they face in terms of road transport in the north, a situation where they get $30 million in a budget for road construction, or if my recollection serves me correctly, about 20 miles of highway in northern Ontario. To northerners, it becomes a serious joke when they have to look at the transportation problems they are faced with.

Mr. Wildman: I do not mind as long they build the same kinds of roads in Peel that we have in the north.

Mr. Charlton: The member for Algoma perhaps has a very good point there.

I recall that 30 years ago, when we built subdivisions in this province, we would put in the sewers and the water and a gravel road and no sidewalks, and new home owners moved into mud patches. It used to be four, five, six, sometimes seven years before you had a paved road and sidewalks in those new subdivisions. We finally came to the conclusion that was not an appropriate way to continue to build residential developments in Ontario.

We now see the developers in this province required to put in the paved roads and sidewalks along with the housing developments. It is a very logical and well-thought-through process, but we have not gone the next step. We have not had the province, the senior level of government in terms of development issues, seriously looking at where and in which municipalities those housing developments are going in, and at what rate they are going in.

Are they going in in an orderly fashion? Do the roadway systems that are in place allow for a real accommodation of that new survey, or do we need to put in a better roadway infrastructure before we allow that new subdivision to go in? We do not plan and we end up in situations such as we have now in Peel, specifically in Mississauga, where to remedy a problem we need an extension of the 407 westward.

We also need an extension of the 407 eastward. We also need major changes to the Queen Elizabeth Way complex down into the Niagara Peninsula. Those members who get on to that route on a daily basis know the problems that exist. We have been through a 10-, 12- or even 15-year debate around the GO train service, and Hamilton and Oshawa. We heard comments in the Legislature just recently, this week, about the new stations that have been opened in the Oshawa area. A member had to stand up here in the House and raise the issue, “Well, we have the service now, but we have no way to get to it because the parking lots are all full.”

This is a clear indication of the almost total lack of planning that goes into the building of the transportation infrastructure in this province. That to me is the very essence of the problem with this resolution.

1050

I certainly understand why the member for Mississauga North has brought the resolution forward. On the other hand, I am saying to the member for Mississauga North that if each of us, as members of this Legislature who have real transportation problems that affect the communities we live in, brought forward a private member’s resolution to try to goad the government into resolving the transportation problem he has in his own community, there would be so many private member’s resolutions on transportation issues being passed by this Legislature that we would be no further ahead. The government would have all these resolutions the House has passed and it would still have to allocate dollars to those it could budget for.

I will support the member’s resolution, but I am not happy to have to do that because of what it reflects of the failure of this government and the previous government to deal in a planned way with the growth and expansion of development in the province, leaving us in the position of stumbling from crisis to crisis as we allow growth and development to occur without the infrastructure in place to accommodate that growth.

Mr. Jackson: I am very pleased to rise this morning and support the resolution by the member for Mississauga North. I am delighted that he and his party are taking this occasion to renew their interest in and support for these critical public works and for the importance and integrity of a strong transportation network in southern Ontario.

I know that members of the Progressive Conservative caucus have been made aware of these concerns. We did not need a private member’s bill to bring the matter to our attention.

I know that the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) has shown outstanding efforts in his area in support of this and other projects that build on this badly needed transportation link and the completion of those projects.

It is appropriate for me to comment that the Conservative caucus, at least, has been well apprised. It is the number one priority of the member for Markham and he has brought it to our attention.

I will be supporting the resolution, but I invite the member to support not only his project but the extension of Highway 403 in Halton region, which also satisfies all the conditions he has set out in his resolution. It lies between the Hamilton-United States areas and Metropolitan Toronto. It is necessary because of the rapid growth we are experiencing in Halton region adjacent to Mississauga.

This Highway 403 linkage also serves the needs of Lester B. Pearson International Airport and Hamilton Airport. As all members of this House are aware, there has been considerable discussion in the media about further utilizing this airport in the Hamilton area to relieve the congestion around Pearson.

I am afraid the member for Mississauga North and his constituents are going to be in for a disappointment, because they share an empathy with the member for and the constituents from Burlington South who have come to realize that they cannot expect the Peterson government to act on the facts, reasons, logic and sound management decisions that should come from this government, but are not coming from this government with respect to transportation construction.

When asked these questions, the government has been on record as stating that highway programming is not an exact science. That is what it indicates as the reason it has been unable to complete these projects. In other words, do not expect things to happen.

Most members of this House are aware that an efficient transportation network is essential for many reasons, one of which is commerce, primarily to help industries with a competitive advantage, which is important to their profitable position and the creation of jobs. Our standard of living is part of the needs that are met by an efficient transportation system.

Also, there are millions of dollars earned in tourism. American tourists have been coming to southern Ontario. They overcome the most expensive gas prices they will ever see. They overcome probably the most expensive food and clothing prices they will ever see, as tourists in this area. But one thing Americans and other tourists who come to our province will not tolerate is sitting in traffic jams that are akin to what we hear and see is going on in Los Angeles.

Transportation, therefore, is a government investment and we certainly hope that implicit in the member’s resolution is that he will communicate to the minister that we recognize its importance.

This resolution is important to the residents of Mississauga and the greater area, but it is also important to the residents of Halton when we look at the Highway 403 extension. It is apparent there is somewhat of a contradiction on the part of the government in terms of its stated support during the last two provincial elections and what it is actually realizing in terms of the commitment of dollars to southern Ontario road construction.

In fact, in 1987-88, the Liberal government spent $296 million on highway construction. However, in 1988-89, the Liberal government’s spending will be $249 million in highway construction. That is a decrease of $47 million. It clearly demonstrates the decreasing priority this Liberal government is placing on transportation construction. That is why I hope the member is not too optimistic about the government acting on his resolution.

Another contradiction is what we see from our Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who controls the purse-strings of the highway construction the member is looking for. We saw the largest single tax grab in our history in 1988. Did any of that new money go towards the member’s resolution, or for that matter to the 403 extension and the needs in Halton region? No, it did not.

In fact, the Minister of Transportation, according to the Provincial Auditor, inappropriately intervened. I quote from the auditor’s report. He said, “We were informed that several projects were undertaken based on ministerial override.” Projects of lesser importance, roads without even fatality ratings, were given priority over construction requests similar to that of the member for Mississauga North and the requests we have been articulating in Halton region.

We had, for example, an 11 per cent increase in revenues for this province, but our transportation budget was cut by $47 million, so we have a reduction in priority, a reduction in spending, and in fact a ministerial override to complicate matters.

The member himself will be making a strong pitch for his highway construction needs, but another concern we have is that despite all the traffic volume figures he quotes in the House, despite the recognized growth that his community, like Halton, will experience, and despite the money we will save because of increased efficiencies -- in spite of all these good arguments -- we have a government that appears not to listen to those facts and to the sound reasons being presented by all members of the House today.

I urge the Minister of Transportation and the Treasurer to look seriously at the project in the resolution, as well as the project in Halton, because the two are interconnected. I ask the government to stop referring to the fact that highway programming is not an exact science. I ask that the needs of the region of Halton and Mississauga be met as a priority.

Mr. Offer: In terms of my final three minutes and 45 seconds, and with the permission of the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), if I may, I will give two minutes of that to the member for Brampton North.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

1100

Mr. McClelland: I want to thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to add a few words to the debate on the resolution this morning.

My friend the member for Burlington South has mentioned the impact of this resolution on his community. I want to add, on behalf of my colleague the member for Brampton South and myself representing Brampton North, that the need for looking at the extension of Highway 407 westward would also impact Brampton significantly.

As I came in here this morning, I spent some 35 minutes travelling a little less than five kilometres. There is no question in my mind, as we look at the tremendous growth in the area of Brampton North, that the pressures will continue.

By way of example, our city council has recently approved a development that will bring some 70,000 new people into the riding of Brampton North in the next few years: 14,000 homes, 70,000 people. That is obviously going to bring tremendous pressures. There is no question that the need for Highway 407 linking to Highway 10 will be realized in a very significant manner in the next few years.

I want to associate myself particularly with the comments of my colleagues in support of this resolution this morning, most particularly my colleague the member for Mississauga North, who put forward the resolution, and my colleague the member for Mississauga West. I want to thank them for the work they have been doing for the greater region of Peel. Brampton is a very important part of that region and we are among the highest-growth areas in the province.

I think the resolution is very timely. It is one that looks to the future and looks to the future of the community I represent as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of speaking to this matter and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Offer: I would like to thank all my colleagues for their support of this resolution. I have every confidence and faith that when that final decision is to be made by the Minister of Transportation, it will be made on the basis of the evidence which has been put forward very well by the region of Peel and by all those who have been involved in the compilation of such an exhaustive report.

In conclusion, it could best be stated as it is stated in the report of Peel:

“The construction of Highway 407 in Peel will benefit the region and the central section of Ontario in many respects. It will connect Peel, Halton, York and Metro. It will improve the accessibility of many residents and workers to jobs, shopping centres and industrial areas for both private cars and commercial vehicles. It will relieve congestion and improve the level of service on Highway 401, Highway 7 and on other major highways and interchanges. It will improve highway system operations in general. It will ease truck movements and improve traffic safety. Finally, it will enhance development in the region.”

I think it is fair to say that it will enhance development not only in the region of Peel but in all surrounding regions. The information provided to me by the region of Peel and the comments made by the honourable members in this Legislature provide a force, an argument, a reason and a justification that the Minister of Transportation should extend Highway 407 westward from Highway 427 to Highway 10.

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT ACT

Miss Nicholas moved second reading of Bill 191, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member will know she has up to 20 minutes to make her presentation and may reserve any portion thereof.

Miss Nicholas: It gives me great pleasure to move my first bill in the House and to discuss it here this morning.

My bill is aimed at making our consumer knowledgeable. I would like to just outline briefly what it entails in short form and then perhaps go into a bit more detail as I move along.

What this bill entails is that you will be notified, when you purchase a car, how long it is going to take for it to be delivered to you if it is being ordered from the manufacturer. How many of us have gone in to buy a car and been told by the salesperson, “It’s going to take six weeks for this car to be delivered; no problem.”

Purchasing a car now is perhaps the second-largest purchase that consumers will ever make in a lifetime -- it may be the largest if they have not bought a house or cannot afford a house -- so it is a proud day for them when they go out and purchase their vehicle. When they are told it is going to arrive in six weeks, what happens when it does not arrive in six weeks?

What this bill aims at is trying to get the dealer or the salesman not to say it will be six weeks when he does not know how long it is going to be before it is delivered. What we are asking for is that the consumers know how long it will take for their car to be delivered. Also, if they are notified it is going to be over 90 days before the car is delivered -- that is, 13 weeks or three months -- and they do not want to wait longer than 90 days or three months because the salesman said six weeks and now they get notified that it is going to be over three months, and they do not want to wait that long, what this bill provides for is that at that point they get their deposit returned immediately. They do not have to wait three months for their deposit to be returned; they get it returned immediately and they can seek another way of purchasing their car.

The second part involves what happens if they are notified after they have purchased their car that they are going to get delivery after a rebate period has expired. If the manufacturer offers a rebate of $500 or $750 and it is on the date of delivery and they now know that their car delivery is going to be beyond that rebate period, then what happens is that they get their car and they no longer get the $750 to apply against the cost of the car. In this bill, if it appears as though the delivery date is going to be beyond the time in which the rebate is offered, the purchaser can get his deposit back and decide on an alternative way of purchasing his car.

I would like to go back to the first point, about notifying how long car delivery will take. The contract is quite complex. We look at it and fill in all these little boxes; they ensure that every option you are putting in your car is listed on your contract. In addition to that, it lists your trade-in and how many miles it has. It gives the purchase price, the date of the purchase and all these particulars. But the one thing that is not on your contract when you sign it is when you should expect to receive your car. That is not on the contract anywhere.

I will bet here, today, that more often than not the salesperson does provide you with an estimate of how long it is going to take for your car to come. They are going to say six or seven weeks, and you have no recourse when it does not arrive in six weeks, none whatsoever. He is promising something that he cannot deliver.

Perhaps a shoddy salesman might promise something he cannot deliver. He might say four weeks -- anything to make that deal on that day. He cannot promise delivery of that same vehicle any faster than the dealer across the street who is selling the same model and same make, but he has said to you, “Four weeks.” Perhaps you have believed him because he said, “I’m going to get that for you in four weeks.” Salesmen really do not know at the time of signing the contract how long it is going to take to get that car.

The manufacturers have approached me since I put this bill forward and they say they cannot even tell for two or three weeks how long it is going to take them to provide that car. How can the salesman at the time of signing the contract say how long it is going to be?

I think it is very important that we put it into more than just a verbal agreement because when you come back in six weeks and say, “Where is my car?” the salesman says, “Another two weeks,” “Another three weeks,” or whatever. It is only a verbal contract; there is no recourse, and there you are still waiting for your car.

If you know it is going to take more than three months for your car to be delivered you may still want it, if it is going to take 90 days or three months. You may say: “Yes, that’s the way I want my car. I’m going to wait for that car.” At least you know how long it is going to take.

If one is in the position, which many of our members are not, of wanting to buy a Jaguar, and goes in and buys the Jaguar, they will say that it is going to take six months for the car to come. They know it takes six months, maybe a year to get a Jaguar. The point is that you say: “I really want a Jaguar. I’m going to wait six months for that car to come.” But at least you know how long it is going to take. If you are told that it is going to take more than three months, you may say: “What I’d like to do is buy another car. I’d like to buy one off the lot.” Quite often when you purchase one off the lot these days, it is loaded with all the extras: two-tone paint, air-conditioning plus upholstery. Either there are all sorts of extras in the car, or it is a bare care: it has a stick shift, no radio and absolutely nothing going for it. You might go for the car with the extras or you might go for the bare car and say, “I’m going to take this home and put in my own radio.”

1110

If you knew that you were going to have to wait three months to get your car, you may not want to wait that long. What happens if your own car is breaking down? That is why most people go out and buy a car: because their car is breaking down and they need a new one. They are going to wait three months; they do not want to wait three months. They are travelling on the Toronto Transit Commission as an alternative and it may not be convenient for their business.

They may incur repairs to their trade-in car. Their trade-in car may break down in those three months and they have to go and fix a car that they plan to use for only a few more weeks. They incur the cost because they are waiting three months for their car. They might just be without a car and they are waiting for three months after.

The point is that if they want to wait three months, they can and get the car that they want. But if they do not want to wait, if they are going to be told it is going to be longer than three months, they are going to be able to get their deposit back and make another deal. That will be fair and equitable to knowledgeable consumers, and they will be happy and better for it.

What this bill requires is that after 14 days of signing your contract, you will be notified of the potential date of delivery of your car. Currently, there is no obligation to notify. You wait 90 days and then they may say to you it is going to be another two or three days. But until that 90-day period, they do not have to tell you when your car is coming. You may have a salesperson who says, “Listen, I know when your car is going to be built,” and tells you, but there is no obligation. But I can tell members that in most instances they do not try to find out when your car is being delivered unless you really push them and say, “I want that car; when can I get it?”

At 90 days, of course you will say, “I’m willing to wait another four days if it is going to be 94 days,” but if you had known at the outset that it was going to take 94 days for your car to be delivered, I think you might have thought differently of it. In this way, you have to wait the 90 days, find out your car is not being delivered and then, if you do not want it any more, go elsewhere and wait another period of time for another car or buy one off the lot, or do something else. If your car is going to be delivered in less than 90 days -- if it is going to be delivered in 88 days -- the point is you are still bound by the contract, you are still taking that car, but at least you know you are going to be waiting 88 days for your car to come. At least you are a knowledgeable consumer; you know how long it is going to take and you can make other provisions, but you are not still waiting every day for this magic car to arrive after four or six weeks, as promised.

This bill may provide people with alternatives. If they find out it is going to be more than 90 days, they may buy the one off the lot that I have mentioned. They might buy a different model. They might go elsewhere for a car that might be in inventory at a dealer’s. They might buy a demonstrator. They might seek alternative modes if they knew it was going to take a quarter of a year for their car to come. Yet they might decide they really want that car and they will wait.

The second part of this bill is the rebate portion. Many of us have seen a little ad in the newspaper, where it says, “$750 back.” How many people read the little line at the bottom that says, “Your car must be delivered before” -- in this instance -- “December 31, 1988”? If your car is delivered January 2, there is no rebate. When you bought that car and you counted on that $750 towards the purchase price and you find out on January 2, “Sorry, it’s past the date of the rebate offer -- it was aimed at getting rid of the inventory; it was aimed at this, or it was aimed at that -- you don’t get $750,” I would say that really reflects on the manufacturer.

It may not have been the manufacturer. The manufacturer knew that it could not provide the car in time, but the salesman may have said six weeks’ delivery. If it is November 1, you think: “Okay, that is December 15 or so, and I have two weeks’ leeway. Things can slow down, but I am still going to qualify for the rebate.”

Then what happens is the manufacturer says: “Oh, but those are taking 10, 12 or 14 weeks. The salesman should have known that.” But there you are: The rebate period has expired, you have no rebate, and you are still bound to your contract to buy that car.

In many instances people may still want that car; but they may not. Had they known that they would not be getting the $750 rebate, they might have made a different deal. They might have bought a car off the lot with one or two extra options. It was $300 more, but they could have bought that, got the $750 rebate and been further ahead than buying a less glitzy car from the manufacturer without the extras and not qualifying for the $750.

I think it is important that the consumers know what is involved when they purchase a car in terms of the delivery and what are the obligations in terms of paying the rebate if it is delivered beyond the time. Many people may seek alternatives, or may buy different options on their car, but they may very well just decide to continue with the car. I would say that $750 would make a big difference when purchasing a $10,000 or $12,000 car in terms of the rebate, qualifying for it and perhaps budgeting to purchase your car.

The problem is that you may base your decision on something you are told by the salesperson. I tell you today that I have been assured that a salesperson cannot tell you at the time of the contract when you are going to get your car. When they say six or eight weeks, they really do not know. Should we be keeping this information from the consumer?

The intent of this bill is to protect the consumer. The agreement is against unfair sales practices. I applaud the manufacturers who produce the cars; they are doing an excellent job in Canada of producing cars that we can all be proud of. They are innovative each year. There are more styles and more kinds. We should be proud of that.

Imagine the consumers who wonder why a manufacturer has not produced their car in the time in which the salesperson promised it. They may not purchase another GM or Ford that was made here because they blame it on the manufacturer. But it was not the manufacturers’ fault at all. They have a schedule. They try to do it in a manner that is prompt and efficient. In fact, they cannot deliver the way the salesman has promised.

This particular bill is to seek equity at the dealer level and to recognize that the date of delivery is a mere verbal contract between the salesperson and the consumer and that the salesperson cannot do anything to provide that car in the time in which he has promised. Many people are frustrated when six weeks pass and they do not have their car; they call the dealership and are told, “Well, it’ll be a few more days.” After 10 weeks, at that point, the salesperson might actually check for them when it is coming.

Consumers should not be put in that position; they are making a very important purchase in their life. They should be entitled to know when they are getting their car, when they should expect it and when they can drive off that lot proud with their new car. That is the intent of the bill. I ask the members to support it today.

I would like to reserve the rest of my time to the end.

Mr. Farnan: Car sales is an honourable profession. In fact, a former Premier of Ontario was a motor vehicle dealer and salesman. Many of my friends in Cambridge run car dealerships; they are fine corporate citizens contributing to our community -- hospitals, minor sports and every conceivable charitable organization.

The employees and staff of these dealerships, for the most part, are dedicated professionals -- men and women doing a job and doing it well; knowledgeable and informed; courteous for the most part; nonpressurized sales, attempting to fit the customer’s financial circumstance to his or her purchase. They are employees like any other group of employees. They live and worship in the community. They raise their families. Their lives revolve around their families, their neighbours and their friends. They attempt to provide honest, efficient service. They earn community respect and recognition for this service.

