role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 9, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L077 - Tue 9 Dec 1986 / Mar 9 déc 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROSE BOWL PARADE

PEEL CHILDREN'S CENTRE

OWEN SOUND ANNIVERSARY

INSURANCE INDUSTRY

PAWNSHOP PRACTICES

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

DEATH OF UNION LEADER

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PENSION BENEFITS LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

SUNDAY TRADING

PENSION BENEFITS LEGISLATION

CORPORATE CONCENTRATION

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

DAY CARE

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

HAZARDOUS SPILLS

EDUCATION FUNDING

MINISTRY ESTIMATES

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

SUNDAY TRADING

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

NUCLEAR SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

PETITIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

PENSION FUNDS

L'OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS LE DIMANCHE

SUNDAY TRADING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PENSION BENEFITS ACT

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OLEOMARGARINE AMENDMENT ACT

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

TRANSMISSION LINE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROSE BOWL PARADE

Mr. Jackson: During the holiday season, I invite all Ontarians to enjoy with pride the Tournament of Roses parade on January 1. For the first time in pageant history, the lead band will not be the United States Marines. This year 245 talented young people from Burlington, Ontario, the Burlington Teen Tour Band, will lead America's most famous parade.

This is the third trip the band has made to the Rose Bowl parade and it is a tribute to the abilities of these young people and the reputation they have earned as the band enters its 40th year.

Since the band was formed in 1947 by the city's chamber of commerce, the Teen Tour Band has toured extensively throughout the world, including the United States, England, France, Holland and West Germany. Band members have won acclaim for their ability and for being goodwill ambassadors wherever they have gone. This is Canada's largest marching band. It is now a part of the music program of the city's recreation department, the only one of its kind in the country.

Virtually all the band's budget, sometimes $500,000 a year, is raised through performance fees; the Band Boosters, a group of interested and involved Burlington residents; and the band members themselves.

These young people, all between the ages of 13 and 21, are a tribute to the excellence of Ontario's youth as well as to the musical direction of Don Allan, marching director Robert Garnier and drum line instructor Lorne Ferrazzutti.

It is with great pride that I invite all members of this assembly to show our admiration and respect for, and to offer our best wishes to, the Burlington Teen Tour Band.

PEEL CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: About six months ago, families that had their children in Charlestown, a home for mentally retarded kids with behavioural problems in the Peel region, found that the centre had been turned over to another organization. They had great hopes that the same kind of care their children had been receiving would continue.

Recently, there has been very troubling information about the status of the programs there and the standards being undertaken in the home. As recently as just a few weeks ago, a 16-year-old was taken from there to Penetanguishene in a straitjacket and the parents only found out about it a day and a bit later. There have been increasing acts of violence in the home.

Many parents who have been here today picketing outside in the rain have noted there has been a regression in their children's behaviour and they have been unable to meet with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney).

It is my request -- and I have written this to the minister already, but I believe there is new evidence -- that the minister, first, should meet with these parents immediately and discuss what is going on with their kids. Second, we need an independent inquiry into what is going on in that home and a report within a month, so that we can be sure the Peel Children's Centre is doing the work we would want done for those children.

The kinds of examples we have been given today by those parents who came to visit me in my office are very, very frightening, and I ask the minister to take the complaints of the parents much more seriously.

OWEN SOUND ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Sargent: Every member of the House is very proud of his home town. My home town is Owen Sound, "the scenic city of Canada," the most beautiful city in Canada. In 1987, we are celebrating our 100th anniversary, Homecoming '87. Part of the celebration is that we are giving out $3 bills as legal tender. I have sent one to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), one to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) and one to the leader of the third party.

Mr. Pollock: What about the rest of us?

Mr. Sargent: Okay. They will be available at $3 a shot. They are legal tender, acceptable by any bank in Owen Sound. I hope I will not be charged by the opposition with passing counterfeit money.

INSURANCE INDUSTRY

Mr. Gordon: I have a statement I would like to address to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter). It would appear that what the Slater task force on insurance is recommending is nothing more than a revised edition of an existing provincial no-fault insurance policy called the Workers' Compensation Board. Workers' Compensation Board policy does not establish liability or indict any one person or party. Similarly, Mr. Slater's proposed insurance scheme is also based on the no-fault system, absolving anyone of liability.

Again, Mr. Slater is suggesting that injured parties be awarded a pension, a proposal identical to the current practice of the compensation board. He does not make any provision for lump sum payments to accident victims, which again reflects the Workers' Compensation Board policy.

Mr. Slater proposes eliminating court awards for pain and suffering, which once again reflects the policies already in existence at the Workers' Compensation Board. The set rate of compensation urged by the task force is a replica of that used by the WCB in determining awards.

Is the Minister of Financial Institutions trying to tell us he intends to subject the people of this province to what amounts to a second Workers' Compensation Board?

PAWNSHOP PRACTICES

Mr. Mackenzie: I recently had a constituent come to me who has a problem with the poor people's bank, pawnshops in our community. The complaint that is raised is that after a house robbery, the recovery of some of the goods in the pawnshop required this particular lady not only to pay for the items but also to pay a handling charge on top of the cost that had been paid for the items.