As in any other profession, men and women in car sales are protective of their good name, integrity and reputation. They are career professionals. They invest in their future by the quality of the service they provide. They are honest; they would rather lose a sale than make a questionable deal.

Despite all of this, there are circumstances beyond the control of car sales personnel and they may make a contract to supply a car by a specific date and not be able to deliver it, through no fault of their own.

1120

Like any profession, there will be exceptions to the high professional standards set by the majority, individuals who compromise the integrity and honesty of their colleagues by the use of either pressurized sales or by making promises to be able to deliver a car by a specific date, knowing very well they cannot make good their promise.

I preface my remarks to Bill 191 with these comments because I do not believe the bill in any way reflects on the honesty and integrity of car dealerships and the men and women who work there. Indeed, I believe that the professionals within the industry will welcome these amendments to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. I believe the industry will make the necessary adjustments to make the changes that these amendments call for.

Professional motor vehicle dealers, more than anyone else, are conscious of the importance and significance of the purchase of a car. Next to purchasing a home, it is the most important financial purchase made by most individuals and families. Due to the increasingly essential importance and need and due to our reliance on the car as a means of transportation, it is a purchase that is also repeated several times in a lifetime and increases its significance. Cars must be replaced as a result of wear and tear and as a result of accidents.

It is essential then that we have built-in protections for the consumer. The consumer has the right to know in advance precisely when the car will be delivered. The sales staff may quote four to six weeks, there may well be standard waiting periods stipulated by the manufacturers and the manufacturers may not be able to meet their time deadlines. This will often result in embarrassment for the sales staff. I think you will find that professional sales staff will warn the prospective purchaser of the potential for delays and very often will stipulate a prolonged time delay in delivery, based on their knowledge and experience of the industry.

The amendments contained in this bill will provide the purchaser with a specific time, 90 days, in which to expect delivery. The fact that the purchaser can cancel his order if this deadline is not met will put considerable pressure on the manufacturers to develop more efficient delivery schedules.

I can tell members that if this is the result of the amendments to the act, there will be no happier people than the professionals in the motor vehicle sales industry. The professionals in the industry will also welcome the fact that individual car salesmen will be less inclined to make promises of delivery dates that they cannot honour. The reputation of the many honest professionals benefits when we curb the abuses of the few.

The amendments recognize that, even with the more specific deadlines, unavoidable delays can occur. However, the amendments contained in Bill 191 provide the purchaser with additional flexibility.

Currently, if the car is not delivered within 90 days, the purchaser can cancel the agreement and is entitled to a return of any deposit paid. However, the purchaser has to wait three months to exercise this option. This bill will require the dealer to inform the purchaser of how long it will take for delivery, and if it is in excess of 90 days, the purchaser can re-evaluate whether he is in a position to wait three or more months for the car, and if this is not appropriate, seek an alternative mode of purchasing a car; for example, to buy a car off the lot, to choose a different model or go elsewhere.

Finally, the amendments suggested deal with the whole area of rebate offers. Most, if not all, rebate offers are recoverable only if the car is delivered within the period of time the rebate offer lasts. A purchaser may very well enter into a deal on the basis of counting on receiving a $750 rebate towards the purchase price. Presently, if the purchaser had known that he would not be entitled to the rebate because his car is being delivered after the rebate offer has expired, he might have made a different deal or not entered into the deal at all, because he needed $750 to be able to pay the purchase price. This bill allows the purchaser to cancel the contract if he is not entitled to the rebate offer.

My friends, consumer and commercial relations is a whole area that requires a finely tuned system of checks and balances. We are dealing essentially with the provision of goods and services and we must attempt to balance the needs and rights of the consumer with those of the manufacturer and sales divisions. Quality goods, quality service and clearly defined rights and responsibilities for both the consumer and the provider are necessary. This is particularly true in an area that affects such a significant percentage of our population and the item being purchased is such a considerable investment.

I believe that for the most part we are very well served by the dedicated professionals in the motor vehicle sales area, but that the motor vehicle manufacturers must develop greater efficiencies to allow the sales personnel to provide a service which is reliable in terms of delivery dates. It stands to reason that the sales personnel in a motor dealership, those honest professionals, would like nothing better than to be able to sit down across the table from the customer and say, “Look, these are the delivery schedules of the manufacturer. This is what I can promise you,” and then to be able to deliver on time.

I know that the member, in moving this bill, recognizes the fact that what she is attempting to do with this bill is to build in expectations that can be lived up to, expectations that the purchaser can understand, that can be explained to the purchaser so that he will know that when he makes the contract he will indeed have a car delivered 90 days after that contract or at whatever time is stipulated.

Bill 191, in my view, is an excellent bill. It contributes the fine-tuning that is necessary to balance the consumer rights and industry responsibilities. I commend the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) and I urge the unanimous support of the House for private member’s Bill 191.

Mr. Runciman: I am afraid that I have to inform the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) that unanimous support is not forthcoming.

I find it passing strange that he spends some time praising motor vehicle dealers in his own area and at the same time he is supporting legislation that is in effect coming down very hard on them for the responsibilities of manufacturers, which, indeed, he suggested was the case. He is supporting legislation that is really, in our view, directed at the wrong people. I have to wonder if indeed prior to making his comments here today he discussed this particular piece of legislation with motor vehicle dealers in his own area to see if they shared his views in this respect. I suspect that kind of support would be limited, to say the least.

In any event, we think this legislation treats all motor dealers as bad actors. The member for Cambridge indicated that most are very honourable people doing a good job and serving their communities, and we share that view. As a result of that, we do not like this sort of legislation which tars them all with the same brush and indicates, because there are a few bad actors out there, that the government once again has to intervene and has to stick its nose into the private sector. In effect, what this is doing is attempting to kill a mosquito with an elephant gun, and we are not going to be supportive of that kind of initiative.

The member who is sponsoring this legislation, the member for Scarborough Centre, mentioned her concern about individuals purchasing Jaguars. I just want to emphasize that point. I know that not too many members of this assembly are in the fortunate position to even have the opportunity to consider the acquisition of a Jaguar, but apparently that is a major concern of hers. Perhaps she should have considered retitling this legislation the Wealthy Consumer Act or perhaps the trendy Toronto set legislation. Something along those lines may have addressed her real concerns and sent the message out very clearly.

1130

It is interesting to know that the member for Cambridge is also very supportive of those people out in his community who are searching for a quick response in terms of getting their Jaguar delivered to their homes. It is very interesting to know that is also a concern of the member for Cambridge. In any event, we do not doubt that there are some problems out there. They do exist, but there is no doubt in our view that this legislation is an overreaction.

As the member for Scarborough Centre should be aware, there is a legislative review process under way dealing with all consumer legislation at the provincial level. That process involves, as I understand it, consultation with all the players in this area, including the auto associations. Again, I have to pose the question. The member is going to have time to respond, but I think it would be interesting to know whether, in preparation of her piece of legislation, she consulted with any of the auto associations and what kind of reaction she got from them in respect to the wording of her bill.

I talked about the member for Cambridge. It is surprising when you think about the nationalistic approach they traditionally take; you would think that because of their support for things Canadian, they would all be driving three-cylinder beavers, but in effect, that is not the case. We see the member for Cambridge supporting a Jaguar purchase, apparently, and in my own riding I was astonished to see the candidate who ran for the New Democratic Party a couple of years ago driving around the community in a red Lada. This is from the party that supports Canadian manufacturers and everything Canadian. It certainly raises a lot of questions and a lot of doubts about the real commitment in respect to that party.

We want to talk about some of the specifics in respect to this legislation and I would like to put a few things on the record in the limited time I do have.

Imported vehicle dealers -- and this again touches on manufacturers like Jaguar, Toyota, etc. -- do not give delivery dates to the customers. It is because they cannot. The vehicles are manufactured offshore, for the most part, so delivery is virtually impossible in many instances to guarantee in terms of the tight time frame the member is suggesting in her legislation.

Within a month, the manufacturer can give the dealer, the customer, the expected date of delivery. If subsection 23a(2) becomes reality, lawyers have advised the auto dealers that it would allow customers to sue them if vehicles are not delivered on or before the delivery date promised. One effect of this could be a tying up of the small claims court and, in essence, rather than helping consumers could have the ultimate effect of driving up the cost of motor vehicles.

Miss Nicholas: Oh, the only way the little guy gets justice is small claims court.

Mr. Runciman: I want to make sure the member heard that. It could have the ultimate effect of driving up the cost of motor vehicles.

Mr. Kanter: Did Bill Davis write that?

Mr. Runciman: Listen, we are having interjections from another member of the trendy Toronto set. I am sure the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter), we should put on the record, probably does drive a Jaguar. We are very understanding of where he is coming from.

Mr. Farnan: Would you not like to have a few more Toronto members yourselves?

Mr. Runciman: Not a bad idea.

Once a car is ordered, the information is sent by computer to the manufacturer, where the process begins and within a month the ordered vehicle is given a serial number. Once the vehicle is serialized, it becomes a dealer’s vehicle and if the purchase order is cancelled by the customer after this serialization, the dealer is still committed to taking possession of the vehicle and may have to take a loss to sell it from his lot. I do not know if the member for Cambridge was aware of that.

It is a very important consideration when we are trying to reach a decision in respect to this particular piece of legislation and the message it sends out. We realize that this is a private member’s resolution, and it may not go beyond this stage, but, even if it does not, I think it sends out the wrong message. We have to appreciate that one out of every seven people in Ontario works for the auto industry or related businesses.

We are now moving into a free trade environment in this country, and I think, with some justification, that this government has developed a reputation as an antibusiness government. It has never hesitated to stick its nose into the private sector. One recent example of that, of course, is the auto insurance field, where the government has got itself into a sorry mess, indeed, and the consumers of this province into a sorry mess, as well. That is the sort of initiative that this government is becoming known for, and this bill follows along those same lines in going into areas where there is no real need, with a very significant intervention on the part of the government. We simply cannot support it.

I understand that the member who submitted this piece of legislation has had a negative experience in this area. We can appreciate that and we can appreciate the feelings she may have as a result of that situation. I am not sure if that is the case or not, and she may wish to comment on that in her summing up as well. We all draw on life’s experiences, it is part of our role in here as well, to assist us in reaching decisions and taking positions. But I think as legislators we have a special responsibility in terms of how we draw on those life experiences, especially the negative ones, to ensure that we do not overreact and perhaps in some circumstances take advantage of our special position in the community. I simply wanted to offer that cautionary note to the member.

In any event, we feel that this is a regrettable piece of legislation. We remind members that there is a legislative review process under way. The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in the new year, is going to be bringing forth legislation which will deal with matters such as the concerns the member has brought forward, and perhaps -- I am hopeful anyway -- in a less heavy-handed manner, in a less intrusive manner in terms of intervention in the private sector.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to add a few comments on Bill 191, moved by the member for Scarborough Centre, which addresses the consumer’s concerns when a motor vehicle dealer cannot deliver a new vehicle within 90 days of the offer to purchase or prior to the cancellation of the manufacturer’s rebate expiry date.

The member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) did not comment on that section. It says: “An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.” A normal contract form is signed by the purchaser and dealer, as the member for Cambridge had said in his comments, and the 90 days has worked very well, I think.

I have a copy of an agreement here and I happened to pick it up from my trustworthy dealer in Port Colborne, who happens to be a General Motors dealer. It says: “Delivery by dealer: It is mutually understood and agreed that when the motor vehicle herein described is a new motor vehicle and the dealer is unable to make delivery within three months of the date of the contract, the dealer shall forthwith notify the purchaser on expiration of the three-month period.” To go on to another section of it, “The agreement may be extended within five days,” and there is a penalty clause in there, too, I guess. So there is a working agreement there that is acceptable to all consumers, pretty well.

There may be the odd problem there. I have had some concerns brought to my attention in which a person who was buying from offshore had to wait eight months. It was a specially made car, you might say, from Japan, but he loved the car and he waited for it and he got it; but there was an additional expense to it that he was not too happy about. On two occasions it was brought to my attention.

1140

There are some protection measures there now that I think we can accept. A proposed amendment set out in the bill requires dealers to notify consumers of the expected date of delivery. The times that I have bought a number of cars, I never had any problems in this area, but the explanatory note is “The bill requires motor vehicle dealers, within 14 days of entering into an agreement for the purchase and sale of a new motor vehicle, to notify purchasers of the expected date of delivery. This date is made a term of the agreement.

“The bill provides purchasers with the right to rescind an agreement where the expected date of delivery is later than 90 days after the date....”

The bill also addresses consumer concerns when the automobile dealers cannot deliver a vehicle within the 90 days’ time or when the consumer will lose the benefit of the manufacturer’s responsibility, particularly where the loss of a rebate is at issue on delivery past the closing date. I think the member for Cambridge mentioned the efficiency in the manufacturing area. They could perhaps be a little more prompt in this area. It does not happen that often.

The amendment enhances the consumer’s choice by allowing the consumer to make buying decisions as soon as the dealer is aware that the vehicle will not be available rather than having to wait the normal 90 days’ delivery by the dealer on conditions of sale on contract. Where the dealer is unable to make the delivery within three months of the date of the contract, the dealer shall forthwith notify the purchaser of the expiration date of the three-month period. I find no difficulty with the intent of the bill in this area.

The member for Scarborough Centre says that Bill 191 clarifies and consolidates the rights and obligations of the consumer and the seller. I think that is the key to the intent of the bill. It also ensures that the manufacturer accepts a large share of the principal transaction’s fairness; that is, fairness of the circumstances and the practices involved in the purchase of an automobile. We often forget the word “fairness” in this particular area. A person is purchasing perhaps one of the largest items that he will be buying outside a home.

The bill, as I read it, establishes a clear understanding of the contract on the part of the consumer, which will include some measure of consistency between the oral and written terms used when contracting to purchase a motor vehicle and warrants fair notice of the onerous provisions of the unusual contracted clauses in the agreement of purchase. I suppose when you get into the agreement, there are about 10 of them in there that you should read when you sign an agreement. Although you may have a trustworthy salesman, you should still read the contract, because you will take a second look the second time you sign it. You will say, “Should I have gone this route?”

The member for Leeds-Grenville mentioned, and I am sure members are aware, that the minister responsible for consumer protection, that is, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), in tabling the legislative review project’s directions report and supplementary working papers on June 28, 1988, said the release of this report was the first step in revamping Ontario’s consumer protection laws. Specific legislative proposals will be developed after extensive public consultation to allow for discussion of the principles of marketplace fairness.

One of the key proposals made by the legislative review team was the consolidation of Ontario consumer protection laws into foundation statutes or a consumer protection code that would embody the rights, responsibilities and remedies of consumer transactions.

I can assure the members that the minister will be reviewing all the comments raised by members during this debate on Bill 191, as well as the comments from outside the Legislature from consumers and industry. I personally will be supporting the bill in principle.

Mr. McLean: I want to speak briefly on Bill 191. I have some concern with it. I have bought several new cars over the years and I have yet to have a problem with the dealers, mainly Chevrolet. However, I have bought others in recent years.

There is one part of this bill that has me very concerned and that is with regard to the authorization and the powers that the registrar has. He can refuse to grant or renew a registration or propose to suspend or revoke a registration.

There are a lot of powers in this bill on which I do not think it is necessary to bring in legislation which makes people and dealers come to a 90-day-or-less agreement. When we look at the sections dealing with the registrar -- and there are several of them -- and the tribunal, it certainly is cause for concern.

The amount of money that motor vehicle dealers in Ontario pay in taxes since the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has put on the extra one-cent sales tax is unbelievable.

I think the automobile dealers are very well respected in Ontario without having further legislation placed upon them and demands placed upon them, because the members opposite and I are well aware of what happens when there are more restrictions put on car dealers: we will be paying more for our automobiles when we purchase them.

I have never had a problem, and I do not know too many who have. What happens with regard to the legislation if they make a certain deal with a dealer that says it will be 110 or 120 days and they anticipate getting the car in that time? However, it may be 130 days. Are they going to be penalized or penalize the dealers because it is 10 days too late?

I have never had a problem borrowing a car or trading a car at any dealership and I think they are putting a very heavy onus on the car dealer. But not only that, they are questioning the integrity of the car salesmen who I believe have a code of ethics they follow. There is no doubt that you always will find one or two bad apples in the basket, and you are going to find the same thing with regard to the car dealers.

What would happen if this legislation were passed and the machinery dealers and the farmers decided, “Well, I ordered a piece of machinery; I want that delivered in June.” Is there going to be legislation now for the farm dealers?

The ministry is only just touching one segment of society and there are many others. What about the trucks? There are the truck dealers. This is the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act they are talking about here. Does it say that it covers the purchase of trucks or tractor-trailers?

There are so many things involved in this legislation that I am afraid that we are all going to pay more if this type of legislation is proceeded with. They are questioning the integrity of the car dealers and the car sales people. The government has come on and put another one per cent sales tax on the price of all these vehicles, and here we are looking at more problems for the dealers.

I think there are enough regulations in place today on car dealers. I know there have been many who have had their licences taken away because of some irregularity or some things they have done. They are covered under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This is adding one more burden to it.

I see the member’s point of view -- from her perspective -- of why she would think the 90 days after the date of the agreement would be satisfactory. I have no problem with that. But I think when you start tying down to specific dates, you are going to start to create a problem.

I just wanted to put those few remarks with regard to this bill on the record, because I think that I have yet to have a complaint about car dealers in my area who have misused people, or anybody complaining because his car has not been delivered on time.

I happen to believe this is one more area where a government wants to put more of a burden on to the car dealers, the dealers who pay most of the sales tax in Ontario and I think their integrity is being questioned.

1150

Mrs. LeBourdais: I am very pleased to support my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre in this particular bill. I am surprised that the member for Leeds-Grenville brought up the suggestion that the member was trying to impugn the dealers in any way. I think, as consumers, we have a right to know exactly what we are getting into when we purchase something. I think the responsibility is on the dealer to know within a time frame of perhaps a couple of weeks when the delivery of his product is going to be available. We are all aware that car dealers and car manufacturers, like other segments of the business society, cannot always meet a very specific time framework, but I think there is leeway within this to allow for that.

As a consumer, when a car is a part of day-to-day life, part of work life and part of social life, if you are planning a trip, you would like to know within a short period of time when you can expect delivery of a particular car. There is the old suggestion of “Buyer beware,” and I think we have to beware because in many cases we, the public, have been led down the garden path. This helps to ensure, both to the manufacturer and to the consumer, a schedule and deadline that both have to meet. Both have a responsibility and each has their own share of that responsibility.

The ad that the member used to indicate a rebate program, gives you all the details, including red ink to emphasize particular details at the manufacturer or the dealership both. Since these ads are usually paid for both by the dealership and co-opped with the manufacturer, they tell you all the highlights they want you to know about, but the details of the rebate that they would allow you on a specific vehicle, the fact that it is not available after a certain time limit, is not only not in red ink, it is at the bottom of the page. I am not a typographer, but it seemed to me that type is certainly no larger than five point type, and I am sure many of us could not even begin to read, or perhaps it would not occur to us to read.

We would assume that if there is a rebate on the car that we are to purchase, that rebate would be there from start to finish. Until this morning, quite frankly, I was not aware that the rebate had a time deadline. Although it is in the ad, although in theory, therefore, the dealership or the manufacturer have covered themselves, I am just wondering how often a dealer would specifically make the point to you that if you do not take delivery, the onus is not on you to be able to do anything about that. You cannot control the delivery date, and yet you are the individual who will lose out if the dealer or the manufacturer is tardy in any way.

I feel very comfortable in supporting in whatever way I can this particular bill.

Miss Nicholas: I just wanted to make a few comments in response to those made by the members today. I agree with the member for Cambridge that most dealers are very upright, are trying to make a sale, make a living and are great, but I wonder if they know that promises are being made by their salesman, which they, as dealers, cannot ever hope to keep. If the dealer knew that those promises are being made that the car will be delivered earlier, and they knew that their customer may be disappointed and may go elsewhere when they buy their second, third, fourth and tenth car -- because apparently each person buys approximately 10 cars in his or her lifetime -- they would welcome this legislation. They would welcome it if they knew that there were expectations being put out and not being met.

I would like to comment on the member for Leeds-Grenville and his comments that this is directed at the wrong people. I disagree with that. The consumer goes in and signs the contract with the dealer. That is the right person to direct this to. If there is a lawsuit, then they can third party the manufacturer. That is a quote that I learned in law school some time ago. That is what they can do. But the contract is with the dealer, that is whom they sign it with and that is why this legislation is aimed at the motor vehicle dealers.

He missed the $750 rebate totally. We are not looking at people with Jaguars, as he suggests, we are looking at the Chevette, the person who goes out and spends every last penny he has either financing or paying for his car, and who does not have another $750 to pay for it when he does not qualify for the rebate. This merely says to someone, “If I do not qualify for the rebate, I want to back out and make another deal.” They may still need the car. They are still walking to work in their rubber boots or going by the Toronto Transit Commission or in their Volkswagen Rabbit that has 500,000 kilometres on it. If they knew that the rebate would expire and they would not get the $750, I bet they would try to make another deal. So we are not looking at the people with the Jags, we are looking at the everyday consumer.

The argument the member for Leeds-Grenville made was that there might be an overwhelming number of people going to small claims court. I tell him that small claims court is the only way that a consumer, an individual, a citizen of Ontario, can get what he or she rightly deserves. It is a great asset that we have in our court system. We do not make people go to the county court or the Supreme Court for a little claim. They go to small claims court on their own, they tell their woes to the justice of the peace or to the judge who is in front of them and they get justice.

So I say if this is going to increase accessibility to small claims court, then it is a fabulous bill. We should all be supporting access to justice for all consumers. I do not have any problem with the fact that a few people -- If indeed they go running to small claims court in the great numbers the member is suggesting, then I say there really is a problem with our industry right now and with the promises of dates of when you should expect your car, if there is going to be this large number of people who are running to small claims court.

This bill focuses on the bad apples. It focuses on the sales people who are promising delivery of a car in an amount of time that they should not promise. They do not know when that car is going to be delivered. They are making a verbal contract and the consumer finds out after six weeks that his car is not coming in six weeks, not in eight weeks, and it may in fact be 89 days and he has to wait for three months; and he is not a knowledgeable consumer.

The member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) was saying how happy he has been with getting his cars and that he gets them on time. The bill does not hurt him then. He gets his car, he gets it on time and everybody is happy. The whole intent of this bill is for people who have been told they are going to get their car earlier, then later. There has been no research done on that. The salesman promises something he cannot deliver and you wait and wait.

With regard to the farmers, I ask what good is a combine or a vehicle in December if the guy needs it in June? How is he going to reap his harvest if he does not have the vehicles, the machinery necessary. He makes the deal for the farm equipment, he says it is going to be there before he has to sow his oats, he is ready for it, and the alternative is a manual hoe. I say this is good legislation and the farmers will welcome it, to know that their vehicles are going to be coming in on time.

This is against car dealers who are misusing the system. I think most of them are great. I have been satisfied with the cars I have received. Those who are waiting an inordinate length of time would welcome this legislation, to know that they could get their deposit back and make another deal elsewhere.

If it means the manufacturers are going to estimate it longer, if they are going to say it is taking seven weeks instead of six and the car comes after six, is that not all the better? It has come early, you are even more surprised by it and your expectations have not been diminished.

So I say this is a good piece of legislation, we are getting a knowledgeable consumer and I ask members to support second reading of this bill.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Offer has moved resolution 45.

Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Miss Nicholas has moved second reading of Bill 191.

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:01 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: There are times when the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus. When Sharleen and Claude Girouard were married last May, these two disabled adults had no idea they would be so miserably handled by the minister and the ministry. Contradicting its original advice, the regional office cut Sharleen off both her family benefits and her drug card. Claude’s take-home pay of $968 was only $68 more than Sharleen’s monthly medical bills, so they appealed the case.

Against the advice of the Thomson report, the ministry refused to continue her status until the appeal judgement was delivered. Against all legal requirements to deliver judgement within 40 days of filing, the Social Assistance Review Board took 79 days to reject the appeal. The ministry in the meantime, in providing some special assistance, somehow concluded that the Girouards could afford to cover about 25 per cent of her medical bills, so they have been going into debt at the rate of $200 a month.

The Girouards are showing serious side-effects of this ordeal. The SARB recommended using section 8 of the act for an order-in-council solution, but the minister refuses. But elderly women without resources are often given minimal standing with a payment of $2.50 per month by an order in council so they can qualify for a drug card. Would not even Scrooge consider that much for Sharleen and Claude Girouard?

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward). The minister recently gave the go-ahead for the Simcoe County Roman Catholic Separate School Board to build a new $2-million St. Ann’s school in the town of Penetanguishene. That was certainly good news, because I do not believe the group of existing portable classrooms provides pupils with a proper learning environment.

But now for the bad news. The board’s plea to expand the projected basic eight-room unit by three or four additional rooms has been turned down by this ministry. Officials with the ministry told the board to put this request for more rooms in the annual capital forecast. That means there will be no decision on this request until at least April 1989. With a contract of about $2 million about to go out for tender and a target completion date of next September, this request will come too late.

The minister must realize that it makes more sense to build a school like St. Ann’s to a proper size right from the beginning; it will undoubtedly be less expensive to complete the project all at once, rather than undertaking it in a piecemeal fashion.

A similar situation exists at Patrick Fogarty Secondary School in Orillia. This school is made up of portables and there is no gymnasium.

It was this minister’s government that brought in Bill 30 which extended funding to the separate school system in this province. They brought in the funding legislation but they failed to provide the necessary funding to follow.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. McGuinty: A major step has been taken by the government of Ontario in recognizing the economic development needs of eastern Ontario. This week, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) announced a community economic development program for eastern Ontario.

This program will allow communities in eastern Ontario to develop their own unique plans for economic growth. There will not be any Toronto-imposed solutions, as in the past; rather, local people will make local decisions. This program will foster community self-reliance and local initiative in economic planning. Over the next five years, the eastern Ontario communities will receive $25 million to help them develop long-term economic plans and to help finance specific development projects.

This new program shows that eastern Ontario is now being heard at Queen’s Park as never before. The Liberal government at Queen’s Park has shown that it cares about eastern Ontario, unlike previous Conservative governments. As the outgoing chairman of the eastern Ontario caucus, I wish to congratulate my Liberal colleagues for the work they have done behind the scenes to make this program a reality.

To the voters of eastern Ontario I say, in the words of our esteemed colleague the Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics (Mr. R. F. Nixon): “You ain’t seen nothing yet. There’s a lot more to come, thanks to your hardworking Liberal members of the Legislature from eastern Ontario.”

HOSPITAL WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a statement directed to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). For two years now, hospital workers of five Hamilton area hospitals have waited for a raise, and they are about to go through another Christmas without receiving one. I am talking about St. Joseph’s Hospital, Burlington, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Hamilton, Hamilton Civic Hospital, Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital and Chedoke McMaster Hospitals.

Tory and Liberal governments have denied them the right to strike. Instead, the nursing aides, orderlies, cooks, kitchen and cafeteria employees and maintenance, housekeeping and laundry staff are saddled with the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act. The Canadian Union of Public Employees has asked for changes to speed up the decisions of the arbitrator, but the government is not listening.

In two years, the workers’ rents have gone up twice; groceries are more expensive; clothes cost more. The government has found time to increase taxes, like the sales tax, but the government’s arbitrator has not found time to give the workers a raise. The members are victims of Ontario’s health care system, just like the patients waiting for beds all across the province. They are suffering from the effects of the squeeze on health care funding.

Health care workers deserve better. If they are essential employees, as they are called, then they should be a priority. Soon Christmas will come and, once again, they will have gone without their raise. I do not think it is fair. I do not think this government is treating these workers fairly. They should be paid what they are worth.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM

Mr. Runciman: I rise today on an urgent matter affecting the future of 10 individuals in my riding who are awaiting action from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. These individuals enrolled in the municipal employment program are presently on welfare. They have successfully completed a job readiness training program. They have been offered on-the-job training and the possibility of full-time employment. However, employers are refusing to hire them because there is no provision for workers’ compensation coverage for welfare clients placed in jobs under provincial programs. Employers do not want to be liable in case of a work-related injury.

The ministry was advised of this problem in early October and promised that coverage would be provided within a month. Nothing has been done so far, in spite of numerous calls to the ministry. This is a most frustrating situation. A worthwhile initiative has been stalled by inaction. These people have the chance, some for the first time in their lives, to break the cycle of welfare and poverty, become gainfully employed and gain a feeling of self-esteem. All this is in danger of being lost because of either indecision or disinterest on the part of the ministry.

It might seem like a small matter in the eyes of someone who has never been in a position of dependence, but it is of utmost importance to the 10 individuals who see their opportunity for a better life lost to them because of government inaction. I urge the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) to investigate this matter immediately and so make possible a brighter future for people who have been given a chance to improve their lot in life.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Fleet: December 10, 1988, was a celebration of International Human Rights Day and the start of Human Rights Week in Ontario. December 10 was also the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We recognize that day because we acknowledge the inherent right to dignity, freedoms and self-determination of people anywhere in the world.

There are fundamental freedoms of conscience, expression and association and other basic liberties which we enjoy in Ontario, largely without ever thinking about them. Unfortunately, these human rights are unjustly denied to citizens of many other countries.

Last Saturday, I joined members of the Ukrainian, Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian communities in a rally at Toronto city hall and on the steps of Queen’s Park to protest the ongoing harsh denial of basic human rights in the Soviet Union. Thousands of prisoners of conscience still remain in psychiatric hospitals and prisons throughout the Soviet Union. The struggle for basic freedoms by the women and man on the street in the Ukraine and the Baltic states is far from won. We must not forget their fate.

I urge all Ontarians to join me in support of the international struggle for human rights so that the people of the Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and other oppressed countries will be truly free.

1340

ROOMERS, BOARDERS AND LODGERS

Mr. Breaugh: The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has spoken out against what are known as exclusionary bylaws, bylaws which are passed by some municipalities, essentially aimed at doing away with rooming houses or people who are not related living in the same quarters. The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) has also spoken out against this practice. The general intention of the government has been to remove exclusionary bylaws from the municipal books.

The problem is that neither the Premier nor the minister have gotten around to doing this. The problem is that for Hannah Cook and her 12-year-old daughter, the city of North York, the city with a heart, has decided that it does not want to have anything to do with rooming houses. They face eviction over the Christmas period because of that municipality’s exclusionary bylaw.

Would it not be nice if just before Christmas the Minister of Housing and the Premier actually did what they both said they wanted to do and ended exclusionary bylaws?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am pleased to inform the House that this ministry is taking prompt action in response to the interim report of the Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario, the Lowy inquiry, which was received this week.

I am announcing today that all medically indicated drugs and drug-related therapies in the treatment of cystic fibrosis and thalassemia will be provided to all age groups who require them. The drugs and therapies will be made available through designated hospital programs, effective January 31, 1989.

It is my priority to ensure that these two special groups, who can face catastrophic drug costs, have equity in access to the drugs they need. Currently, people up to age 18 have their drug costs covered while most adults do not.

Dr. Lowy’s interim report estimates there are approximately 860 cystic fibrosis patients in Ontario, of whom about 300 are over 18 years of age. There are approximately 125 diagnosed thalassemia patients, about 25 per cent of whom are over age 18.

The report points out that adults with cystic fibrosis can face drug costs as high as $8,000 per year; those with thalassemia sometimes have bills of up to $25,000 per year. The Lowy inquiry estimates the cost of providing drugs and drug therapy to all cystic fibrosis and thalassemia patients in Ontario will be about $5.1 million annually.

Dr. Lowy’s interim report also notes that the current special authorization system used with the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary is not acceptable. The program began in 1974 and was originally intended for use in rare instances where drug products not listed in the formulary were considered necessary by a prescribing physician for the care of an eligible patient.

Many of the drugs currently available under special authorization, however, are of very limited therapeutic value according to the Lowy inquiry. It concludes that in recent years special authorizations have become highly permissive and now cost over $50 million each year. Since more than 1,600 drug products are now listed under special authorization, the program is not only expensive but administratively cumbersome.

I am therefore announcing today that the special authorization system will be reformed to reflect its original intention. As of January 1, 1989, new drugs will only be approved for special authorization based on the advice of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee.

As of April 1, 1989, all drugs available under the Ontario drug benefit plan will have to be recommended by the DQTC and the committee will make its recommendations based on therapeutic effectiveness. I will immediately ask the DQTC to examine all drugs now available by special authorization, to assess their therapeutic effectiveness and to recommend whether they should be included in the July 1989 formulary.

Our objective is to make sure that all drugs available to Ontarians through government-funded programs are effective for improving health and contributing to quality of life.

When the Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario, headed by Dr. Frederick Lowy, was established in March of this year, I said then that our intention was to place the inquiry on an action footing so that prompt, appropriate responses could be developed to its recommendations. Today’s announcements honour that commitment.

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to announce today a change in the manner in which provincial court judges in Ontario are to be selected.

I intend to establish the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Appointments, a group of qualified and highly motivated individuals, to advise me on all future appointments to the bench. They will, I believe, inject essential public input into what many consider to be an informal process.

The committee will interview and select candidates before making final recommendations to the Attorney General. This model, which is the first of its kind in Canada, is a modern appointment system dedicated to seeking out candidates of merit from all branches of the profession.

The lay-dominated advisory committee will do a great deal to remove any unwarranted criticism of political bias or patronage in appointments to the judiciary while enhancing community and public involvement and reinforcing confidence in the judiciary and the justice system. Such a committee, with a broad base of representation from across the province, will ensure that the justice system reflects the needs, the values and the attitudes of the community as a whole.

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Appointments will have the following mandate: First, to develop and recommend comprehensive, sound and useful criteria for selection of appointments to the judiciary, ensuring that the best candidates are considered; and second, to interview applicants selected by it or referred to it by the Attorney General and make recommendations.

The committee will operate as a three-year pilot project and will be in a position to review candidates beginning in March 1989. In the interim, we will of course continue to fill judicial vacancies when necessary. It will include nine members led by Chairman Peter Russell, professor of political science at the University of Toronto, who has had a most distinguished academic and professional career. Joining him will be five additional nonlawyers, one provincial court judge chosen by, but not from, the Ontario Judicial Council, one lawyer chosen by the Law Society of Upper Canada and one lawyer chosen by the Attorney General.

I believe the judicial appointments advisory committee will combine public understanding with the needed expertise of lawyers and the judiciary. It is through this balance of common sense and legal standards that government can realistically expand the public’s access to justice and improve service to the community.

In the west gallery is Professor Peter Russell, the first chairman of this new committee, the first of its kind in Canada, and I would ask the House to welcome him now.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: May I be the first to congratulate the Attorney General on this excellent statement.

HEALTH INNOVATION FUND

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I wanted to set the tone, and may I go on to say that I wish to inform the House that the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy is now inviting grant applications to the health innovation fund.

The $100-million fund is tangible evidence of this government’s commitment to exploring new and innovative ways of providing health services to the people of Ontario. It also demonstrates our desire to provide the financial support needed to plan and evaluate new and cost-effective approaches to health care delivery.

This fund has been created specifically to encourage creative new programs and to test pilot projects that might not otherwise qualify for funding.

Over the next four years, funds will be made available in a number of areas. About one third will be used to undertake a comprehensive health status survey, sponsor several hospital-in-the-home pilot projects and encourage further development of community health services, health service organizations and comprehensive health organizations.

1350

The balance will go towards grants for innovative pilot projects conducted by community groups, individuals, health providers and researchers, as well as projects identified by the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy.

Criteria for the grants have been established and two competitions will be held each year. To be considered for grants, projects must address an important consumer health need and not duplicate existing services. In addition, individuals and groups submitting proposals must be sponsored by a nonprofit organization. The fund will not be used to support capital construction of facilities, high-technology diagnostic equipment or projects already funded from another source.

The health innovation fund is intended to promote five major objectives of this government for the future of Ontario health care:

1. To promote positive change in consumer attitudes and behaviour towards personal health and family health;

2. To improve equities in health across the province;

3. To test new, more effective ways of delivering services;

4. To improve access to existing health services for individuals and groups that experience difficulty in seeking out appropriate care; and

5. To foster improved co-ordination of health programs and services.

Innovation does not come without risks, but neither do the rewards. We need to forge partnerships among providers, consumers, business and government in developing new approaches to health and health care delivery. I am confident that the health innovation fund will be a major catalyst for achieving these goals.

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

Hon. Mrs. Smith: On Tuesday of this week, I announced the establishment of a task force to address the concerns of visible minorities about the interaction of police with their community. I also advised all members that this task force would be chaired by Clare Lewis, public complaints commissioner on matters involving the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.

This afternoon, I am pleased to announce the appointment of four other members of the task force. They are Dr. Ralph Agard, president of the board of directors of the Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto; James Harding, president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police; T. Sher Singh, a Toronto lawyer and past chairman of the Council on Race Relations and Policing; and another member of the task force who has agreed to serve, but this has not yet been confirmed with her employer.

As members are aware, the task force was established as a result of recent concerns raised about the relationship between visible minorities and the police. The task force is viewed by the government as an effort to ensure that discrimination or even the perception of discrimination on the part of police officers in this province does not take place.

The terms of reference for the task force are to inquire into and report on:

1. The current training members of police forces receive as it relates to visible minorities;

2. Ways to improve this training and education, both for recruits and on a continuing education basis;

3. The hiring practices and promotional processes, including employment equity programs;

4. Ways to improve the interaction of the police with visible minorities through the establishment of liaison officers, committees, community education programs and cross-cultural training;

5. Ways in which a monitoring system may be established to provide for a regular review of the interaction between visible minorities and the police; and

6. To review the policies and practices of the police relating to the use of force.

The government is most concerned about the situation and perceptions which have led to this task force. I am confident that when the task force reports back to me in two months, its findings will provide us with practical recommendations to deal with these serious concerns so that we can ensure equal treatment by police for all minorities in our society.

RESPONSES

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

Mr. B. Rae: First, on the good news front, I would like to congratulate the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) for his announcement today. I think it is long overdue that we have a better process for appointing provincial court judges.

If I may say so, I am particularly delighted that Mr. Russell has agreed to serve as chairman of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Appointments. All of us who know Professor Russell know what a talented and capable person he is and what a sense of the importance of the integrity of the judiciary he has. I am delighted he has agreed to serve as chairman.

I would also like to congratulate the Attorney General on the appointees to the committee who at first blush, from the people I know, certainly reflect a wide range in the community. We have a way to go to get really good appointments to the bench. I am just delighted to see the Attorney General taking these steps.

I would like to also congratulate him on choosing a former New Democratic Party candidate, Mr. Cressy, as one of his appointees to the federal judiciary appointee committees. I am very pleased. That is the good news.

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

Mr. B. Rae: Now I would like to turn to the statement made by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). If we ever needed proof that this government was simply going by the seat of its pants on this very important issue, nothing would indicate it more clearly than the announcement today by the Solicitor General of the makeup of a committee. She does not even have all the names of the people who are on the committee.