She raises, I think quite rightly, the question that if you purchase something in all honesty that turns out to be a hot item, that item is seized and you can even be charged. However, if your own jewellery, some of it with sentimental value, is stolen and is subsequently found, you are going to have to pay to get it back and also pay a handling charge on it.

Her investigations at the time also indicated that very little hard identification is required in most of the pawnshops, certainly in our community. In this case, the same person had pawned material three times over a short period without any ID, as the police investigation found out. She raises the question of more proper ID, and raises the question that certainly there should not be any handling charge on top of the actual cost for household items. It also appears there is a lot to be asked for in the way of the recordkeeping on the goods that actually are pawned.

I hope Ontario will decide to take a look at the regulations controlling pawnshops in our province.

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD

Mr. Villeneuve: It has been brought to my attention that the Ontario Highway Transport Board has been holding hearings outside Ontario, even for applications that involve Ontario residents who intend to operate solely within the province.

Under such circumstances, I see no reason that the Ontario Highway Transport Board should be holding hearings in Hull, Quebec. There are facilities throughout eastern Ontario that could accommodate the Ontario Highway Transport Board. I cannot for a moment believe that the city of Ottawa would lack the necessary available space, particularly with completion of the new courthouse facilities.

Both the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), and the acting Minister of Government Services (Mr. Conway) should ensure that Ontario agencies hold their meetings in Ontario. Their failure to do so indicates carelessness at the least and outright negligence of responsibility in the worst case by the ministers involved.

The government should guarantee hearings inside Ontario by regulatory tribunals that meet to hear Ontario residents concerning matters that apply only to Ontario. This should have been a policy as a matter of course. It is a shame that attention must be drawn to such a basic principle of fairness, particularly when we have new courthouse facilities in Ontario in the city of Ottawa that are not being completed because it is said they will not be required.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Philip: I am absolutely shocked at the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) that he can do very little for the 40 home buyers who have been ripped off in a sweetheart contract by a builder in the Bolton area north of the riding I represent.

Why is the minister not prepared to meet with that builder and tell him this behaviour is unacceptable in Ontario? I ask him as the minister responsible for consumer affairs how he can allow a builder to design a sweetheart contract and to refuse any alterations by the would-be purchasers.

Why has he not designed a form contract that could be recommended for implementation to all builders and consumers to protect consumers? Why will he not meet with that builder and tell him to cease that kind of action and to sell the homes at the price that was originally agreed? Why will he not introduce legislation to protect my constituents and so many other people such as those 40 home buyers, who entered into a contract in good faith and have been ripped off by the builder? Why does the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations not act like a minister of consumer relations and not always like a minister of commercial relations on the part of the builders?

DEATH OF UNION LEADER

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether the House will grant me the indulgence of saying a few words on the death of a good friend of many of us in the New Democratic Party, who was also an outstanding public servant in Ontario, Bud Clark, Canadian director of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers' Union, who died very suddenly and tragically in his home on Saturday. With the unanimous consent of the House, I would like permission to say a few words.

Agreed to.

Mr. Rae: Bud Clark was someone for whom all of us in the New Democratic Party had enormous affection. He died suddenly and tragically on Saturday night while attending an annual family party at his home in St. Catharines.

I want to say a few words about Bud because he made such an enormous contribution to the working people of this province. He came out of a plant in Brantford. He led a company association into the Textile Workers Union of America. He went on to become a business agent in Hamilton and then joined the staff of the international. He rose to become Canadian director of the textile workers and then led them into amalgamation with the clothing workers. He went on to become a vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. He was vice-president of the international and sole Canadian director of his trade union.

He contributed an enormous amount to the political development of this province. He led and was involved in a great many famous battles for working people, such as the right to picket peacefully, the right to assemble peacefully, the defence of working people and the issues of health and safety that led him to be named a member of the Workers' Compensation Board after we changed the law recently. All of these things are an indication of the extraordinary possibilities that membership and leadership in the trade union movement give to those who seek service.

I have outlined very briefly some of the facts about Bud's life, but to talk about those gives a very inadequate sense of his personality. He was a big man in every sense of the word. He had a booming voice and a booming presence. He had a tremendous laugh, which all of us will remember for the rest of our days. He was an enormously joyous companion in political battles and in struggles on behalf of working people. He was a great friend. He was a good person to know. He was, as far as I am concerned, a terrific social democrat and a wonderful human being.

I want to take this opportunity, personally and on behalf of our party, to say to his wife June and his three kids how very sorry we are that Bud Clark is not with us any more. We feel deeply saddened at having lost him so early in life, when he still had so much to contribute. I know I will take with me the wishes of all the members of the Legislature when, together with many members of our caucus, I attend his funeral in St. Catharines tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We in the government likewise wish to extend to Bud Clark's family our deeply felt sympathy. As an individual residing in St. Catharines -- I have had the opportunity to represent the area for about nine years now -- I knew Bud for a number of those years and had to deal with him under some very difficult circumstances.