My copy of the statement names three people and then it says, “a female member who has yet to be confirmed.” If you are going to make an announcement about the formation of a task force and give the community the sense that you take this task force seriously and you take its composition seriously, surely you would want to wait until you had everybody appointed before you proceeded.

I might just add on this point that I say with the greatest of respect to the Solicitor General, we have had many task forces on this very subject. The critical question is not the task force. The critical question is what the commitment of government is to lead and to deal with problems when they arise. We do not have a new or different policy by this government on the use of force. We do not have from this government a different policy on what happens when police officers are involved in potentially criminal action.

We have had over the last year several indications that this government believes that the best people to investigate the police when they are involved in actions of a potentially criminal nature are the police themselves. I can tell you that I disagree fundamentally with that proposition.

I said to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) after the Donaldson incident, that we have to find a different way, a way that gives everybody a sense that the system has integrity when these investigations take place. You have to have a prosecutor in charge who is completely independent of the government, completely independent of the police. That prosecutor should be taking responsibility for any criminal investigation from the time the act is committed.

I believe the government is going to have to come to that conclusion in order to give this process some integrity and in order to give it the support in the community that it needs. This government has had ample opportunity to do that. It has chosen consistently not to do it. I do not think another task force is going to get this government to move.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Reville: Responding briefly to the statement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) today, I am very disappointed that all we have got out of the Lowy inquiry after it has been meeting for a little less than a year is a couple of little tastes of the kinds of reform that we are going to need to have. Yes, we are pleased to see that the drugs in respect to cystic fibrosis and thalassemia will be paid for, but this is creeping pharmacare that is creeping far too slowly.

A number of very serious problems remain to be addressed by this government. It is interesting that it has finally, two years later, taken the advice of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee and is going to look at the special authorizations.

The minister should know that all over this province there are people who are being made sick by drugs that are inappropriately prescribed for them. The taxpayer is paying for both the prescription and treatment to help them get over the effects of the prescription.

HEALTH INNOVATION FUND

Mr. Reville: In 15 seconds -- there is $100 million for health innovations. Sure, we welcome that, but that is $25 million a year. That is about one fifth of one per cent on a health care budget of $13 billion and you have to wonder who really is going to get this money.

1400

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

Mr. Brandt: I want to respond to the statement of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) with respect to the task force and again remind the Solicitor General that my colleague the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) did, in fact, offer a solution to the ongoing problem, not only of race relations with respect to the police department but a methodology that could be put in place that would review this entire matter and bring before this House recommendations that could be implemented.

The Solicitor General knows, as I do, that the response of the black community to her proposals has been less than positive at this point. If the perception is that the government -- and I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the case, because I have a little more faith in the minister than this -- may not be willing to open the doors widely in this particular matter and that the government may, in fact, have something to hide, then her task force will not be a success.

I would suggest to her that the referral to the standing committee on administration of justice, as proposed by my colleague, will in fact take into account all of the issues that she has outlined here, but in a more open, more public process which will involve the members of the Legislative Assembly, and I think the very positive input from those members as well as from the public at large could in fact put in place a much more responsive system in which the concerns of the public, and particularly those minorities who are concerned about the present relationship between police and minorities, can be dealt with.

I say to the minister that what she is doing here is a step in the right direction, but it is not far enough. We have concerns about what those perceptions are in the public’s eye and we really feel that she should very seriously take into consideration the recommendations that we made, I believe back in October 1987, as a positive step in a concrete and I think a very forward-looking step in the right direction.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond, both to the statement made by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the statement made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson). With respect to the statement by the Minister of Health, we certainly welcome these initiatives. I think the special authorization for drugs is something that is long overdue in terms of the government’s correcting some of the problems that we have had in the past.

With respect to the announcement about thalassemia and cystic fibrosis patients, I think that has been pointed out to the government by both opposition parties on several occasions. By the ministry’s and the minister’s own admission in her statement today, there are less than 1,000 of these patients in Ontario. Ontario is one of the last provinces in the country to come on stream with respect to helping these people and I am glad to see that the government is finally addressing that shortcoming in our health care system.

HEALTH INNOVATION FUND

Mr. Eves: With respect to the Premier’s announcement, I am not so nearly congratulatory. This is an election promise that was bandied about in August 1987. We already know just about everything that was in the Premier’s statement today. It is merely a general statement, reiterating or regurgitating what was announced over 15 months ago. We have been waiting for 15 months to know to whom and where these funds are going. We want the specifies of the health innovation fund. We asked for those in estimates some two or three weeks ago. I believe both opposition parties did that.

The government has had almost a year and a half. We want to know when the funds are going to start flowing, specifically where they are going to and what projects the health innovation fund is going to encompass. I have the sinking feeling over here on this side of the House that the health innovation fund is going to go the way of the Premier’s technology fund.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What does that mean?

Mr. Eves: Down the tubes and nowhere, that’s what I mean.

Mr. Speaker: That completes ministerial statements and responses.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will now ask for oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

SEASON’S GREETINGS

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I may: Before we get into the harangue of question period -- I may not get a chance to do this while there are as many people here as there are today -- I would like to extend to you and to all the members of the House, on behalf of the official opposition, our very best for the season and we look forward to seeing you back on January 3. We hope that you, sir, and all the staff, the table officers and all the pages, including even the members of the government, have a good holiday.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: God bless us every one.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I am sure that is worth an extra 30 seconds on the question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’ S RECORD

Mr. B. Rae: I do want to ask some questions today of the Premier, and my colleagues have some questions to ask of the Premier. I ask him to listen carefully to the questions, because they all deal with a single subject. That subject is the integrity of this government and the promises that it has broken. While our questions touch on different subject matters -- and a merry Christmas to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) too -- they all relate to the same issue and the same idea, that of broken promises.

What I would like to do is ask my first question with respect to a broken promise, and that has to do with this question of pensions. Back in June 1987, the gentleman who is sitting almost straight behind the Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), said, “We wish to give assurance to this government’s firm resolve to introduce mandatory inflation protection.” He said that legislation would be forthcoming as soon as the Friedland study had reported.

I would like to ask the Premier a very direct question on the first broken promise of this government, and that has to do with inflation protection on pensions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable colleague will give the member all the details on that.

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to the pension issues, I think the public knows I indicated quite clearly yesterday that we are moving on the issue of indexation. In addition to that, there are a series of other issues that also are important in the pension family, if I can put it in that context, with which we will enter a consultation period that will come forward early in the new year. We hope to see the bill in front of the Legislative Assembly next year.

Mr. B. Rae: A promise delayed is a promise denied. That is the reality with respect to this inflation protection promise which this government has been making for the last three years and which previous governments made for three years prior to that.

I would like to ask the Minister of Financial Institutions if he can explain how it is possible that when the fellow who just refused to answer the question on broken promises said in 1987 that he had a specific plan to reduce car insurance rates, the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board would have recommended a return on equity of 12.5 per cent, which, according to evidence I elicited on cross-examination this morning at the insurance board, is in good measure responsible for the 35 to 40 per cent increase recommended by Mercer. In fact, if there was no return on equity, the increase in insurance would be 14 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: Why is the minister having a profit insurance scheme instead of a car insurance scheme, when his government promised that it would reduce insurance?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I know the honourable gentleman has participated in this morning’s round at the board and he is going to return after question period to get the answer to some assumptions he made with respect to earlier testimony. I understand there is an anticipation of his arrival and he can get his assumptions cleared up.

He, like everybody else at the board, is interested in clarifying the basis upon which the board is making the determinations on rates. He is participating. In fact, I think the success of the board’s hearing system, i.e., that it can come to grips with the material that is contained in the Mercer report to the board, is evidence that the system is working very well, that the clarification of how rates are set will happen and that the rates that come out of this will be on the basis of vigorous cross-examination by interveners such as himself, who have no particular expertise in the area, together with the expertise put forward by people from industry and professionals hired by the Consumers’ Association of Canada. That is why this process is working and is going to work and will, in fact, show the public of Ontario what a fair rate is.

I think he made certain assumptions, of course, that are not quite based upon --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order.

1410

Mr. B. Rae: I want to ask the minister this final supplementary question. His government has broken its commitment on inflation protection. It has failed to do something which it promised the people of the province it would do. They have broken their promise on car insurance, because the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said he had his plan to reduce rates. Instead, he has a plan which ensures the profits of the insurance companies and ensures a whopping increase for drivers and does nothing else. That is what it is there for. That is what it does. That is what the board’s hearings are all about.

I want to come back to this point on car insurance. How does the minister square this 35 per cent to 40 per cent increase, or 25 to 30 or 20 to 25 or whatever number gets pulled out of the hat, by the insurance board? The whole thing is so shaky, that is what is going to end up happening. How does he square that with the specific promise that his leader made three days before the election, that he had a plan to reduce car insurance rates? How does he expect to get away with that kind of difference, that kind of discrepancy between what was said before an election and what happens --

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

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the people in Ontario will want to know that this government has not broken promises and that we have moved forward with respect to the pension issue, and we are moving forward with the pension issue. That is clear. Without any compromise, that is clear, and the people in Ontario know that.

In addition to that, people will know that the auto board was put into place to determine what was a fair and reasonable rate with respect to auto insurance. That board is moving very, very carefully and very, very thoroughly through a proposal which is in front of it and has invited not only people who are expert in the field but people like the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) to participate, who in fact have been successful in determining some of the areas in which the proposals put in front of the board are sought.

Those changes are brought to the attention of the board and they are working on those to make sure they firm up the proposal. From that point of view, the public of Ontario has seen the success of this particular proposal. There is no broken promise. In fact, we are moving to do the things we have committed ourselves to do. There is a movement on indexing of pensions. There is the determination of what is a fair rate for auto insurance in Ontario. We are doing what we said we would do.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier, again on this question of broken promises. The Premier’s commitment that he made back in 1985 when he was in opposition, the commitment he made not only to me but to the teachers, students, parents and throughout the system, was very clear. The personal commitment made by the Premier in Sudbury in March 1985 was that the provincial share of education funding would go to 60 per cent.

However you calculate it, when you calculate like with like, when you calculate the numbers that you used in 1985 with the numbers that are now being used by those same school boards in 1988, the share that the province was paying has dropped in the field of public elementary education, which he said, not only in the election but in throne speech after throne speech, that the emphasis was on. His commitment to public education for young people, for separate education for young people, has declined since 1985. How does he justify breaking as fundamental a promise as that, that he would be doing more for kids and not less for kids, when, in fact, he is doing less for kids?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Minister of Education will tell the honourable leader why he is wrong in all respects.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would like to indicate to the honourable Leader of the Opposition how delighted I am that he has raised the issue of the fundamental commitment we have made to the quality of elementary and secondary education in this province. He will know that during the course of the last throne speech, we came forward with a series of very significant reforms in elementary education, including the reduction of classroom sizes in grades 1 and 2, additional funds for updated learning materials and resource materials, a commitment to extend the program of provincial reviews and learning materials, textbooks and education technology. We have met each and every one of those commitments and more.

We have fundamentally reduced the local burden of property taxation in this province for educational purposes. The member will know full well that under the Education Act, it is school boards that have the responsibility for accommodation, not the provincial Treasury. We have increased our commitment in that regard by some 400 per cent over the course of the last three years.

Our current capital program is providing additional space for another 45,000 students. All of this points clearly to the fact that we are meeting our commitments and more.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I gather the minister is telling us that the Premier did not lie in early August, when he said -- about the money that would be put into lowering the student-teacher ratio in grades 1 and 2 and other changes -- when he said this year, that being 1987, the government would spend $296 million on those programs in that year. As of this point, the government has spent one quarter of that amount in two years. The minister is telling me today that the Premier did not lie.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would point out that over the course of the past two years during the distribution of financial resources in the allocations given by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), the amount of funding to school boards across this province has increased by more than $500 million over the level that it was in 1987.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I notice that the minister did not specifically indicate whether he thought that was a lie --

Mr. Jackson: No doubt in my mind.

Mr. Cousens: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. With respect, I wish all members would take the time to think of what they are saying. Final supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I put it very specifically and my language is as clear as I would like to make it, that the words that were spoken are not those which have been followed up with action. I would like to ask the minister if the government has changed its position, yes or no, on the basic premise that it will assume 60 per cent of those costs? Or is it still going to wiffle-waffle around with the wording that we have been hearing for the last little while and try to pretend that it now has the same position that it had in the past, although it has changed it dramatically?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would say that the only wiffle-waffling that appears to be going on is certainly not coming from this government, but indeed is coming from those members over there. I would invite the members to compare apples to apples, to compare oranges to oranges. It would seem to me to be rather deceptive for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and his education critic to get up and specifically point to one aspect of the general legislative grants, as they have in their questioning, and refer to the amount of funds that are committed to public elementary education, when they know full well that the grants are sensitive to local conditions.

More than 61 per cent of this year’s general legislative grants are going to elementary education. This government is committed to reducing the burden of educational costs that are borne by local taxpayers. We have done that by increasing our legislative grants well in excess of the rate of inflation. We have done that by assuming more of the burden for accommodation. We have done that in a fair and responsible way. Not only have we met the commitments made by the Premier in 1987, but we have exceeded them.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. In the interest of maintaining this happy environment that we have in the assembly today, I would like to offer something constructive to the government by way of the question that I want to raise.

Back in August 1987, the Premier indicated that he wanted to maintain and retain a common pause day in Ontario. He has further said, and the same remarks have been echoed by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), that the problem with the current act is that there are not sufficient deterrents within that act, in terms of the fine system, to deter retailers from opening on a Sunday.

It is my suggestion to the Premier -- and I am going to propose this by way of a private members’ bill later today -- that the fines for individuals and for retail stores be increased to a maximum of $50,000 from the current levy, which I believe is $10,000. That would act as a very specific deterrent, and would allow his government to have the kind of teeth in the act that would retain a common pause day in this province. It would allow the government to take action against those stores that do want to open on a Sunday inappropriately, or against the current law.

Is the Premier prepared, and is his government prepared to support such a private bill, which we could pass very quickly today in this House?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked. Premier?

1420

Hon. Mr. Peterson: May I congratulate my honourable friend for his constructive suggestion talking about legislative speed, about moving bills quickly through this House. He may want to talk to some of his critics, who have been ragging the puck for the last year sitting in committee. I have listened to people who have sat in committee and seen the members opposite waste time, fool around and just push the parliamentary rules to the absolute limit. I say to my honourable friend that he is lucky he has such a sensitive and tolerant government here that is prepared to tolerate these opposition shenanigans.

For him to walk in on the last day of the session before Christmas with the magic solution to this matter, I am telling him with greatest respect to my dear friend opposite, at this time of Christmas, a time of charity for all, the time of temperate language and love for one’s fellow man, that it strains all credibility.

Mr. Brandt: Let me just say to the Premier that perhaps some of the backbenchers who are also opposed to his legislation and have not had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and object to it enjoyed the response he just gave. The Premier has indicated time and again that he is not prepared to enforce the current legislation and the current law, simply because the fines and the levies are not high enough.

We indicate to him that those fines and levies can, in fact, be increased very substantially through a vote. We have told him for the past three years that we wanted to retain a common pause day and that we are not satisfied with his passing the buck on to municipalities with respect to Sunday shopping.

Is the Premier prepared to take the right step during this very happy season to give a clear signal to the retailers and to the merchants that he is going to maintain the word that he gave in August with respect to a common pause day?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Honestly, I do appreciate it is Christmastime; a lot of strange things are said, and I understand that. People want to get home, and I appreciate it. But listen to what my honourable friend is saying. He is going to have the magic solution this afternoon and ask us to do three readings of his bill. We could accomplish the very same purpose by bringing the bill that does increase the penalties out of committee into this House.

Let me say that the bill before the House increases the penalties. It brings in an injunctive power to clean up some of these situations. It is all there. Now, if my honourable friend wants to be constructive -- and I know he does, because deep down in his soul, wizened up as it appears sometimes, he wants to be constructive and make the process work -- why does he not talk to the members opposite, his members, and ask them to get that bill out of committee this afternoon? I will ask my colleagues for their co-operation. We will pass it this afternoon, and there will never again be any uncertainty about where the law is.

Mr. Brandt: This may come as a shock to the Premier, but our members on this side of the House are quite prepared to pass the good parts of his bill, but he should not ask us to pass the nonsense that is contained in his bill. We are not going to pass those parts of the bill.

We have adequate time this afternoon to refer my private member’s bill to the Premier and to his staff lawyers to have them review it. It is a very simple, two-part bill that effectively calls for an increase in fines to $50,000; and second, allows for an injunction, if that is necessary, on the part of the government to close a store that does not comply with the current act.

Without trying to fluff it with his usual rhetoric, is the Premier prepared to move on this and preserve Sunday as an official pause day and a day of rest in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate my honour-able friend’s suggestion, ill thought out as it is, in this matter. He wants to pass the good side and not the bad side. I remind him that goodness and badness are very much in the eye of the beholder. He feels he is right to hold up this Legislature.

Let me tell him that we have had 55 legislative days discussing this bill: 10 days in the House, 25 days in committee in public hearings and 20 days in committee with clause-by-clause. That is 55 days, and if the member believes he is advancing the human wisdom on this matter by fooling around, by slowing the process down, then so be it. It is his right to take advantage of the rules, but let me tell my honourable friend that to hold up the bill for 55 days and then to walk into this House, albeit, I must say, somewhat arrogantly and say, “We will pass our bill in an afternoon” -- If I came in with that kind of view, the member would come in and accuse us of gross arrogance. This being Christmastime, I will not do that except to wish my honourable friend a very happy holiday season.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier does not want to enforce the law. It is as simple as that.

Hon. Mr. Scott: We have charged everybody.

Mr. Brandt: You have a law on the books now you are not enforcing.

Mr. Harris: He does not want to enforce the existing law and he does not want to enforce his own bill and the amendments the government is proposing.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Remember Roy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I often quote him back to you.

Mr. Brandt: Don’t do that. It’s not fair.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Roy McMurtry said the bill is unworkable.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing has a new question, to which minister?

Mr. Harris: I apologize for the interjections. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) could not contain himself and neither could I.

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Can the minister tell us how many Ontario residents will benefit from the Ontario home ownership savings plan this year?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: That program is administered by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and I would like to pass the question to him.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: As a matter of fact, the program is administered by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître).

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The spirit of Christmas is in the air. The Liberal Party shares its responsibilities.

Let me give the honourable member an update on the great program called OHOSP, the one that the honourable member did not believe would work at the time of the passage of that bill. In eastern Ontario, there are 639 plans; in central Ontario, 807 plans; in southwestern Ontario, 837; in northern Ontario, the place where the member thought it would not work, 209; and the good news is, in Metro Toronto 1,108 plans.

So I think it is great news. We will continue to promote the program and more and more of our low- and middle-income families are taking advantage of this great program.

Mr. Harris: The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) defers to the Treasurer when I talk about the cost of housing; she defers to Municipal Affairs on land-use policy; she defers to Cardinal Carter when it comes to providing affordable housing in the province; and now she does not want to answer. She was front and centre when the announcement was made on this program and now she is deferring --

Hon. Mr. Scott: You used to have high regard for Cardinal Carter. He went to all your banquets.

Mr. Speaker: Order. To the Minister of Revenue? That would be great.

Mr. Harris: When the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Revenue launched this program, it was with great fanfare. I have the press release here. The minister said very clearly that 150,000 Ontario residents would benefit. The Minister of Housing concurred with that number. To date, there have been fewer than 7,000 applications. When we consider that many of those are husband and wife or wife and husband, the estimate one could most realistically put on it is 4,000. So if this program carries on for 300 years, the minister might meet his target.

The most any individual can contribute is $10,000. The maximum permitted per couple is $20,000 over five years. Realistically, they need $60,000 for a down payment. Does the minister really believe the program is going to help any one, single individual across this province, and does he dispute any of the figures that I have just quoted?

1430

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I just told the honourable member that 6,000 individuals have taken advantage of this great program, and we will continue to provide low-income and middle-income earners with the opportunity. I want to remind the honourable member that the six national banks have taken up our program, as well as 10 trust companies, 70 credit unions, two caisses populaires. I could go on and on. We expect to reach our objective of 150,000 units or programs.

First of all, the honourable member did not believe in the program, and now that he hears the good news of the program he still wants to discount it.

Mr. Harris: The minister is right. I did not believe in the program then, and it has been confirmed to me now that very few Ontarians believe in it. Those who have taken part in the program are seeing the cost of housing accelerate day after day, far in excess of what they can benefit from in this program.

I would like to ask the minister, the Treasurer and the Minister of Housing -- they are all involved in this conspiracy to drive up the price and the cost of housing. I find it intriguing that they are able to predict exactly. They can have the estimate of how many people will benefit when they bring in a new program. How is it that when they talk about something like increased taxes or $10,000 on the price of a home for a lot levy, they have no idea of that impact? They have no idea how many people that affects.

Can the minister explain to me why, when they think it is good news, as this one is not, they are prepared to come up with projections and estimates, however unrealistic they are, and yet when it comes to lot levies, no studies are done, nothing is done?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Would the member take his seat. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I want to remind the honourable member that we are not discussing lot levies. The question originally asked of me was: What is the future of OHOSP? I think I have supplied the honourable member with every detail of OHOSP. When it comes to lot levies, I think this government is responsible enough to think about low-income and middle-income earners, and we will provide the number of units promised by this government.

HOME CARE

Mr. Allen: To the Premier: On September 3, 1987, the Premier made an important election promise to the disabled, the ill and the seniors of this province that he would expand integrated homemakers services to an additional 10 centres, from 18 to 28. With the end of a second fiscal year now in sight, we have still to see those 10 additional centres.

Worse, he has capped the program, diverted $2.8 million of the unspent dollars to other programs. The Red Cross has now announced it is unable to tolerate his inaction and is going out of home care services. Visiting homemakers associations across the province are losing large numbers of unpaid staff and are cutting services. Has the Premier forgotten this promise or did the Premier, as it would appear, have a secret plan to destroy Ontario’s home care services for these people?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the minister can help the honourable member.

Mr. Speaker: It has been referred to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that when the integrated homemakers program was first introduced, it was indicated that there would be six sites across the province that would be a pilot program to determine what the costs, the takeup and the makeup of the program itself would be.

The member will be aware of the fact that it became apparent fairly quickly that we needed more exposure than that, and we added an additional 10 sites to bring it up to 16. Two more sites were added on to bring it up to 18. That is where we are at the present time.

The member is well aware of the fact that it is now very apparent that the cost and the takeup are much more extensive than what we had originally imagined. It is reasonable at this point in time that we should put a temporary hold on further expansion and clarify exactly what the scope and the cost of this program ought to be.

Mr. Allen: The minister, of course, is aware of the opinion in the field that it was the very incompetence of the implementation process in the first place that led to the necessity to cap and therefore to the breaking of the promise that was issued on September 3.

Since the minister and the Premier seem not to understand the situation, let me refer to Brant county and to Hamilton-Wentworth. The southwest central Red Cross region, for example, says that the reason it is getting out of the business is quite simple: the government gives 4.5 per cent transfer increases, but expenses are beyond its control. For example, Workers’ Compensation Board is up 10 per cent, office costs are up 34 per cent, telephone costs are up 38 per cent and travel costs are up 30 per cent in a single year.

The Brant county Red Cross outside of Brantford is going out of business and has announced suspension of activity. Visiting homemakers has the same problem --

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Allen: -- in that 52 staff have been lost this year. There are no responses to the advertisements to increase their staff since September. How could the Premier and how could the minister concoct election promises of this kind to the elderly, the ill and the disabled which they evidently were not willing enough or competent enough to keep?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would remind the member that in addition to the integrated homemakers program he refers to, the Ministry of Health has a home care program which covers approximately two thirds of the homemakers in the province. That is an ongoing program.

I would also point out to him that in this current fiscal year, we indicated to all of our various municipalities which operate the program for us that they could allow that program to grow until September 30 and then we would guarantee support for the program as of that point.

To the best of my knowledge, in every one of those 18 sites, all the spaces that have been allocated to those programs are in fact in place. There are people making use of them. As soon as we possibly can, we will provide more assistance so that they can expand the program even further.

Mrs. Marland: Actually, my question was for the Premier, but since he is referring all his questions today, I am wondering if perhaps he could give us a list of the subjects that he is prepared to answer questions on today.

PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE

Mrs. Marland: I will ask my question to the Minister of the Environment rather than have it referred to the Minister of the Environment.

Over a year ago, the Minister of the Environment said the environmental assessment process for the region of Peel’s municipal landfill was severely and fatally flawed. Then a few months ago he issued an order to Peel to do more research on its site selection process because it was, “inconclusive and unsatisfactory.” Since the region of Peel has spent millions of dollars studying its site to this point, will the minister explain why the region of Peel’s process was flawed?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think the member is well aware of that, as she has been knowledgeable as a former member of council and has had discussions with members of council. I am sure, as a good local member, she has those discussions and follows these matters very carefully through the news media.

What they were dealing with in the specific case of Peel was a circumstance where initially they looked at what we refer to as the alphabet sites, and then they went on beyond that. They left those behind and looked at what I call the numbered sites.

Our concern was, as they went through the process and towards a board hearing, with regard to the chances of their having any success at that. Because of the concerns the previous deputy minister had flagged with them and because of concerns that our ministry staff had flagged with them, there was a very good chance they might not be successful in this regard. For this reason, we felt that appropriate action had to be taken.

I had a very good meeting with the representatives of Peel, including the chairman and the mayors of the three municipal councils and other members of council and staff, where we were able to discuss in detail ways of rectifying this situation as well as we possibly could. I thought it was a very productive meeting. We did not dwell on history, as we could have, and get into a conflict over that. We said, “How can we resolve this matter in the best interests of everyone?” I thought it was a very worthwhile meeting.

1440

Mrs. Marland: I really wonder how the minister can say all that with a straight face. He is saying that Peel’s process is flawed at the same time that he is using the region of Peel as an example for other municipalities to follow, because of the assessment’s comprehensive nature and its high quality.

I have here a copy of his ministry’s comments on the site selection process for a landfill site in the township of St. Vincent. Ministry staff provided St. Vincent with a copy of Peel’s site selection process document.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mrs. Marland: Since St. Vincent was told to use the region of Peel “as an example of a more comprehensive methodology for site selection,” how can the minister send the region of Peel back to the drawing board and then tell other municipalities to follow its model? Will they then be penalized, as Peel has been, when he receives their environmental assessment documents?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will know that there were a number of items within the environmental assessment which was submitted by Peel that were well done and some items that were matters of concern to representatives of the Ministry of the Environment. We believe that those areas where they were strong are ones which others could use as an example. But in the specific case where Peel was heading towards a board hearing, the chances of its being successful were not very great. If they are not successful in that particular operation, the member will know that they have a rather significant problem.

What we asked was that they go back and look at the other sites they had originally looked at, because that offered at least some opportunity, when questioned by the board, to say, “Yes, we have assessed those other sites on the same basis as we have assessed the numbered sites and we think that ultimately we could be successful.”

Because specific parts of their environmental assessment process were good, it does not mean that all parts of that process were such that they would be successful before the board, so I think people can learn from all of the processes that we go through in Ontario.

INSURANCE COMPANY INSOLVENCIES

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Insolvencies in the insurance industry can be devastating to consumers whose claims often remain unpaid or delayed through lengthy liquidation proceedings. Since 1983, there have been seven insurance company insolvencies in Ontario.

Can the minister advise this House of any recent initiatives he has taken to ensure that consumers are protected in the case of insurance company insolvencies?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have been busy ensuring that the consumers of the province have been receiving protection in just such an event. We have entered into a co-operative agreement with the insurance industry to form what is called a Property and Casualty Insurance Compensation Corp., which has been entered into by all of the provinces, or at least a number of the provinces across Canada, together with us, to deal with issues other than, as well as but other than, the auto insurance industry.

It does not affect those parts of the industry that deal with life and health insurance; but for those other areas I talked about, the people over on the other side of the House in the opposition parties would be glad to know that there is a manner in which people who are involved with premiums in other insurance companies that become insolvent are protected to the limit of $200,000. I think that is a positive indication that there is a protection there in case an insolvency occurs, which of course does have a very negative impact on those people who are policyholders.

Mr. Faubert: I would like to thank the minister for his response, and I am sure the consumers are pleased to hear they will be protected should their property or casualty insurance company become insolvent. However, can the minister advise the House what the Ontario government is doing to prevent insolvencies in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are doing several things, including --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: This is of course a means of last resort to ensure that there is protection of consumers, but we also have a regulatory role to play which ensures that the companies are going to continue to be solvent.

I would have to say that the public in Ontario is well served by not only this initiative but also the initiative the other people in the opposition parties are harping about, which is with respect to making it very clear what comprises the ratesetting structure in the automobile section. Of course, we are undertaking a very thorough analysis of that to ensure protection there.

We are also providing -- and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) has asked the proper questions about protecting the consumer in the event of insolvency -- extra information so that the consumers of this province will have the market information and can make timely and astute decisions on the products which are to be marketed to them through the insurance industry. Those are positive influences on how the people of this province protect themselves in buying insurance.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question to the Premier. If I had broken my word on education, auto insurance and home care, I would not want to be answering the questions in this House either.

Let me deal with another area. Let me deal with the area of free trade.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Premier of this province was very, very specific on the fact that if six specific conditions were not met, there would be no deal. Does the Premier not believe that he has misled the people of this province, given the fact that he did nothing about it when none of those six commitments were met, or does he think this is a new standard of honesty for answers from politicians to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will tell the honourable member the new standard. It is a standard his people are trying to set in the House, borrowed directly from the federal campaign. If he wants to do that, that is fine. I understand he wants to push the language, and that is okay. I understand he has a point he wants to make, but he is setting new low standards in this House.

It may be because my honourable friend is under such pressure from the labour movement, for whom he is the official voice, because he so let them down, because his party dropped the ball in this debate, not our party. We represented that, I think, with courage, conviction and compassion, and he fumbled from the beginning to the end, so my honourable friend is trying to cover his rear end with some of his union friends. That is his problem, not this House’s problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We will just wait. It is fine. Go ahead.

Supplementary. The member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: The Premier said specifically in August 1987 in Welland that he was not prepared to sell out our farmers on free trade and that it would be foolish to deal the wine industry away on the table of the free trade negotiations.

Considering those statements, can the Premier explain why he threw away his commitment to the Niagara grape growers by going along with the $100-million deal proposed by the federal government, which works out to about $5,000 an acre for the grape growers going out of production in Ontario as opposed to $8,000 in British Columbia? Why is he inflicting a slow death on the grape growers and the wine industry in this province instead of a quick one?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am glad my honourable friend raised that question. As members know, a deal was worked out with the grape growers and the wineries over a 12-year phase-down, really irrespective of the free trade agreement.

Mr. Wildman: Five thousand dollars an acre.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, it was a different deal. The agreement was worked out in British Columbia with respect to the free trade provisions, which we believe to be a very serious mistake and to be computed over a seven-year period, which is a very different markup system.

My honourable friend, I think, understands this because he has raised a serious question. At the same time, we are under some assault by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, as he knows, and right at this very moment there are negotiations going on in Brussels. I can tell my honourable friend those are very tough negotiations and I ask him to speak to the wine industry or the grape growers in this province. There is no government that stood up for them more than we have. If anybody has given them away it is the federal government, just as I fear it may be in the process of doing now in Brussels.

1450

I say to my friend that he understands only very superficially that of which he speaks. I am trying to explain the situation to him, even though he does not want to hear it. There are two factors at play, the free trade agreement, which we do not support and which we believe would take out the industry, and the assault from the European Community through GATT at the same time.

Those negotiations are ongoing. They are very worrisome to us at the moment. It depends on the federal government -- not the Ontario government, because we do not have a seat at the table -- to negotiate and stand up for our industry. I can tell the member, if we cannot make a reasonable deal on the 12-year provisions, if we are forced into the seven-year provisions that are now under GATT, it will take out a much higher percentage of the industry than is contemplated by the deal between the grape growers --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order. That seems like a fairly lengthy answer.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Health.

Both the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) and myself have been bringing the question regarding the extended, protracted ambulance strike in Halton-Peel to her attention. She has consistently stated that it is a labour issue, it is not a health issue. She has consistently stated that her staff have advised her that the 600,000 residents of those two regions are not at risk.

It has come to my attention that last night it was posted on the staff board of the ministry’s service, the York-Peel ambulance service in Brampton, that, effective December 19, her ministry has authorized up-staffing and extra vehicles at the overtime rate in order to assist Halton-Peel and cover Mississauga during the Christmas season during the strike period.

Will the minister confirm those actions?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Over the Christmas holiday season, we want to make sure that services are available to people across the province. When we determine that it is necessary to make sure that backup services are available in any region, we do so.

Mr. Jackson: We have consistently stated that the residents of Halton and Peel are at a greater and unacceptable risk. We said 100 days ago to the minister that the level of risk was unacceptable, and we brought specific cases to her.

Her actions, which are appreciated, are but a Band-Aid. They indicate that the minister is, in fact, digging her heels in for a long strike. She is not looking for solutions here. She is looking to minimize the damage that may occur as a result of inadequate service during the strike.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Jackson: My question is, will she establish a similar arrangement for Burlington residents with a Hamilton ambulance service so that they get not only seasonal coverage through Christmas but also --

Mr. Speaker: Your question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: On numerous occasions in this House, I have informed the members that whenever there is a labour dispute, there is always a contingency plan which is in effect. Assistance is available from vehicles in surrounding areas. I have said that in this House before. I restate that again today.

I want to assure the member that we are monitoring the situation of this labour dispute on an ongoing basis to assure that emergency services are maintained and that there is no risk to the public.

ASSISTANCE FOR DIABETICS

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Health.

About 150 people in the Barrie area use portable blood-monitoring equipment to better control their blood sugar for diabetes. I understand that across the province there would be around 6,000 people using the same equipment. The assistive devices program was introduced a couple of years ago, whereby the province pays about 75 per cent of the cost of the equipment and supplies. I understand that the program and the assistance from the province in this area have now been cancelled, and I would ask the minister if she could please give us some assistance. If this has taken place, why has it taken place?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to thank the member for his question and his interest in this important subject. In fact, the information in the form of his question is not quite accurate. Funds are provided through a transfer payment to the Canadian Diabetes Association of some $500,000 this year, which began in 1985, and those funds will continue through this year.

The original intent of the program was to provide monitors and strips for children. Permission was given by the ministry to expand the program to adults, provided that the Canadian Diabetes Association could do so within its existing and current allocation. The ministry has not cancelled the program. I am pleased to inform the member of that. We are committed to ensuring that the funds which have been committed are available to the Canadian Diabetes Association.

Mr. Owen: I hear the explanation by the minister. I am advised by the adults in my area that they are now forced to look at getting and supplying the equipment and the process for themselves. They tell me that the initial cost will be about $250, that the test strips of blotting paper would run around $50 a month and that they would also be responsible for the vials of insulin, which would run about $15 each.

I can see that the minister is aware of the need for the program. It would appear that the program is so popular and in such great use that maybe that is one of the reasons we enter this difficulty --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Owen: I wonder if the minister could advise us on where we stand with regard to the use of this program for the balance of this year and where we stand with the use of the program next year.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Canadian Diabetes Association has submitted a proposal to the ministry outlining its funding projections for its adult program. The ministry is currently reviewing the proposal to assist them in designing a program that would allow service to be provided within the existing allocation. However, the Canadian Diabetes Association has assured the ministry that adequate funds are available in this fiscal year to meet the program needs.

TUITION FEES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who, on leaving, assured me he would refer the question anyway, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

In the past, the Premier and this government have made commitments to full accessibility to universities for whoever was eligible to go. Yet they have just indicated that they are going to have a 7.5 per cent increase in tuition rates without any major changes in the Ontario student assistance program. How does the minister square these two things?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: If I can use that question as an opportunity to talk about how the commitment to accessibility has been fulfilled, I would be delighted. Let me deal with the most specific aspect of the member’s question, which is why there has not been a corresponding announcement about increases in OSAP.

As the honourable member may be aware, increases in the student assistance fund are not a part of the annual budget process. We did announce increases in OSAP in the last budget. We have always, on an annual basis, increased the OSAP provision for tuition to reflect any changes in tuition increases, and I have indicated quite clearly that that would be the case again this year.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is quite a different matter from amending the OSAP process entirely instead of just adjusting it for those who are available to it. The minister will know that students today pay 20 per cent more of the costs of their education than they did during the Tory days of the mid-1970s. Can the minister explain to me why it is that she has not accepted the advice she has already received from the Ontario Federation of Students, from which I am going to send her 2,400 postcards asking for a freeze in tuitions for this year, as well as 1,128 signatures on a petition? Why did the minister not take the approach of having a freeze in tuitions if she really wants to have full accessibility?

1500

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: There has been for some time a recognition that it was reasonable to expect that students would pay some portion of the cost of their university and college education. I am confused about the particular figures the honourable member has used. I have some data before me in terms of the most recent years, the proportion of their university costs that students have paid. I see a figure here in 1983-84 of 18.6 per cent. Last year our figure was 18.2 per cent that university students paid, on average, of the cost of their education. The most recent increase would be something in the area of 18.4 per cent.

There are times in the past when it has been much higher than that. We feel we have stayed in a consistent pattern with what has been, historically, the pattern of increasing tuition fees at the same rate as the increase in government transfer payments. We have increased our grants to universities by 7.5 per cent and have followed that same pattern with tuition fees.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Attorney General. I would like to ask the Attorney General, who is responsible for the courts and the judiciary in the province, what are acceptable working conditions for staff and the public in courthouses in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is difficult to answer that question in a general way. As the honourable member knows, perhaps, we run court in 235 separate locations in Ontario, and it is very important that we should keep court as accessible to communities as we can. What that means, of course, is that in many cases -- in almost all cases except the big cities -- we have to occupy rented accommodation. In many instances we have to occupy rented accommodation that we simply have perhaps one or two days a week. Therefore, we are very much and very often obliged to take what is available in the local marketplace.

Mr. Cousens: Last week, on December 7, I did ask the Attorney General to do something about the problems in the small claims court in Richmond Hill. The minister murmured, which maybe was not totally recorded in Hansard but was heard by this side of the House, that it was no big deal when I raised the problem about high carbon dioxide levels in that courthouse, the fact that there is no air return in the building, the fact that there is still no ventilation a week later.

A reporter was sick this morning during court. There is no change in the carbon dioxide levels. It was so cold yesterday that a judge had to sit in the courthouse with his overcoat on. The thermostats are still locked up so that the staff cannot get at them to adjust the heat in the building.

As one of the most powerful people in the Peterson cabinet, will the Attorney General make the commitment to the House today to do something, at last, to solve the whole of the heating problems and the air problems in the small claims court in Richmond Hill?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am always upset when the honourable member makes these remarks in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), and I hope next time he will ask such a question in such a way when the Premier is present. It would do me and perhaps him more good.

Let me explain to the honourable member first of all that I never said it was no big deal. If the honourable member thinks he heard that, I want to confirm that he is mistaken and I wish he would stop spreading around what is not the case.