The leader of the third party has outlined his career. I never knew his name was Charles Clark until I looked at his obituary today, which is an indication that he was known to everybody as Bud Clark. He was a friend to everybody. He was a reasonable man for people to deal with. He had a very strong commitment to the labour union movement, particularly to those he represented, but he was also a reasonable and fair-minded individual who was looking at all times for an agreement for those he represented.

He wanted a good agreement, but he was prepared to be honest at the bargaining table, to do the very best for his workers and to sell a contract to his workers, those he represented, when he felt that contract would be useful and helpful to them.

In our community, he was well respected as well. His fame, if I can use that word, certainly goes beyond the borders of St. Catharines, so I do not say this in a parochial sense. We probably saw his truly human side come out when there were plant closings. We have had some tough times in our textile industry in Ontario during the past several years. We have had a number of plant closings. Bud Clark was always there to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who were losing their jobs, to attempt to get a reversal of a decision on the part of management and, if that were not possible, to get the best possible severance deal and placement of those workers.

The labour union movement, the workers of this province, the people of St. Catharines and, in a sense, speaking for our government, the people of Ontario, will miss Bud Clark and the contribution he was continuing to make right up to his untimely and sudden death. We extend to his family and his friends the heartfelt sympathy of all of us in this House.

Mr. Gillies: The official opposition would certainly like to associate itself with the remarks made by the leader of the New Democratic Party and the Minister of the Environment. I cannot remember when I first met Bud Clark, but suffice it to say it would have been many years ago, probably during an election campaign, and you can bet your life we were not working on the same campaign.

As has been said earlier, Bud Clark was very dedicated to his workers and to the union with which he was associated for so many years. He was also dedicated to the community. In my numerous meetings with him over the years, regardless of whether he agreed with one or not, he was a very agreeable person. He made a tremendous contribution and was, as the leader of the third party said, a big man in every way, certainly in terms of his very warm personality.

His contributions were numerous, including his long standing as a vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Labour and his long standing within his own trade union, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, and its predecessor unions. That activity started in Brantford. He leaves relatives in my community; in fact, I understand he was attending a family gathering in Brantford when he took ill on the weekend. He also leaves many friends in my community. We will miss him.

He was re-elected to his office in the OFL just two weeks ago. He was continuing to serve our province as a member of the Workers' Compensation Board. I guess it was typical of Bud Clark that he was a fighter right to the end. I will miss him personally. We all miss him and can only give our very sincere sympathies to June Clark and their three children and recognize today as legislators the life and career of a very fine man indeed.

Mr. Speaker: Following your words of sympathy, I will make certain a copy of this Hansard goes to the Clark family.

13:51

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PENSION BENEFITS LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I wish to make a statement in connection with my responsibilities as Minister of Financial Institutions. I am pleased to inform the House that today I will introduce for first reading the Pension Benefits Act. The purpose of my statement is to outline for the members key decisions by this government related to pension policy.

First and foremost are the many important and welcome reforms for pension plans.

Second is the announcement of our commitment to inflation protection in pensions, and to that end, the establishment of a three-person working group to recommend the best mechanism and formula for inflation protection, keeping in mind the cost impact on plan sponsors.

Third is the announcement of an immediate moratorium on withdrawals of surplus funds in ongoing plans until the report of the working group is delivered and mandatory inflation protection is implemented.

Ontario has developed a package of reforms for pensions based on the federal-provincial majority consensus. This legislation will be of major significance to the retirement future of citizens of this province. The key elements of consensus, all of which are reflected in our proposed legislation, include the following:

Full-time employees will be eligible to join their pension plan after two years of service, regardless of their age.

Part-time employees will be eligible to join after two years of service if they have earned at least 35 per cent of the Canada pension plan's "year's maximum pensionable earnings" for two consecutive years.

Benefits accruing after the effective date of the legislation will be vested and locked in after two years' membership in a pension plan, irrespective of age. This replaces the current "45 and 10" rule.

Employers will be required to fund, at termination, retirement or death, at least one half of a member's benefit accrued after the effective date of the legislation.

Provision has also been made for prescribed rates of interest on employee contributions on termination. This will ensure that plan members will benefit from investment earnings.

To permit early retirement, greater flexibility is afforded those employees within 10 years of normal retirement date.

Portability of pensions will allow those workers who change jobs to carry their pensions with them.

Post-retirement and pre-retirement survivor benefits have been assured. This will be of particular significance to women.

Pension plans will preclude discrimination on the basis of sex with respect to benefits or contributions.

Plan members will have the right to reasonable and regular access to information respecting their benefits and obligations under their plan.

This bill is the result of widespread consultation, not only with governments across Canada but also with plan members, sponsors and industry. We have considered the thoughtful responses received and have made changes to improve the pension legislation that will govern Ontario's 10,500 pension plans.

I assure members that this government has also given very serious consideration to the issues of surplus withdrawal and inflation protection.

I would now like to address the issue of mandatory inflation protection. As members are aware, the absence of support for inflation protection in the package of reforms agreed to by the federal and provincial governments is something with which this government has never been comfortable. I wish to take this opportunity to reaffirm our strong commitment to introduce mandatory inflation protection in the context of our pension legislation.

Ontario is the first province in Canada to commit to taking action on inflation protection for pensions. Therefore, we have a special duty to ensure that the direction given for implementation is well reasoned and effective. We want to know and weigh all the possible approaches and the costs and impacts on plan members and sponsors.

To that end, as I mentioned earlier, we have already taken steps to establish an external working group to determine the most appropriate formula and phase-in procedures for inflation protection. The members of this important group are, as chairman, Martin Friedland, professor of law at the University of Toronto and a fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, along with E. Sydney Jackson, chairman and chief executive officer of Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., and Cliff Pilkey, immediate past president of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

They will consider the following factors: the needs of employees to have retirement income protected from the effect of inflation; the needs of employers to have finite and affordable pension costs; the importance of maintaining and expanding the private pension system and, in particular, defined benefit plans; the impact of any formula on active employees, existing pensioners and deferred pensioners; the formulas and recommendations contained in previous pension studies relating to inflation protection from Canadian jurisdictions; initiatives studied by other jurisdictions and any formulas currently used in pension plans; the relationship between inflation protection and other pension reform items or issues in the Pension Benefits Act, 1986, such as the 50 per cent employer cost, treatment of surplus, portability and vesting; the appropriate phase-in and implementation period for inflation protection, and the appropriate time period to be provided to plan sponsors to fully fund inflation protection.

As I announced at the beginning of this statement, a moratorium will be placed on the withdrawal of surplus funds from ongoing pension plans effective today. It will remain until the working group completes its report and our mandatory inflation protection program is in place.

The

schedule of this House may preclude passage of the legislation by January 1, 1987, the target date for pension reform. It is still our intention to make as many provisions as are feasible effective on that date; however, certain provisions of the legislation which require greater lead time may be phased in. The pension commission will advise as to those reforms which should be phased in between January 1, 1987, and January 1, 1988. The Pension Benefits Act, 1986, will be amended to provide for varied effective dates.

Reform of the rules governing pensions will affect more than 1.8 million Ontarians. As the provincial demographic profile changes, retirees will become an increasing proportion of the population. The provision of security for those retirement years is of major social and economic importance.

I urge the members to support the many important reforms represented in the proposed Pension Benefits Act, 1986.

I would also like to take this opportunity to draw members' attention to a regulation change under the current Pension Benefits Act which will ensure that a private pension plan bridging benefit or special allowance cannot be reduced because of recently announced changes to the Canada pension plan. The regulation is now in effect.

This new regulation reflects the government's belief that it would be unfair to have changes to Canada pension plan rules result in the reduction of bridging benefits, as this would yield a windfall gain to employers and a loss to employees.

Mr. Runciman: We welcome the introduction of the new Pension Benefits Act by the Minister of Financial Institutions, although after looking at it, we have to wonder why it took him 18 months to get it to this stage.

Our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), a former Treasurer of this province, is one of the leading figures in this country in pursuing meaningful pension reform. Much of his hard work and dedication is reflected in the current government's initiative.

The thrust of the minister's pension reforms is to protect pension holders. However, there is another side to these reforms, and I am somewhat reassured by the fact that the minister's working group will be considering this area.

For example, these reforms could penalize employers who have played fair with their employees and provided pension plans. This cost increase will directly affect the profitability of these diligent employers. It will result in lower wage or salary increases for the employees, the very people these reforms are trying to help. Further, firms may cancel their pension plans altogether.

By 2020, 11 individuals under the age of 65 will be working to support every 10 persons over 65. The demands on pensions will far exceed the contributions. This problem could be aggravated by heavy withdrawals from pension funds by corporations seeking to use that money for other purposes.

As well as the initiatives the minister has announced today, the government should seriously consider encouraging Ontarians to explore alternatives to pensions. Current federal tax deductions for retirement savings plans are far too restrictive, and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) might consider supplementing these deductions with deductions from provincial income tax.

Better yet, the Treasurer's counterparts in Ottawa might be encouraged to introduce tax reforms so that registered retirement savings plan contributions become tax deductible to the same extent as are the contributions to employers' pension plans. If this were combined with fair opting-out provisions, it could lead to more choices for Ontarians as they determine how to save for their futures in this era of an ever-ageing population.

We look forward to working with the government to ensure the fairest, most equitable and most realistic pension legislation for employees and employers in this province.

Mr. McClellan: I had hoped the Grossman line, which I do not think calls for alternatives to pensions, might have been forthcoming from my Tory colleagues; but you never know, I guess.

The statement is a masterpiece of managed news, of Orwellian doublespeak and of news manipulation. The press release says the minister is announcing the government's commitment to inflation protection in pension plans, but the government announced today it has no intention of providing inflation protection in the pension benefits reform legislation and has no intention of dealing with the question of surplus pension funds withdrawal in the legislation.

That is what the announcement was, but the minister has the effrontery to stand up and declare the exact opposite of what he is doing. He is not bringing in legislation to provide inflation protection; he is not bringing in legislation to put an end to surplus pension fund withdrawals. All he is doing -- after 18 months in office, after a royal commission, after a select committee, after a federal royal commission, after a federal green paper, after a federal select committee and after four years of federal-provincial discussions -- is setting up another task force. That is all he is doing.