The second thing is that I take very seriously the conditions that exist in this rented accommodation in Richmond Hill. There is a carbon dioxide problem in the building, which poses no physical danger to anybody but does, I concede, create a certain amount of stuffiness in the courtroom.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is not always that carbon dioxide creates stuffiness in a courtroom, but in this instance, the stuffiness is created by carbon dioxide, but it is not physically dangerous, though it is, no doubt, unpleasant.

As I have told the honourable member, I was aware of the problem. We have obtained consultants. We are working with the landlord to see how this can be most effectively remedied within the terms of the lease. I take it seriously and I want the honourable member to know that we were on the job before he got into this and are looking at the problem very seriously.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr. Beer: My question -- and I think it is fitting at the end of this question period -- is to the Minister of Natural Resources.

The minister is aware of an important water system in existence just north of Toronto, namely, the Oak Ridges moraine and its river system, including the unique Kettle Lake system in the area.

This fall, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority presented a plan to the Ministry of Natural Resources to protect the Oak Ridges moraine and the headwaters for the river system that flows into Toronto. Can the minister inform the House of the status of that report and what action his ministry is planning to take in connection with the Metro Toronto recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It seems appropriate that we should end with that kind of very sensible, good question by the member for York North.

The facts are that I am at the present time reviewing the presentation made by the conservation authority. In fact, I met with the conservation authority on November 10. I wanted them to know that, of course, I am very interested in the environment and the water in that particular area.

The problem we have is that it is taking into account a much broader range of protection than the authority generally has. We are talking about some $135 million, so I have asked them -- and I think it is appropriate that I should put it on the record -- that the proposal be presented to the greater Toronto area of urban development for its input and support.

We support the Metro conservation authority to the tune of some $7 million for many of the good things we do. Of course, we have to take into account the initiatives that are being spoken to by the member for York North. We do have a considerable responsibility there.

In response to the supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: We have run out of time.

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have two petitions, each with 14 signatures, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, indicating:

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

“The Canadian Red Cross Society, Ontario division, homemaker service, as part of the government’s home care program, provides service to the elderly, handicapped, ill or convalescent in order that they may remain in their own homes. This care is a much less expensive alternative to institutionalization. The Red Cross homemaker service, the largest not-for-profit homemaking agency in Ontario, requests the parliament of Ontario to assist in the operation of this essential service so that it may continue to be viable. The Red Cross homemaker service is currently in a crisis situation, having a deficit of $1.1 million which is threatening our ability to continue to serve the people of the province.”

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND / CAISSE DE RETRAITE DES ENSEIGNANTS

Mr. Poirier: In the absence of the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary), I have a petition signed by 76 individuals. It reads:

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid I must inform the members that we will just have to wait until they reduce their private conversations to nothing. Order.

1510

M. Poirier: « À Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur et a l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario:

« Nous, les soussignés, désirons soumettre au Parlement de l’Ontario une requête:

« Pour modifier la Loi de 1983, qui régit le régime des pensions des enseignants, afin de permettre à tous les enseignants retraités avant le 31 mai 1982, d’avoir droit à un calcul nouveau de leur pension basé sur les cinq meilleures années plutôt que sur les sept ou dix années prévues actuellement. Cette modification à la Loi de 1983, que nous proposons, ferait que la pension de tous les enseignants retraités serait basée sur le critère des cinq meilleures années et deviendrait ainsi équitable pour tous et toutes. »

HOME CARE

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition:

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

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

“Whereas the Red Cross Society has incurred a deficit because the government of Ontario has failed to fulfil its promise to adequately fund home care services and therefore the Red Cross may be forced to withdraw its home care services, we petition the Treasurer of Ontario to adequately fund the Red Cross service so that 170,000 citizens of Ontario are not forced to seek more expensive care in an institutional setting.”

The petition has my support and my signature.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I have a petition which is signed by 304 persons, and I would mention that several of the signatories are in the west gallery. The petition reads:

“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 at the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

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

Mr. Black: 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:

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

There are 331 signatures on this petition, and I add my name to it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Epp from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented its report on the process for the restoration of the Parliament Building and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Epp: Some time ago this Legislative Assembly committee was charged with the responsibility of coming forth with a recommendation on restoration of this particular building, the legislative precinct. A subcommittee was struck, made up of representatives of the three political parties. The subcommittee met on a number of occasions and a recommendation therefore has come forth asking the Legislature to adopt this report.

Essentially, what we are asking is that a committee be made up of the Speaker and the chairman of the Legislative Assembly committee, who would act as co-chairmen, together with three representatives, one from each political party, and that they be charged with the process of the restoration and renovation of this particular building.

I am hopeful that in the new year the House leaders will find time for this report to be debated in the Legislature, and that at that time the Legislature will support the recommendation and restoration of this building can go forth in the way the members would like to see it happen.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Philip from the standing committee on public accounts reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989:

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audits program, $6,923,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 83, An Act respecting the Protection of Farm Practices.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. D. R. Cooke from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 120, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Elliot from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989:

Ministry administration program, $12,039,400; municipal affairs program, $921,859,700; community planning program, $39,105,200; Niagara Escarpment Commission program, $1,759,000; Ontario municipal audit program, $1,601,800; waterfront development program, $550,000.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Mrs. Sullivan and Mr. Adams exchange places in the order of precedence for private members’ public business.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the provisional standing orders be extended to remain in effect until 12 midnight on Wednesday, May 31, 1989.

Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that when the House adjourns today, it stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 3, 1989.

Motion agreed to.

1520

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INDIAN LANDS AGRREEMENT CONFIRMATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 200, An Act to confirm a Certain Agreement between the governments of Canada and Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Parts of this bill, which has previously been introduced, are to confirm an agreement made between the federal government and the government of Ontario respecting Indian lands.

The agreement was made in 1986 and is a replacement for the 1924 Indian lands agreement.

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Brandt moved first reading of a bill entitled, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

1540

The House divided on Mr. Brandt’s motion for first reading of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Revile, Runciman, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Nays

Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Furlong, Grandmaître, Henderson, Hošek, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella, Mahoney, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod; Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Offer, Owen, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wang, Wrye.

Ayes 31; nays 72.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comité plénier.

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT ACT / LOI SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX INTERVENANTS (CONTINUED / SUITE)

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.

Section/article 7:

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would you please put an end to the private conversations so we can start committee of the whole House?

I have been told that when you concluded yesterday you were still debating clause 7(3)(a), and there was debate going on. The parliamentary assistant was --

Mr. Offer: Pursuant to standing order 8(b), may I move to a front seat with assistants, please?

Mr. Chairman: Are there any objections if the parliamentary assistant goes and takes a front seat? Please come forward.

Are we ready to start?

1550

Mr. Offer: We are. I understand that at the end of the day yesterday, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) was discussing her amendment on clause 7(3)(a), and I would just like to get verification of that.

Mrs. Grier: It was my amendment.

Mr. Offer: I am sorry. I understand that it was the New Democratic Party amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Who would like to start the debate today?

Mrs. Marland: At the point that we adjourned yesterday, we were discussing the reality of interveners’ being granted intervener funding and then being limited to having the fees set at those fees for lawyers, being only at the -- what is the term? -- legal aid level.

The fact of the matter is that I do not think we are going to have any intervener groups that are going to be misusing the funding that they receive, but I think that they should have the choice of using the funding that they receive as effectively as possible. However, the amendment we are speaking to now is suggesting that the fees be set at a certain rate, and that rate would be at the maximum rate of remuneration for the 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.”

While that indeed gives more latitude than does the bill itself, which restricts the rate to the legal aid rate under the legal aid plan -- and I support the amendment that is on the floor -- we will see when I come to address my amendment which follows, that in fact we do not need to set the legal fees at all, because I think it is up to the intervener groups. When they apply for funding, they are certainly going to maximize the funding that they receive under this act to the greatest benefit to their cause; and they are certainly not going to go out and pay exorbitant, unnecessary legal fees when perhaps they may want to save some of their funding allocation for planners or consultants in other areas of specialty.

I think the necessity to limit the fee for lawyers is unnecessary, and I hope in fact that the whole clause will be removed when we come to my amendment. I have a great deal of confidence in the people who apply for intervener funding, and I am quite confident that they may rather use a lawyer at rate X for 10 hours than a legal aid rate for 20, 30 or 40 hours. I think that choice should be left up to the applicants for the funding.

Mrs. Grier: In response to this amendment, the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), told us yesterday that the government could not accept this amendment, but went on to point out that the government’s proposed amendment to subsection 12(3) would permit the provision of additional costs at regular counsel rates at the end of a hearing according to the tariff set by the board.

Before we vote on this amendment of mine, I would be interested in hearing some confirmation from the parliamentary assistant that the fact that under clause 7(3)(a) the act contains the statement that legal fees would be assessed at the legal aid rate will in no way preclude an intervener group from asking for costs at the end of a hearing and for asking for costs for counsel that would be in excess of the legal aid rate. Could we have that confirmation?

Mr. Offer: I can affirm that statement by the honourable member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier). Section 3 deals with the question of intervener funding and it is stated by this act that the intervener funding question is limited to legal aid rates.

We know that not only are the legal aid rates involved but the eligible disbursements are coming up in some forthcoming sections. However, there is also the provision, during the hearing, for the ability for the intervener to once more come before and request an increase of the funding allocation.

It could be that the initial determination has been too short. Through amendments we are going to bring forward, our legislation will allow the intervener, during the hearing, to say that our initial assessment of the time and our initial assessment of the disbursements are incorrect. It will allow that initial determination to be expanded.

There is a third function, and that will be after the hearing. After the hearing is not a determination of funding; it is a determination of costs. Let me make very clear that the cost determination is not limited to legal aid rates, legal aid tariff. It is a matter of determination before the board and it will take into account many of the principles which it has already. But to be clear, the cost determination at the end of the hearing is not limited to legal aid rates, and in fact, is almost a different animal from the funding determination at the beginning of the hearing.

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

All those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

1600

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Marland moves that clause 7(3)(a) of the bill be struck out.

Mrs. Marland: I addressed the reason for removing this section in my previous comments in support of the amendment moved by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

I think it is very clear that the people whom we are discussing who would be eligible for intervener funding are certainly going to be shopping around for fees and services. It would not be in their best interests not to use whatever funding they are allocated to best effect their cause. That being so, I think to limit the fees in terms of the use of lawyers just does not make sense.

As the act says,

“(3) In determining the amount of an award of intervenor funding, the panel shall,

“(a) if the proposal includes the use of lawyers in private practice, assess legal fees at the legal aid rate under the legal aid plan in effect on the day of the award for work necessarily and reasonably performed.”

I really wonder why, if the government is trying to equate how much funding should be granted, it also would not look at fees for other people those intervening groups may wish to hire to represent their interests at a hearing. As I have already said, of course, that would cover professional planning consultants and perhaps environmental specialists and other areas.

I recognize that different types of evidence are brought before different types of boards in these hearings and that it does necessitate the bringing together of that evidence by an individual; very often, that individual is a lawyer. I would like to ask the government to address the question of whether intervener funding is only going to be granted to intervener groups who choose to have a lawyer represent them before these boards.

It has been possible in the past for individual groups of citizens to appear on their own behalf before these boards. I am not aware of anything in the acts, if you are appearing before any of the boards this legislation covers, that requires you to hire a lawyer. Are you not able to represent yourself or your group’s own interest?

If the answer to that is in the affirmative, then it would follow that you should be able to select your own consultants to help you make that presentation. If it does not involve a lawyer at all, then I would think the board would be interested in looking at the fees for other consultants who may want to introduce evidence on the part of the intervener group.

Mr. Offer: In response to the honourable member for Mississauga South, there is no obligation under this legislation for interveners to employ lawyers. However, and I think it is an extremely important point, when this legislation is in place it will allow interveners to employ lawyers at first instance, having a guarantee that those lawyers can be paid at the legal aid rate, win or lose. This is a right intervener groups have been asking for on a regular basis without the ad hockery that now exists. So in response to the member’s first inquiry, there is not a necessity on the part of intervener groups.

Second, one has to ask why they would not have lawyers when this legislation is in place, which will guarantee the solicitor they choose the legal aid rate, win or lose.

Third, with respect to the issue she brings forward in terms of consultants and expert witnesses, I must say that is a very important and a good point. If one takes a look at the existing subsection 7(5), one sees a definition of “eligible disbursements” which talks about, among other things, “expert witnesses, typing, printing, copying,” etc.

We will be moving an amendment which will include consultants. If that amendment passes, I think it will in large measure meet the concern the member has raised in her comment.

Mrs. Marland: I appreciate the support of the parliamentary assistant to my comment to the degree that he is going to make another amendment which identifies the concern that I have raised. I appreciate his listening to that degree.

I hear very clearly what it is that he is saying about its allowing the intervener groups to finally be able to know that they can hire lawyers to represent their cause, their interest and their concern and to know that those lawyers will be paid, to use his own words, “at the legal aid rate, win or lose.”

The problem is that in the real world it is pretty tough, if you are going to use a lawyer, to go before any of these boards in these types of hearings with a lawyer at the legal aid rate and be opposite the kinds of lawyers that the proponents of the kind of applications that are often dealt before these boards have.

We are dealing with a very different level of experience, I think is perhaps the most polite way for me to put it. Very often, the more experienced lawyers justifiably charge higher fees, and they are entitled to those because their fees are based on their experience.

Very often, lawyers who are highly qualified and highly competent do not have the time to give from their practice to legal aid. It is not easy in the real world to hire -- I will not mention by name, but we all certainly know the leading lawyers in Ontario. A lot of those people, with their experience and competency, simply would not be available at the legal aid rate. They simply do not have the time. But it might well be an advantage to that intervener group, instead of spending X dollars with somebody who will accept the legal aid rate, to be able to go out and hire the person who has the expertise and the level of experience that can in fact win the case for it.

All I am saying is that I do not think this clause 7(3)(a) is fair. It is great that this is what the Intervenor Funding Project Act is all about, giving the accessibility to intervener groups at least to have money to fight their cause, but I suggest it is a bit like giving them the shield without the sword.

I think it would be great if we said to them: “Okay, here is your money. This is a fair assessment of what you will need.” If they are going to hire land use planners or environmental specialists, botanists, tree specialists -- there is a whole realm of expertise that is often called in to give evidence at these hearings -- if he is going to establish fees now for all areas of the hearing, then I think he has to look very closely at how he says to those intervener groups, “These are the fees we will pay,” rather than, “This is the cap on the amount of intervener funding we will give you to fight your case.”

Mrs. Grier: Like the member for Mississauga South, I certainly agree that clause 7(3)(a) is not particularly fair, but with all due respect, I think the amendment that I previously put, which increased the level of that support to the tariff paid by the government to private sector lawyers hired for other purposes, is a better way of making it fair than striking it out altogether.

I am afraid I cannot support the amendment of the member for Mississauga South, because I feel that if we do not have any basis for the remuneration of lawyers in the act, we are putting the groups at an even further disadvantage. While I recognize that they need to have the flexibility to decide whether or not to hire a lawyer at all, I think they still have that flexibility.

1610

The point of this subclause is that if they do hire a lawyer, this is the amount of intervener funding that they will be given. If they in fact wish to hire somebody and pay more, and have the funds to do that, I suspect they will not be before the funding panel looking for intervener funding in the first place.

While I regret that my previous, constructive amendment, which provided a real alternative, was not accepted by the parliamentary assistant, I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment to strike out the clause altogether.

Mr. Offer: Once more, there are eligible disbursements that would permit intervener groups to receive funds to pay for those expert witnesses, printing and all of the necessary items in order to put forward an extremely good case.

We are going to be moving an amendment -- I believe I have shared that amendment with my colleagues opposite -- adding the word “consultant.” We think that will be another step forward in making certain that the interveners are able to put forward an extremely good case and have the funds to pay those individuals necessary to do so.

Last, let me say that the legal aid rates are part of the intervener funding. That is part of the whole question of lawyers’ fees and eligible disbursements, which form part of the funding process. At the end of the hearing, there is the right on the part of the interveners to ask for costs which is not limited to the legal aid rates.

I believe that this bill, the amendments we have put forward and the amendments we propose to put forward will make this an extremely important and workable piece of legislation for all those concerned groups dealing in matters before the board.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I am discouraged by the presumption of the opposition and the third party that one gets effective or good representation before one of these tribunals only if one pays the prevailing rate for an elderly downtown Bay Street lawyer, in the order of $200 to $250 an hour.

There are many among them who do charge that rate but who are willing to appear before these tribunals for interest groups pro bono or for the legal aid tariff. In any event, there are many who work for that rate who are quite willing to accept that rate in whatever cause there might be before this tribunal, or the Ontario Municipal Board or whatever.

I suggest to the members that they not concern themselves with the quality of representation as determined by the amount paid.

Mrs. Marland: I feel it is important to respond for the sake of the record to say that at no time was I discussing elderly downtown lawyers, nor did I refer to any fees. I have no idea what the fees are. My comments were not directed in the vein that was just presented by the member for York Mills.

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

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Offer moves that clause 7(3)(b) of the French version of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

« b) fixe un plafond à l’égard des débours qui peuvent être versés comme partie du montant accordé, ces débours étant limités aux débours remboursables. »

Does the parliamentary assistant have an explanation in English or in French?

Mr. Offer: Very simply, the French-language translation did not adequately reflect the meaning of the English section.

M. le Président: Le député de Lac Nipigon va se rendre à sa place?

M. Pouliot: Non, c’est simplement qu’une copie du texte vient de nous parvenir.

Vous me permettrez, Monsieur le Président, de rappeler à mon aimable collègue les premiers mots que lui, sans doute, a appris dans la langue de Molière. Ils étaient les suivants: « Voulez-vous... » C’est ce qu’il a dit, les premiers mots. S’en souvient-il?

Mrs. Marland: Just a second.

M. Pouliot: « Voulez-vous amender... » You will love this one. Take your time.

« Voulez-vous amender... », et on parle ici un peu d’un texte quand même assez simple. Encore une fois, il est quand même dommage que le temps précieux de cette Chambre, que dans notre temps précieux on ait dû, à la dernière minute comme ça, nous proposer un amendement qui est quand même assez bénin.

Je remercie mon collègue. Je peux aussi lui rappeler dans le même esprit, avant que lui ne se permette de m’interrompre, et je parle aussi de l’amendement qu’on propose au projet de loi 174, à l’article 7 -- les yeux commencent à me manquer; vous savez, c’est la première chose qui fait défaut, souvent -- aux alinéas 7(3)b) et c). Je les cite pour l’adjoint parlementaire: « b) détermine la nature et le plafond des débours remboursables dans le cadre du montant accordé »; et aussi: c) déduit du montant accordé les sommes que l’auteur de la demande peut raisonnablement se procurer par d’autres moyens. »

« Chasseurs, sachez chasser; il a tant plu qu’on ne sait plus dans quel pays il a le plus plu » sont des matières beaucoup plus compliquées que ce simple amendement que notre parti et notre critique se doivent d’appuyer.

M. le Président: Merci. Est-ce qu’il y a quelqu’un qui a une réponse, un commentaire? Non? We are ready to vote on this?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that clause 7(3)(c) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(c) deduct from the award funds that have been made available to the applicant from other sources.”

Does the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore have an explanation or comment?

Mrs. Grier: The reason for this amendment is that the clause in the bill reads that “an applicant may deduct from the award funds that are reasonably available to the applicant from other sources.” I think that is far too uncertain.

How do you know what might be reasonably available? There is certainly the danger that a funding panel may decide that you might be eligible for funds from this foundation, from that ministry, from this public interest group, but there is no certainty that in fact those funds will be coming. The intervener may find himself penalized by having deducted from the award something that the funding panel thinks he may be eligible for but for which in fact he has no guarantee that he will obtain. It is very much a bird in the bush, and he will be losing the bird in hand.

The point of my amendment is that they would deduct from the award only funds that have actually been made available to the applicant from other sources.