After 18 months of laborious study, the best the minister can come up with is a task force. It is a cop-out and an insult. It is a reflection on his own incompetence. The workers of this province do not need another task force; they need legislation that provides, as of 1987, inflation protection and an end to the legalized theft of workers' deferred wages from pension funds. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Runciman: Why wasn't it in the accord?

Mr. McClellan: It was in the accord, and they once again found themselves unable to keep their own promise. They once again found themselves unable to honour their own commitments. The record is clear. The Liberal Party has no intention, when push comes to shove, of honouring commitments that were made to the workers of this province. They have betrayed them on this item, as they have on health and safety, on equal pay and on workers' compensation reform. They have been unable to deliver the promises they made to the workers of this province, and the people of this province will see through their phoney commitment to social reform.

Mr. Rae: I see smirks on the faces of the Minister of Financial Institutions and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). We on this side of the House have become accustomed, if not totally inured, to that kind of smug arrogance when we look at government. When the Minister of Financial Institutions stands up in his place and says he is announcing a major commitment, it is to laugh. If he is laughing at his own joke, that is fine; but the joke will ultimately be on him and the Liberal Party. The people of this province can see through a government that is doing the opposite of what it is alleged to be doing.

When the big boys on Wall Street say, "Boo," the minister rolls over like a spaniel, gives them everything they want and says, "Scratch me again." But when the workers want pensions, he gives them a task force. It is not good enough, it is not satisfactory and it will not wash with the working people of this province. They have been waiting for inflation protection for decades. They thought they had it from the Liberal Party in 1981, in 1984 and in 1985. The minister has been misleading the people of this province with respect to pension reform and it is something for which he will ultimately pay.

Mr. Speaker: I know some members get a little carried away in their comments. The member for York South might want to reconsider the word "misleading," which he used.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I will do whatever you ask me to do according to the rules of the House, but I said the minister was misleading the people of the province. I did not say he was misleading the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We always seem to have a little trouble with the waviness in the comments. As I said earlier, I wish the member would reconsider the word he used. Will the member withdraw the word "misleading"?

Mr. Rae: I will do whatever you ask, Mr. Speaker. If you ask me to change the word, I will change it to "bamboozle," if that is satisfactory.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the member has withdrawn the word "misleading." Thank you.

14:09

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Runciman: I am not sure how I should address the minister. Is "the minister of bamboozlement" appropriate?

Mr. Speaker: I think not.

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. About a month ago, the minister announced an eight-point plan that was supposed to protect home buyers from the problems being experienced all over this province. The minister's committee to study the problem, another committee of implementation, was supposed to report on December 5, but we have heard nothing yet. The minister now tells the press he will be unveiling a plan which, from all reports, is no different from the one announced last month.

Will the minister tell the House that he will bring in legislation to protect home buyers, or will he simply reannounce the toothless measures that only tell people they might get ripped off?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member raises a question that has concerned all members of this House, the problem affecting people who are trying to get delivery of their new homes. We have been looking at it for some time. We are working with the industry. This is an industry-driven initiative. I have seen its proposal, and it will address most of the problems. I have said, and I will say again, it will not address all the problems, but the best defence any purchaser can have is to get good legal advice before he enters into a deal.

Mr. O'Connor: I wrote to this minister on March 12, 1986, predicting in my letter that unless he brought in legislation protecting new home buyers, with the rising house prices there would be incentives for the builders to try to cancel the deals and resell the contracts at significantly higher prices. Exactly that happened recently in the Markham situation, where I believe 44 people had their contracts cancelled and reoffered to them at $15,000 to $20,000 more. In light of this situation, which the minister has been aware of for all of this year, will he now consider some legislation at least giving interest on the deposits of these people until closing dates?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The case the member raises is one that is still under investigation. There is no determination that there was anything illegal. I do not know this yet, because we have not completed the investigation. It may be unethical, it may be immoral, but we do not know whether it is illegal. Under our legislation, we cannot legislate ethics or morals. What I am suggesting is that when the provisions are brought forward within a week's time, they will address many of the concerns expressed by the member.

Mr. O'Connor: I have received literally dozens of letters from potential new home buyers in my riding, which I have forwarded to the minister, outlining the problems they are facing. As early as March 1986, I also outlined to him a simple four-point or five-point program to resolve most of the problems. He has completely sloughed aside any suggestion of legislation, even in the simplest form, such as the registration of the lots before selling them. Will the minister consider taking that simple step of requiring registration of the lots before they can be sold to a new home buyer?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As I mentioned yesterday, the previous government changed the Planning Act in 1983 to allow the selling of lots before registration. We are looking at that whole problem. When we address it, the member will see our response to it.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question for the Premier. Last week in the House, the Premier stood in his place and assured employees of this province that they would be protected from being required to work on Sundays. He said he would bring in legislation immediately if that were necessary.

We see in the Globe and Mail of this morning that the Premier has announced he has no intention whatsoever of bringing in legislation to protect workers who are required to work on Sundays. Will the Premier tell us the current position of the government with respect to this legislation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I did not see the press report this morning the member is referring to, but I said if it were necessary, we would bring it in. The position is quite clear.

Mr. O'Connor: Two years ago at Christmas, there were very few violations of the law. There was general adherence to the law by the employers of this province. Last year a problem began to arise. At present, there have been more than 6,000 charges laid against employers for opening on Sundays. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has made it clear in another statement in the press today that he would not bring in legislation because, as he said, the Bay and Simpsons have decided to stay closed.

Mr. Davis: What about Loblaws and Miracle Mart? Why did the Attorney General not talk to them?

Mr. O'Connor: Is it the policy of the government that it has no intention of protecting anyone other than the Bay and Simpsons employees from the requirement to work on Sunday against their wishes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The policy of this government is very clear. We are waiting for the judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada. I am sure my honourable friend is familiar with that, as one who spends more time practising at the bar than he does in this House. Once we have clarification from the Supreme Court of Canada, we will deal with the matter.

Mr. O'Connor: We would like to know the policy of this government. The Premier says it is eminently clear. On the one hand, he says he is going to bring in legislation to protect employees. On the other hand, he says he is not going to bring in legislation. Yesterday the Attorney General was also quoted as saying he was going to leave to the municipalities as a local option whether there should be legislation within the municipalities to do this.

Will the Premier finally make a statement and tell us where he stands on this important point, as the law is being flagrantly violated every Sunday?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The position of this government is extremely clear, and I am sorry it has been obscured and blurred for my friend opposite. He is probably misinterpreting his difficulties with his own leader on this issue and transposing that on to us. We are very clear. The law of the land stands and should be enforced.

If the member has trouble understanding his party's position, I can be very helpful in elucidating the matter. I have a number of quotations about how he wanted to change the policy, but the law stands. We will enforce the law, and that is where this government stands.

Mr. Pope: What is the law?

Mr. Davis: You do not enforce the law.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Pope: The Attorney General says one thing, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) says another and the Premier says a third thing. You are all over the map.

Mr. Davis: The Attorney General chastises Simpsons and the Bay and says nothing to Loblaws, Miracle Mart and Dominion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) will have his turn if he wishes at a later time.

PENSION BENEFITS LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier arising out of the announcement about pension reform made today by his colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter). Since the Premier was on the select committee on pensions, he will no doubt be aware of the consensus of this House with respect to the indexing of benefits. He will know that Treasury officials have been saying in the years since the consensus was reached that there was no financial problem with respect to indexation.

He will also know of the accord he signed, which states specifically that the government is committed to introducing the reforms as set out in the select committee which deal specifically with the question of indexation.

Can the Premier possibly justify why, in the one opportunity this House is going to have to discuss pension reform and to deal with pension legislation, the government missed the opportunity and deliberately put off to a task force a relatively simple, straightforward proposition, the idea that people's pensions should not be eaten up by inflation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the position of my honourable friend on this matter and he understands mine. We want to proceed with the question. I do not want to be unkind, but some people I know have a tendency to oversimplify some very complicated matters. For the sake of a particular ideology, they are prepared to launch into a number of areas whose ramifications they do not completely understand. These people can stand up and make their speeches about it, and I understand all that.

However, it is like a lot of other matters we have to deal with in this House, such as equal pay, pay equity and other things. We have to think out carefully these things and all their ramifications -- their effect on all the people of this province -- develop a consensus and move forward. When we have that responsibility, the member has at least to respect the right of this government to move carefully, to move intelligently and to develop a policy that is sensitive to all sides; and that is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Rae: The Premier can patronize all he wants, but it is not simply the New Democratic Party that he is patronizing; it is the millions of workers who are being shafted because he is not interested in protecting them. They are ultimately the people whom he is insulting. They are ultimately those whom he is condescending to. Let us be very clear about that.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: The Premier says we know his position. I do not know the Premier's position. All I know is that when it comes to a basic matter of reform, he is stalling. He is stalling and he is denying workers something many executives have. When it comes to the securities field, he is prepared to roll over and give them what they want, but he is not going to do the same thing for the workers apparently.

Can the Premier confirm that it is the policy of the government that so-called surpluses, a concept -- the Premier is correct; I have difficulty comprehending what a surplus is when we believe all the money in the fund belongs to the working people in this province --

14:20

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Rae: Can he confirm it is the position of the government that inflation protection aside, surpluses belong to the employers and can be withdrawn by the employers once this freeze period is over?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister was very clear on the matter. He said that there will be a freeze on any surplus withdrawals and that then we will look at the situation in the context of inflation protection.

I do not want to sound patronizing, and if anybody sounds that way, it is the honourable member. One of the problems with inflation protection is that the plans that do not have a surplus would be under different financial pressures from the ones that do have a surplus.

It is an easier question for the ones that have generated surpluses in the past because they are there. In a sense, if we just forced those funds to bring in inflation protection, we would punish the more successfully administered funds or the ones that have been oversubscribed. We have to investigate all aspects of this situation.

I think most fair-minded people who look at this would say it is a complicated issue from all sides. There is the question of contributions, the question of inflation protection and the question of to what extent and who carries the liabilities.