Mr. Chairman: Any explanation from people who want to participate?

1620

Mr. Offer: Certainly I will participate in that.

First let me say that we cannot support the amendment put forward by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Our reason for this is that it would be in many cases almost impossible to determine at the outset, with respect to the question of intervener funding, what funds are actually or reasonably available. This is a determination in light of an initial issue at the beginning of the hearing. We feel it would be difficult to determine whether, in this case, the funds would be actually available; there are matters where funds may be forthcoming during the hearing. That is why we must keep the words “reasonably available” as opposed to “actually available.” At the beginning of the hearing, that determination is very difficult to make.

Second, I would like to indicate that some of the concerns the honourable member brings forward are matters that I believe are addressed in the bill. I think it is fair to say that the concern is that some of those funds which are reasonably available might not become actually available; that is the paramount concern, if I may say, of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

However, when one takes a look at subsection 12(1) of the legislation, there is the right for supplementary funding -- that is, funding available to the intervener during the course of the hearing. If it turns out, for instance, that moneys which were reasonably anticipated did not materialize, then there is the right of the intervener to apply for supplementary funding; that, having regard to all of the circumstances, the original award was inadequate.

In terms of subsection 12(1), we have to take a look at subsection 12(2), because subsection 12(2) states that the supplementary funding determination does take into account sections 7 to 11. Clause 7(3)(c) is, of course, within that right of determination, so it is our position that we are not supporting the amendment but that if there were anticipated funds to the intervener which did not materialize, for whatever reason, there would still be the right of the intervener to come before the board during the hearing to make that case known, which would, we feel, possibly alter the funding whereby they could in fact receive more funding.

Mrs. Marland: I support this amendment. I think it is a very important amendment, because where legislation falls down is where there are any weaknesses open to interpretation. Perhaps this bill was drafted or helped to be drafted by the same author who drafted Bill 114, which is An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act. I recognize that that is a ministry bill, but the use of the word “reasonable” is the one that is causing a lot of difficulty with that particular bill. It is where an employee would have reasonable cause to refuse work or, rather, be able to refuse work he considers unreasonable.

Where you have a word like “reasonable,” which is open to interpretation by anyone or someone, whichever way you want to express it, it simply leads to too much variance of interpretation. I think it would make it far more healthy and clean to make sure that if one has to deduct from the award funds because of funds available to the applicant from other sources, then whether they are “reasonably available” is up to the person who is trying to obtain the funds, I would suggest.

I think this is an excellent amendment, and we certainly would support it.

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

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Offer moves that subsection 7(5) of the bill be amended by inserting after the word “for” in the second line the word “consultants.”

Mr. Offer: This change will permit funding for consultants who do not appear as expert witnesses. This will allow intervener groups to have technical assistance without necessarily always having to call them as witnesses and still allow the fee for that consultant to be an eligible disbursement and allow it to be funded under the intervener funding rule.

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

L’article 7, modifié, est adopté.

Sections 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 8 à 11, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

Section/article 12:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Offer moves that subsection 12(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after the word “at” in the second line the phrase “any time up to.”

Mr. Offer: I have alluded to this proposed amendment in a number of comments on concerns raised by the member for Mississauga South and the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Currently the provision applies only for funding at the beginning of the hearing. This change will allow for applications for supplementary funding.

As we know, often conditions change or hearings take several years, and anticipated funding requirements may arise that would require additional funding. This amendment will permit those groups which have been given not only intervener status but intervener funding the right to go before the board during the hearing to say, “Our initial assessment in terms of legal fees, disbursements, was incorrect for the following reasons and we require X more dollars.” This is a right we believe is extremely crucial for all interveners to have.

Mrs. Grier: I certainly welcome this amendment. I think it does clarify the fact that applicants can come back in the middle of a hearing, and we will certainly be supporting it.

Mrs. Marland: We will certainly be supporting it also. It is very important, with the latitude we have already been discussing this afternoon with professional fees, and recognizing that we are dealing with all kinds of expertise that is required at these hearings. The fact that intervener group applicants may reapply at any time during the hearing is a significant amendment, and we support it.

Motion agreed to.

1630

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Offer moves that subsection 12(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(3) The amount of intervener funding received by an intervener shall be deducted by the board from any costs awarded to the intervener.”

Mrs. Marland: I do not have this amendment.

Mr. Offer: I am sorry. I thought we had provided all the amendments.

Mrs. Marland: I just have section 12a.

Mr. Chairman: The clerk assistant will bring you some copies. Will the parliamentary assistant provide some information?

Mr. Offer: Yes, my pleasure. Currently, the legislation prevents an intervener who receives intervener funding from receiving costs in relation to the issues for which it was awarded funding. I have, as I indicated on subsection 12(1), alluded to this proposed amendment many times in response to concerns raised by the member for Mississauga South and the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Of course, by not being able to apply for costs at the end of the day, the interveners would be put in a difficult position, because they would be forced to fund the intervention at a low level and would be unable to supplement it with costs at the end. This amendment will treat the intervener and the proponent equally, since the intervener is otherwise liable to have a costs award against it in appropriate circumstances.

We believe this amendment will remove the bar on recovery, but provides, of course, that any funding received by the intervener will be deducted from any costs award. This will make certain there is not a double recovery, while at the same time giving the intervener who has received funding the opportunity to apply at the end of the day for a costs award, thereby increasing the amount of money that intervener has received for the intervention.

Mrs. Grier: I just want to indicate that we support the amendment.

Mrs. Marland: We also support the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Will section 12, as amended, carry?

Mr. Offer: We have an addition to section 12. I am wondering if it is proper to go on with all of section 12 until we have moved that addition.

Mr. Chairman: Are you referring to section 12a, which would become a new section in the renumeration of the bill?

Mr. Offer: That is correct.

Mr. Chairman: Maybe we should adopt the current section 12 completely, and then we shall deal with section 12a as a separate section.

Mr. Offer: As you wish.

Mr. Chairman: As I was saying before, shall section 12, as amended, carry?

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

L’article 12, modifié, est adopté.

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

“12a(1) An appeal lies only on a matter of law with respect to a decision on intervener funding.

“(2) An appeal shall be commenced by way of application to the High Court and shall be heard by a single judge.

“(3) If the judge finds an error of law, the judge may,

“(a) make any order or decision that the funding panel or board, as the case may be, ought to have or could have made;

“(b) order a rehearing by the funding panel or the board as the case may be;

“(c) dismiss the appeal.”

Mr. Offer: Basically, the bill before the House did not contain an appeal mechanism for those interveners who have applied for funding but may have been turned down. This amendment will allow for those interveners to be able to appeal on a point of law to the High Court and be heard by a single judge.

Mrs. Grier: I just want to indicate our support for the amendment.

Mrs. Marland: I have a question. Where the wording is “on a matter of law,” an appeal lies only on a matter of law with respect to a decision on intervener funding. Further down it says, “If the judge finds an error of law.” I was wondering if there was a reason the wording is not “of law or fact.”

Mr. Offer: The proposed amendment will provide only an appeal on a matter of law, thereby leaving the factual determination in the hands of the funding panel.

Mrs. Marland: Do you think that is clear enough as it is written?

Mr. Offer: I do.

Mrs. Marland: Okay. Is there a reason the government has drafted it that such an appeal shall be heard by a single judge?

Mr. Offer: Yes, there is. The reason is that we believe this type of matter, which is extremely important in the larger issue -- remember, there is an actual hearing going on -- will allow the hearing of the appeal in a much faster fashion if it goes to a single judge. That is why we have specifically indicated the single judge. We think matters of this nature are desired by the intervener group to be appealed and adjudicated on as quickly as possible. We have to keep in mind there is also the whole hearing that is to be commenced.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 13 à 15, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

Section/article 16:

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Grier moves that section 7 of the Consolidated Hearings Act, 1981, as set out in section 16 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(8) A joint board shall not award costs against an intervener unless it is of the opinion that the application of the intervener for intervener funding is made in bad faith or is frivolous or vexatious or is made only for the purpose of delay.

Mrs. Grier: The purpose of this amendment is to make it very clear to funding panels that intervener funding is a right and that costs cannot be awarded against somebody who is seeking intervener funding unless the reasons are very clearly in bad faith, frivolous or vexatious.

I suspect the parliamentary assistant is going to say this is not necessary, but I point out to him that much of the purpose of this bill is to provide some certainty for citizen and community groups in the whole exercise of their rights before administrative tribunals. I think it is important that in addition to the intervener funding, they be given the certainty that costs will not likely be awarded against them. So I have moved this amendment and similar amendments to the other pieces of legislation affected by Bill 174.

1640

Mr. Offer: We will be opposing this amendment. Boards will have the discretion to determine costs awards and it is extremely important and appropriate that they retain this discretion. Costs are only one way in which the board can control the process in terms of an ineffective intervention.

What we have to realize is that we are talking about the issue of costs as opposed to the question of funding, which has been determined at the stage just after determining intervener status. Funding may also have been varied during the hearing, but what we are talking about now is that at the end of the hearing, the boards should have the discretion to award costs on the basis of how the case was proceeded with. That is a right the boards have and that is a right we believe they should retain. We believe that is a right that will make for effective interventions and effective hearings.

Mrs. Marland: We support this amendment. Actually, it is not an amendment; it is an addition and we see this as a very important addition.

I respect what the parliamentary assistant is saying about the board having to have the option of deciding whether there was an effective or ineffective intervention, but I think this addition is very well worded because it talks about the fact of whether the intervener has done something in bad faith or is frivolous or vexatious, or the intervention is only made for the purpose of a delay.

I think that the poor examples of this kind of event happening during a hearing are being addressed by the wording. Quite frankly, the public should have the consideration that is in this wording, because there is nothing more intimidating than your risk of costs being awarded against you on unfair grounds. In the wording of this addition, both the hearing panel and the public are protected; and certainly the third dimension of the public, which is the public that funds the intervener in the first place.

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

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 16 agreed to.

L’article 16 est adopté.

Mrs. Grier: My amendments to section 17 and section 19 are the same as that which has just been defeated for section 16, so I would like to withdraw both of those amendments.

Sections 17 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 17 à 20, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

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

“20a. The amendments set out in sections 16, 17 and 19 apply only to hearings in relation to which public notice of hearing is first given after the coming into force of this section.”

Mr. Offer: This is an amendment out of caution, because the law is somewhat unclear whether a change in cost provisions would apply to proceedings already commenced before the proclamation of the act. As such, what we are doing by this section is making it very clear that the whole cost provision sections will not have any effect on those matters currently being heard before this act is proclaimed.

Mrs. Grier: I commend the parliamentary assistant for his caution. He is a very cautious man. His minister is a very cautious minister. It is a very cautious government. This bill is a very cautious step forward on intervener funding. I support this cautious amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

Les articles 21 et 22 sont adoptés.

Mrs. Grier: The rest are stacked votes.

Mr. Chairman: That is right. We have some stacked votes, deferred votes right now.

1700

The committee divided on Mrs. Grier’s amendment to section 1 dealing with “board,” which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 25; nays 59.

The committee divided on Mrs. Grier’s amendment to section 1 dealing with “joint board,” which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 1 agreed to.

L’article 1 est adopté.

The committee divided on Mrs. Marland’s amendment to subsection 5(1), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 25; nays 59.

The committee divided on Mrs. Marland’s amendment to subsection 5(2), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mrs. Marland’s amendment to subsection 5(3), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mrs. Marland’s amendment to subsection 5(4), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 5 agreed to.

L’article 5 est adopté.

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

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like the consent of the House to proceed with third reading of Bill 174.

Agreed to.

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

Hon. Mr. Scott moved third 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.

L’hon. M. Scott propose la troisième 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. Harris: As we give third reading to this bill, after having just finished committee of the whole, I would like to indicate that we are prepared to do so. We think there are times when there are subjects before us that we all agree on when one dispenses with the normal waiting period to move from second reading to third reading or committee of the whole to third reading.

Earlier today, you will recall, a response to a question from my leader dealing with a matter which certainly all the members on this side of the House -- drawing a line up to my left here -- considered important, that being Sunday shopping. When we suggested that the rules be waived and that we proceed with second and third reading of the amendments, identical to the amendments that the minister is seeking for the Sunday shopping legislation, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said, “Oh no, that is not the way things are done.”

I think it is important to point out to the chamber that anomaly, that when it is in the government’s interest, the opposition is delighted to accommodate it.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That’s ridiculous and you know it.

Mr. Harris: I can debate it at great length if the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) wants to get into it further. The bill that was brought forward by my leader, with the support of the New Democratic Party, had not only the exact amendments that the minister is seeking to the Sunday shopping legislation but, in fact, are the reasons that the minister has been throwing back at us for the past several weeks as to why the current legislation is unenforceable.

Christmas is upon us, Boxing Day is upon us, and we undoubtedly are going to see large department stores opening. Had the government seen fit to deal with that bill in the same manner in which we are waiving the rules to deal with intervener funding, that need not have been the case, and it would not have been the case this Christmas. I wanted that to be on the record.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am unable to say much in response to what the honourable member has said, but I would like to thank all members of the House for their interested support for this legislation, particularly the two opposition critics who, while not successful on every single point, made an extraordinarily useful contribution to our review, as the government, of the legislation, and to the process in the House.

I would like also to thank my parliamentary assistant for his conduct of this and the other bills. I know it was very much in the mind of the Premier, when he was appointing parliamentary assistants, to get me a parliamentary assistant whose conciliatory, managed and cheerful nature would be an appropriate antidote to the minister to whom he was assigned. Since his appointment, I have had more legislation introduced and passed, times three or four, than I ever did when I was on my own.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is because he does your lobbying.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That may be.

I would like to thank all honourable members and on behalf of our party, if nobody else is going to be speaking today, wish you all a happy Christmas and the compliments of the season.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered to be reported.

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

1710

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: According to standing order 20(a), when a member speaks -- I think it is on third reading, as well, but you can correct me -- is there not an opportunity for two-minute comments on the speeches?

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member is correct. I asked if there were any other members who would like to speak and then I recognized the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Harris: The member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) felt he wanted to comment on the speech. That was brought to my attention. I want to indicate to you that we are prepared to waive that on this occasion, but it is something that the House might want to bear in mind as we carry on here.

THIRD READINGS / TROISIÈME LECTURE

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

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

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

Projet de loi 9, Loi permettant aux fiduciaires et à d’autres personnes d’aliéner les placements sud-africains;

Bill 120, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act;

Bill 150, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act;

Bill 181, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act;

Bill 196, An Act to amend the Psychologists Registration Act.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved third reading of Bill 121, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved third reading of Bill 83, An Act respecting the Protection of Farm Practices.

Mr. Harris: On both this bill and Bill 120, I would have expected that the government House leader would have asked for unanimous consent to deal with these, when they are not in Orders and Notices. We are pleased to accommodate, obviously. That has always been our nature. I do not want to go to great length to point out that it was not the nature of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) today when my leader brought up the question of being able to deal with a couple of readings of a bill that I thought would have been important to the government.

If somebody is suggesting that unanimous consent be given, I do, on behalf of my party, say we are agreeable to proceed.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I think the member makes a good point. I had discussed this with the panel this morning and informally this afternoon. I am remiss this afternoon in not, chapter and verse and in a public way, asking for that consent. I apologize, because, of course, I want always to accommodate.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved third reading of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 87. Over the period of the last few months, we have had considerable debate in the standing committee on resources development: public hearings and then clause-by-clause consideration of both Bill 87 and Bill 88, two bills which threaten to do serious harm to the trucking industry in Ontario.

This bill is called An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act. There is serious concern about whether this board will continue to exist in Ontario. The minister knows quite rightly that he has had information provided to him from experts in the field, from the trucking industry and from lawyers who are experts in the field of transportation, that the consequence of these two bills is very likely to be the disappearance of the Ontario Highway Transport Board in Ontario.

We are looking at the disappearance of the opportunity for public interest hearings to protect an industry which is vital to Ontario, which could well threaten drivers and vehicles on our public highways.

We have, throughout the process of the hearings of this committee, been treated unfairly, I think, by the minister and his staff in terms of the kinds of responses we have received throughout the committee process.

There has been a lack of consideration by the government of the testimony received from experts in the field, from those concerned with their future in the transportation industry and concerned about the future of the highway transportation segment in Ontario.

In particular, there is serious concern about a major invasion of our industry by American transport interests. One of the major protections we have had in the past in protecting that industry has been the existence of the Ontario Highway Transport Board and its ability to conduct public interest hearings to determine whether the public interest is upheld when we allow access to our public highways to major trucking interests which may well not reflect the future interests of the people of Ontario.

I would like to speak briefly about some of the concerns we have had in the committee with respect to the kinds of responses we have received throughout the committee process.

I bring up first the matter of the treatment which we as members of the Legislature received from the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and his staff in terms of providing information, and being forthcoming with the committee on the information we requested and really deserved, with regard to holding adequate hearings on this bill.

1720

Early during the committee hearings back in August, we asked for information with regard to highway safety. Highway safety was a major consideration of these hearings. We heard testimony from the ministry that in fact 20 per cent of the trucks on our roads today are not operating legally. That does not mean they are all operating unsafely, but operating illegally -- not having proper, licensed authority to carry the goods that they are carrying, or in the amounts that they are carrying them, or with the type of equipment they should be using. The ministry’s evidence was that 20 per cent of those vehicles on our roads today are operating illegally but it does not have the enforcement to be able to control that.

We asked for studies, and I have here the testimony from November 3, 1988, when it was brought up again, that there was a commitment made that we would get a report from the ministry on its commitment to enforcement in northern Ontario. We had made requests for the number of enforcement officers in eastern Ontario as well.

The answer from the minister’s staff was that there was a report on the enforcement strategy and staffing levels across the province tabled to the committee several days earlier. A number of reports were received but those reports did not address the serious safety concerns that had been raised. The data that had been requested were not provided and never have been provided to our committee. That was in terms of the number of inspection stations and the number of staff on the job in northern and eastern Ontario.

During the committee hearings, after we had completed the hearing of testimony from the public and we were about to go through the clause-by-clause consideration, on the first day of clause-by-clause the ministry’s staff showed up with a number of research books -- major binders which included information which the minister wanted to provide only to the government members.

The information had been compiled by ministry people but was provided solely to government people. The ministry clearly attempted to disregard the privileges of this House and provide equal access to information to all members of this Legislature, and attempted to prevent us from getting the kind of information that it was providing at that time.

I have the statements here from the Hansard of Wednesday, October 26, 1988. The member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman) remarked: “In all the time I have been around here, which is more than 17 years, I have never seen this sort of thing happen before.”

We got an explanation from the minister -- page R-1540 which says, “I do not know where your book is.” He is referring to the fact that the opposition members did not have these books, “We have been tabling a number of documents and pieces of information along the way. Whether they were put in a three-ring binder I cannot say.”

The Liberal member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) went on to say: “What we have here is a compilation of the evidence that was given to us during the hearings. There is no secret agenda

In fact, the committee hearings were put off for that day until all committee members received that document, and I think I have a copy of it here. We received the document the following day and it turned out that this was much more than just a “compilation” of research notes which we had all received during the committee hearings. One of the major items was entitled “The Summary of Major Viewpoints, Prepared by Legislative Research Service,” a document of over 30 pages, which we had received. But what we had in the document was not only the report that we had all received from our own research officer, but countering that, on each page, were ministry comments, which were the minister’s response to those various sections of both of these bills, Bills 87 and 88.

This was information that the minister and his ministry were providing solely to government members. They attempted to prevent opposition members from getting access to information that had been compiled at government expense, supposedly for our committee; more than 30 pages of ministry comments, crib notes, one might say, in terms of how Liberal government members should react to various comments we had heard in public testimony on the various clauses of these bills. Really, the treatment of this committee by this minister and his ministry has been unconscionable throughout the process of these hearings.