Where I disagree with my friend opposite is that he would want to go load, load, load; charge, charge, charge; tax, tax, tax; and tax our province right out of competitive ability. Then he would be the first to stand up and squawk when business moved away.

Mr. McClellan: We do not need a lecture on responsibility from somebody who says one thing in a campaign and another thing from the Premier's office.

I am genuinely mystified by the level of incompetence the ministry has shown in this. The government has now been in office for 18 months. It made a commitment in May 1985 to pension reform that was based on and included inflation protection, and it understood that at the time. Why, during the past 18 months, has the government failed to come up with a single idea, a single proposal, a single concrete, specific legislative reform; and why is it now, in December 1986, appointing a task force to put the question off for another year?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand my honourable friend's criticism. Generally, the criticism runs: "Why did you not do this yesterday? Why did you not do this before?" I remind my friend that we have had a very ambitious legislative

schedule and have undertaken a great number of significant reforms. I also tell my friend opposite that it takes a considerable amount of understanding of the issue, consensus building and solving some of the real and practical problems that are attendant thereto.

To that end we have the help of highly respected people such as Cliff Pilkey, who understands the difficulty of this thing and who is prepared to help us in devising a policy that is affordable and, at the same time, will protect workers. That is exactly what we said we would do and it is what we will do.

Mr. Rae: The people of Ontario now know they should not have believed the Liberals back when they promised it before. Why should they possibly believe the Premier today?

Mr. Speaker: The Premier.

Mr. Rae: I want to ask the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: Is that not the question?

Mr. Rae: No, it is not.

CORPORATE CONCENTRATION

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier a question about a matter on the front page of the business news. It is announced that two companies, a United States giant, Shearson Lehman Brothers, and a company connected to the Bronfmans are buying into McLeod Young Weir, making McLeod Young Weir the biggest investment dealer on Bay Street.

It is not until one gets to the back page of the Report on Business that one discovers Shearson Lehman Brothers is now the subject of a major investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is investigating the possibility of illegal insider trading by officials of Shearson Lehman Brothers in a US$470-million leveraged buyout of Sheller-Globe Corp. of Toledo, Ohio. Just what protection do the people of the province have in this Bay Street giveaway that the Premier's minister announced last Thursday?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is starting to cotton on to all this inflated rhetoric, such "as Bay Street giveaway," "casino economy" and "wheel of fortune," and suggests there is something untoward about McLeod Young Weir here because of some Securities and Exchange Commission investigation in the US. I think his rhetoric on this matter is a little inflated.

As I understand it, that deal was moving ahead anyway. I think I am right in saying Shearson Lehman already owned 10 per cent of McLeod Young Weir under the previously announced policy and could move up to 30 per cent, which is something it has done. They have taken in additional Canadian capital through one of the Bronfman companies and have established a capital base, which I gather will make them the largest in Canada. It is a Canadian-controlled company, and they will be able to compete internationally for business. I understand that is what has transpired in the entire matter.

The member should stand up and celebrate that and say, "Here we are building Canadian companies with a capacity to compete internationally." Surely that is something of which the member should be proud.

[Applause]

Mr. Rae: Applaud. Please applaud him. I think that is terrific. If the members of the Liberal Party want to applaud corporate cannibalism and corporate irresponsibility, let them. Let them be seen doing that. Applaud again; it sounds terrific.

By way of supplementary, since I did not hear an answer to my question: I did not use inflated rhetoric, I referred to a giveaway, which is the only description a neutral observer could come up with in terms of what the government announced last week. I said, "What protection do Ontario consumers have when it is announced on the back page" -- we do not have Upstairs, Downstairs; we have front page, back page. On the front page, we have the takeovers announced and on the back page we have to find out who is going to jail.

Can the Premier tell us what protection the people of Ontario have from the kind of activities that are going on in the US and how we can be assured that these activities are not going to be imported directly into Canada?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I assure the member that socialism will not be transported from some country into this country. Sometimes it sneaks across the borders and we have these problems.

We still have a Securities Act in this province and we still have an Ontario Securities Commission that is very highly respected right across this country and, indeed, internationally. It will enforce the rule pertaining to the securities industry against anyone who violates that. If the member has evidence that someone has violated that rule, please let us know and we will launch an investigation. I am sure my honourable friend, who has been legally trained, does not want to presume someone guilty before there is a trial. I assume my friend will take that point of view.

We have a Canadian company here protected by the Securities Act and by the Ontario Securities Commission, one of the most efficient regulatory bodies in this province and in this country. If the member has any suggestion that anything untoward is going on, please stand up and tell me and we will have it investigated.

Mr. Rae: Just so the Premier will understand precisely what I am saying, I am saying there is now no way in which this can be effectively controlled or effectively regulated. He has given up the ability to regulate and has said that anything goes. That is the problem and the issue.

Can the Premier tell us the policy of the government of Ontario with respect to the other partner brought into McLeod Young Weir, that is to say the Bronfman interest, the so-called Cemp company, which stands for Charles, Edgar, Mindel and Phyllis, the holding company for the children of Sam Bronfman? Is it the position of the government of Ontario that corporate concentration is a problem?