I would go on to look at the kind of information we were able to receive when we asked direct questions and the refusal of the minister and his staff to give us straight answers to those questions.

One can look at the testimony on Wednesday, November 2, before the standing committee on resources development, regarding the minister’s decision to appeal the decision the Supreme Court of Ontario had made on the Ontario Highway Transport Board, regarding a case that had been fought between the Ontario Trucking Association and the minister. The minister had lost that case. The people in his ministry did not have their case put together properly and they lost their case. We addressed the question in the committee of whether he was going to appeal that decision. In the previous two days’ sessions, the minister had contended that the decision was a trivial one which only --

Mr. Dietsch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought it was customary that comments be addressed to the bill and not the committee proceedings. I detect quite distinctly that the conversation being put forward by the member is on committee proceedings and is not being addressed to the bill at all.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the point the member is trying to make. However, this is third reading of the bill and I have to give all members an opportunity to give reasons why they may or may not want to support third reading.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We had addressed in committee this key decision that had been made by the Ontario Supreme Court with respect to the powers of the Ontario Highway Transport Board. This bill is called An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act, and certainly one of my major reasons for opposing both of these bills is that the result of these bills is going to be the disappearance of the powers of that board and the fact that this board will no longer have the right to hold public interest hearings on licence applications in Ontario, particularly federal licence applications.

This had been addressed in committee for several days. The minister said it was a trivial issue, one we should not worry about and really of no consequence; it was just an administrative matter about whether the transport board signed off the licences or whether the minister was going to. In other words, who really was the authority for licensing in Ontario?

That day the minister came in. He had made the decision. He had not revealed that in the House. He had not revealed that to me in my inquiry of him that day with regard to that decision. He was not going to volunteer it to the committee until I asked him point blank in committee, based on a rumour I heard outside: “I heard earlier today that the minister had decided to appeal the decision. I would like to know if the minister can confirm that the decision has been made.”

I did not know what the response was going to be. The minister said, “Yes, I can confirm that the decision to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court has been made.”

That is something we had immediately addressed at the previous two sessions and the minister said was a trivial issue, then he made a decision and was not even going to reveal it to the committee. I think this kind of treatment of the committee really was unfair and it was typical of the kind of treatment we received throughout the process of the hearings on this bill.

1730

In terms of the impact of this decision of the Supreme Court on the Ontario Highway Transport Board, in numerous cases we tried to pursue answers from the minister and his staff on what the result was going to be. Time and time again we got an avoidance of answering the questions. In the end we got answers such as this one. This is from Hansard, Wednesday, November 2, page R-7. I said:

“You are the ones who have to apply the Motor Vehicle Transport Act in Ontario. The rules for applying the MVTA are largely determined by what we put into this Bill 88.” Mr. Hobbs, one of the minister’s staff said, “No, they have absolutely no relationship.”

In fact, though, the day after our committee hearings ended and we finished completing the clause-by-clause, the minister changed his mind and admitted in a release from his own ministry that in fact -- this is from his release on November 17 -- the minister states, “The decision” -- this is that Supreme Court decision -- “may also have an impact on the public interest test.” It may be that the test provision would no longer apply in Ontario if the ruling is overturned.

The minister said one thing during the committee hearings, and as soon as the committee hearings were completed, he did admit that the Supreme Court decision and these bills were going to be a serious threat as to whether we were going to be able to have a public interest test in the future in Ontario.

We have information from lawyers who have spent years in the field, in the transport business. We have information from the major trucking interests expressing serious concerns about the future of public interest hearings because of the expectation that once these two bills are passed, the minister is going to declare that either he or the registrar, in which these bills vest most of the power, is the provincial transport board in Ontario, effectively taking away all the powers of the Ontario Highway Transport Board. That board will be nonexistent for all intents and purposes in Ontario.

We have a statement here from the Canadian Trucking Association. I will just conclude with this. It states in regard to the minister’s contention that now the only way to get out of this problem is to have the federal government go back and change its MVTA to accommodate his problems with his legislation.

We now know, according to the Canadian Trucking Association, as they stated in a letter of November 25, about two weeks ago, “The federal minister and his staff, as we suspected would be the case, are adamant that the MVTA, 1987, is not going to be amended to accommodate provincial legislation. Provincial transport ministers have known what the federal legislation required for a long time and indeed they were parties to and agreed with the approach. To suggest that the federal act be amended to accommodate a glitch in the Ontario approach is either an indication of terrible advice or bad faith.”

In any event, Ottawa is not prepared to pick up the minister’s marbles. These two bills are the dumping of all his marbles all over the place. They are going to be a disaster for the province. I would ask that this Legislature vote against them.

Because of the problems that these bills face, I would ask at this time for unanimous consent to adjourn the debate on Bill 87 and Bill 88 until we return in January.

Mr. Pouliot: Although I take no pleasure in addressing the House on what is the complete overhaul of the transportation system in Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to your first few words --

Mr. Pouliot: I am addressing the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The principle has been passed. We just want the reasons you are going to vote against. Okay?

Mr. Pouliot: Yes. As I began to say, 25, 30 or, for that matter, 35 minutes certainly does not suffice to even begin to scratch the surface of what is wrong in this ill-fated piece of legislation that the Minister of Transportation, under a state of siege, under direct and negative influence -- because the minister and I, along with others, have suffered through what is the better part of three years in his deliberate and systematic attempt to sell out trucking transportation in Ontario.

Time and time again, interveners, presenters, have indicated to the minister the pitfalls and shortcomings associated with doing away with the reverse-onus process whereby public necessity and convenience will no longer be the rationale in the legislation, but anyone who wishes to put a vehicle on the road, providing that person has what the minister refers to as adequate insurance and has passed a safety test, would be able to do so.

I want to inform the minister by way of this information, if he would be kind enough to convey to the members of his senior staff, from the deputy minister onward, the many legitimate grievances and cautions that were directed at the minister. And I am not only talking in terms of the results of the September 10, 1987 election. When the minister first introduced that bill in 1985, a combination of the third party and the Conservatives, who were the official opposition, did not allow that bill to pass. We argued. I trust he was sincere, but I know we were sincere in highlighting for his benefit what lies ahead with this kind of legislation -- analogies and parallels regarding the deregulation in the airline industry -- the negative effects of trucking deregulation for small and isolated communities.

I am sorry the minister did not listen. He chose not to listen. He could have given consideration to our amendment, but quite often when we proposed those amendments, we came away with the very distinct and vivid impression that the reason for the rejection of our amendment was simply that the deck was stacked, that since we were with the opposition, we had no chance of going into the minister’s office with our idea and coming out of his office with our amendment.

I think the minister will be judged harshly, but I want to wish him well. I really want to wish him well. I do not think it is his fault. He is a busy person; there is so much to address under his ministry. But I think somewhere people came with a package that will have to undergo amendment after amendment, not in the distant but the near future, if he is going to make this kind of proposal workable for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

I have indicated that 20 or 25 minutes -- for that matter, an hour or an hour and a half -- as we examine the effects of this legislation clause by clause would not even begin to highlight, to broadly summarize what is wrong about this bill. This is the last chance. We have tried everything possible under the statutes, within the process mechanism, to delay what is today the inevitable. We do not like what we read. We do not believe in a filibuster, but it is as close as we can possibly convey to the minister that in this case he has made a mistake. In this case, he has been warned and I would not want to be in his shoes in the years ahead when he tries to push through the kind of legislation that will make this livable.

Having said this, I wish to echo the sentiment of others. Mes meilleurs voeux pour la saison des fêtes. To the minister, too.

1740

Ms. Bryden: I support very strongly the comments of the two preceding speakers, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom). They have put up a terrific battle against this bill, because it is the worst thing that could happen to our trucking industry in Ontario. I think it is a shame that there are not many people here to hear their final comments on this bill but I would like to see the whole question put off, if possible, rather than make a decision that may do us a great deal of harm in the future.

Mr. Speaker: The minister may wish to make a few comments to wind up or wind down.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am tempted to wind up, Mr. Speaker, having listened to the rhetoric from my friend the member for Lake Nipigon and the very charitable comments from my friend the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who seems to be all over the road. But, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Bill 87 and most of their comments related to Bill 88. I do not know whether you wish me to reserve mine for that bill or to carry on as you permitted the two gentlemen to.

On the record, I must put the total rejection of the comments made by the member for Sault Ste. Marie with respect to the proceedings of that committee and the hearings, and the manner in which they were provided with information. He is just totally wrong. He was given every opportunity and received every piece of information all of us did. I am not sure of the points he was making. I am not really sure of the interests he was serving but he still does not seem to understand the merits of the bill.

This House has been dealing with this piece of legislation for nearly 12 years: 3,000 days. We have had wide consultation from all the parties interested, from the carriers, the shippers, the towns and villages and the cities. We have held public hearings across this province, including Sault Ste. Marie. We have held three weeks of clause-by-clause hearings most recently and I utterly reject the member for Sault Ste. Marie’s statement wherein he accused the ministry of being dishonest in the manner in which it has proceeded.

The ministry and the ministry staff, like most of the civil service in Ontario, operate on behalf of the people of Ontario in a very impeccable manner, and I want to be on record to reject that member’s previous statements.

I wish only to reaffirm the principles of the trucking regulations which are to stimulate the economy of this province, to enhance the competitiveness of small business, a gain in employment and reduced costs to the shippers, carriers and indeed, of course, to the consumers.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee, the chairman of the committee, my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), for the manner in which he proceeded. I would like to thank my parliamentary assistant, the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) and I would like to thank the member for Oakville South (Mr. Carrothers) for the manner in which they conducted themselves in the committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If you wish to waste time, I will wait.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Time passes at the same rate whether you are wasting it or not.

Mr. Speaker: That is right; a very profound statement.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved third reading of Bill 88, An Act to regulate Truck Transportation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) commented on the previous bill that he was referring to Bill 87 and Bill 88. Do you have something further to add?

Mr. Morin-Strom: Previously, I referred to the committee hearing process that dealt with both bills together. At this point, I want to deal specifically with Bill 88, which is the more important of the two in terms of overall substance. As I recall, my comments on Bill 87 were restricted primarily to the effects of these two bills on the Ontario Highway Transport Board, which that bill specifically referred to.

This bill, the Truck Transportation Act, is a far-reaching one, really in one respect a power grab by the minister to take power away from the Ontario Highway Transport Board to hold public hearings so that public interests would have the opportunity to be heard.

In this bill, the minister is deregulating the trucking industry in Ontario to an extent far beyond what had been agreed to between the provincial ministers and the federal government when the federal government moved with its federal deregulation.

Bill 88 will result not only in the deregulation of trucking within Ontario, but will also add considerable additional deregulation of our ability to regulate trucking from points inside Ontario to outside, particularly between Ontario and the United States. The tying of the hands of the transport board will result in easy and free access of large American trucking interests into the Canadian marketplace.

It is certainly contradictory to see us going for wide-open free trade in the trucking industry here in Ontario when we have a Premier (Mr. Peterson) who claims he has been opposed to the Mulroney free trade agreement. In Bill 88, the Premier and the minister are opening up the over $3-billion Ontario trucking industry to a massive American invasion. While the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal does not apply to trucking services, the Liberals’ Bill 88, An Act to regulate Truck Transportation, sets out to deregulate the Ontario trucking industry and create a wide-open market here in Ontario.

The bill’s key proposal is to replace the present entry test into the Ontario trucking business, from an examination of the need for additional service to an examination of the fitness of the applicant. This change will allow huge American trucking firms to get operating licences in Ontario. In a cut-throat market, all but the largest of the Canadian companies will be squeezed out. Surely, this is a case where the Premier should be asserting provincial jurisdiction instead of handing over a key sector of our economy to the Americans.

New Democrats oppose this trucking deregulation because it will mean higher rates and less service as well as American domination of Ontario’s trucking industry.

Of great concern to all motorists, deregulation will result in less truck highway safety. The 900-member Ontario Trucking Association pointed out in one of its reports to this Legislature, in particular the committee that dealt with this bill: “There is a direct relationship between economic regulation and highway safety. Faced with increased competitive pressures and declining profitability, some carriers will be forced to give less than adequate consideration to those factors which ensure public safety.”

While Bill 88 opens up the Ontario trucking market to the Americans, Ontario truckers will not have the same access to the United States. Forty-three states, including the huge markets of California and all the northeastern states bordering Ontario, will maintain systems of regulatory control over trucking within their borders that will make it extremely difficult to obtain operating licences for Ontario trucking firms.

The Ontario Trucking Association, which has in the past agreed with our opposition to deregulation, had proposed a reciprocity clause to Bill 88 that would have given licences only to American trucking firms from states that give reciprocal access to Ontario companies. We have legal opinion that clause would be constitutional, but the minister refused to act upon it, refused to protect the interests of the Ontario trucking industry and the interests of workers in Ontario.

1750

The impact of the free trade agreement was negligible in terms of direct impact on transportation services. But with respect to trucking, one of the major failures in that agreement was that it failed to secure improved access to United States trucking markets, and this bill does nothing, and this minister is unwilling to take action, to improve the access of our industry to the American market. As I said, 43 US states maintain regulatory control over access to operating rights within those states.

Bill 88 will create a situation of unequal access. Ontario trucking companies will now face a situation of unequal market access between the two countries. The OTA has told the minister its members are not afraid of the concept of deregulation, nor are they afraid of competition, but to invite US motor carriers into our market, as Bill 88 would, without having equal opportunities in their market, is simply unfair.

We see, throughout the testimony before the committee, major concerns with regard to the impact of this bill on shipping interests throughout Ontario. I will briefly point out some of the concerns that were expressed in submissions such as the major ones that were given to us by Manitoulin Transport, the largest trucking firm headquartered in northern Ontario. It says, “Manitoulin Transport is not in favour of Bill 88 as we think it spells higher rates and poor service to the majority of shippers and receivers in northern Ontario.”

It went on, in a major presentation, to show the numbers of jobs that will be lost, the probability that it will have to be sold off to a southern Ontario firm and move its base of operations to southern Ontario, taking jobs out of northern Ontario. As well, it expressed serious concern about the inability of trucking firms to provide the level of service we need across northern Ontario under this bill.

We had testimony from Denis Gratton Transport in Chelmsford, which said: “How can a government be so against the Canada-US free trade agreement, but yet be ready to free trade our complete trucking industry to the USA markets? What about our small towns and rural regions of the province. Mr. Fulton says deregulation will benefit small towns and rural regions of the north, but yet the USA example shows that small towns and rural communities can expect to pay higher prices for poorer service under deregulation. The next point of Bill 88 is the push for safety on our highways. Again, the USA experience provides a shocking example of deterioration of highway safety following deregulation.”

We have testimony from Hyndman Transport, a firm centred in a small community, Wroxeter, in southern Ontario. It says: “If complete deregulation were to be enacted, massive unemployment would be one of the results. Everyone from owners to office staff to the support maintenance staff would be affected.”

We have information in a report from the Royal Bank of Canada, which says: “Cross-border trucking competition is expected to intensify, requiring business repositioning by Canadian cross-border trucking companies. Deregulation is also expected to put a lid on wage increases in the industry and foster the use of owner operators.”

We have further safety concerns being expressed from L. Joseph Thibodeau. We have concerns in terms of job losses by local firms from Sault St. Marie, Soo Van and Storage.

We have testimony from a major carrier, Claude Robert, president of Transport Robert, which has in excess of 1,100 employees in Quebec and Ontario, who states: “I cannot foresee a time when Canadian carriers can effectively compete with large US carriers, nor in truckload movements, even with smaller US operators. The reasons for this relate to geography, density of population and industry and financial capability.” This is one of Canada’s larger carriers and he does not think he is big enough to compete with the big American ones.

He also makes the point on safety, “Deregulation will have a profound adverse effect on safety on the highways.”

There is a last point from the testimony in the committee, an answer we got from one of the staff of the Ministry of Transportation. The question to them was on November 3, R-36, “Is the summary that you are allowing a lot of truckers who are currently illegal in the province to suddenly become legal?” The answer, “Those who pass a fitness and public interest test, yes.”

This bill not only opens up our industry to American truckers, but also legalizes a lot of illegal trucking operations in Ontario. This bill is a disaster. It should be opposed by the people of this province and I ask that this Legislature reject it.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions?

Ms. Bryden: I have seldom heard such a tremendous speech against deregulation.

Mr. Speaker: We are all in the Christmas spirit. Do any other members wish to participate in the debate?

Motion agreed to.

ARIANN DEVELOPMENTS INC. ACT

Mr. J. B. Nixon moved second reading of Bill Pr66, An Act to revive Ariann Developments Inc.

Mrs. Grier: I just want to speak very briefly about Bill Pr66, which has been in Orders and Notices a couple of times and then withdrawn and was much discussed before the standing committee on regulations and private bills. It was withdrawn and held because of the concerns expressed by a number of tenants of Ariann Developments who had requested that before this company was reinstated, there be some acknowledgement of their rights and of the lack of management of their buildings, and that they be given the opportunity to negotiate with Ariann Developments.

I just want to say that I appreciate very much the accommodation that was provided by the government House leader in allowing this to happen and that I am very pleased minutes of settlement have been arrived at with the tenants of Ariann Developments and the owners. I am very happy to support Bill Pr66.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

GEORGE A. MCNAMARA MEMORIAL FOUNDATION

Mr. Offer moved second reading of Bill Pr73, An Act to revive George A. McNamara Memorial Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

1800

CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE ACT

Mr. Morin-Strom moved second reading of Bill Pr75, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, thanking all honourable members for their industry and enterprise, I can tell you that His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor awaits.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

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

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

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

Projet de loi 9, Loi permettant aux fiduciaires et à d’autres personnes d’aliéner les placements sud-africains;

Bill 66, An Act respecting Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations;

Bill 78, An Act respecting the Sale of Farm Implements;

Bill 83, An Act respecting the Protection of Farm Practices;

Bill 87, An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act;

Bill 88, An Act to regulate Truck Transportation;

Bill 120, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act;

Bill 121, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act;

Bill 139, An Act to amend the Grain Elevator Storage Act, 1983;

Bill 140, An Act to revise the Farm Products Containers Act;

Bill 150, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984;

Bill 160, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

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;

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;

Bill 181, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act;

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

Bill 196, An Act to amend the Psychologists Registration Act;

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the city of Ottawa;

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital;

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the Sarnia Kiwanis Foundation Inc.;

Bill Pr32, An Act to revive LaPlante Lithographing Company Limited;

Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Rockton Winter Club Inc.;

Bill Pr53, An Act respecting the Peterborough Historical Society;

Bill Pr55, An Act to revive 288093 Ontario Limited;

Bill Pr63, An Act to revive Tavone Enterprises Limited;

Bill Pr65, An Act respecting the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation;

Bill Pr66, An Act to revive Ariann Developments Inc.;

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

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

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

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

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the week of January 3, 1989.

On Tuesday, January 3, we will continue with the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet and we will then deal with the adjourned debate on the report of accidents and fatalities in Ontario mines.

On Wednesday, January 4, we will deal with the second reading of Bill 124, the Children’s Law Reform Amendment Act.

On Thursday, January 5, in the morning, we will deal with the private members’ public business standing in the names of Mr. McGuinty and Mr. McGuigan. In the afternoon, we will continue with the adjourned debate on Bill 124, the Children’s Law Reform Amendment Act.

On behalf of the government I take this occasion to reiterate the messages earlier put by the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the leader of the third party, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt): Merry Christmas to all, and to all a very good afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: It now being so close to six of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock, January 3, 1989.

The House adjourned at 6:09 p.m.

15 décembre 1988