Why is he asking the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to discuss corporate and commercial concentration when, at the same time, his rules have just been totally thrown out the window by the minister on Thursday and the takeover of Bay Street by large Canadian financial institutions and holding companies such as Cemp is being encouraged?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is unwittingly misleading himself and a lot of other people about what transpired. It is not a question of anything goes.

Mr. McClellan: Is that supposed to be parliamentary?

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

14:30

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I withdraw the word "misleading," Mr. Speaker, and I will substitute the word "bamboozle." The member is bamboozling himself and he is trying to bamboozle a lot of other people.

I understand that sort of inflated socialist rhetoric. It is the same kind of thing we heard 100 years ago from his predecessors. That is not what is happening in this province. We still have a Securities Act that will protect these people. It is not a question of anything goes; it is a question of building a world-class, competitive, financial sector in Toronto. We are not prepared to sit by and see this go.

My friend, who has been trained abroad, is oblivious to what is happening in the world, in Tokyo, Geneva, Zurich, London and New York. We have a choice: we are either going to participate in a big way or we are going to be swept out. We are not prepared to allow the latter to happen. The member's idyllic dream of what used to be is irrelevant in the world of 1986 and beyond, because his dream would take us backward, not forward.

Mr. Pope: It is funny the Premier did not say that 18 months ago. I have a question --

M. Pope: Vous avez un problème, Monsieur? Vous avez certainement un problème. Vous n'étiez pas ici pour le vote? Vous n'étiez pas ici.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Pope: I have a question of the Attorney General. It arises out of the police investigation into the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes). The last page of the report indicates the decision to lay charges against the member rests with the Attorney General and his office after a review of the police report.

The Attorney General indicated, with respect to Sunday shopping, that his role was not to instruct the police in the laying of charges; his role was not to become involved in an investigation into the laying of charges. Is the confusion of this police officer not understandable in view of the fact that the Attorney General, in reality, went beyond his jurisdiction and interfered in what was essentially a police matter; a police matter at the time the offence occurred and a police matter at the time the matter became public?

In retrospect, will he not agree that he had no business getting involved in an investigation with the police? Is that really following the process he indicated with respect to Sunday shopping?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, the Leader of the Opposition for Tuesday only, regrettably. Let me say that the member is quite wrong. The investigation was requested by me because there was pressure from, among others, the opposition party to have an investigation by the police.

We selected the Metropolitan Toronto Police to conduct that investigation rather than the Ontario Provincial Police, who would normally have done it, for obvious reasons. The police made their report and had the advantage of whatever legal advice they wanted from the crown law office as to the sufficiency of the charge. The police, acting on their own, then laid the information, as they are entitled and obliged to do if they have reasonable and probable grounds. That is the whole story from beginning to end.

Mr. Pope: Stan Richards, whom I represented at a compensation hearing before I arrived here, would be pleased to know the Attorney General's opinion of the involvement of members of the Legislature on these matters.

The fact of the matter is that the Attorney General inserted himself politically in something that was police business. It was beyond his jurisdiction. It is not the first time this Attorney General has intervened on a political basis in something he has no business as Attorney General being involved in.

Mary Eberts said on July 3 that the Attorney General, along with the counsel of the Liberal caucus, attended a meeting at which evidence was reviewed and information was exchanged with respect to the Caplan inquiry. He intervened on a political basis and asserted his right to address convocation on June 26, at which he misinformed them as to what was happening in the Legislature and the rules of procedure of this House. Will he not re-examine his conduct and stop the partisan interfering as Attorney General in something he has no business in?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As usual, it is easy for the member to make statements alleging abuse of office inside the privacy of this chamber. We will see to what extent he stands behind his mouth elsewhere. The reality is --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It will just be a question of time and we will see.

The honourable member knows, because he has had a full account of it, about the small role -- I would not even call it a role -- that I performed in connection with these special committees' work. I also exercised my right ex officio, along with my honourable friend, as a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, to meet with the benchers to give them my assessment of the legislation that confronts this assembly, including the Conservative bill with respect to paralegals. I do not feel I did anything wrong in attending that. I am glad I did, and I think I gave an accurate and fair account.

In any event, if I had not, I am sure the honourable member who was then present would have said something. He did not.

[Later]

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: To correct the record from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), I did address convocation after him. I did correct the impressions he left. I suggest the Attorney General read the minutes of convocation, the July 3 transcript, and reassess his position.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of information, but if you wish to place a question, please place it.

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would like him to explain the peculiar position this government and his ministry are taking on child care. He knows he can provide, right now, operating grants and income testing for nonprofit centres, but he does not want to do anything, he tells us, until he can work out some kind of agreement with the federal government that is going to include the for-profit centres.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I understand the honourable member is well aware of the fact that approximately half the licensed day care spaces in this province are in the commercial sector. While she correctly says thousands of families have children in the nonprofit sector, she must also recognize there are equally thousands of families who have children in the commercial sector.

We are concerned about the rates being paid. We are concerned about the inability of low-middle-income parents to get any subsidies. We are concerned about the low wages being paid to day care workers. However, we are equally concerned with both the nonprofit sector and the commercial sector, and it would be quite inappropriate for us to send out the message that those problems will be resolved in only one half of the system and that no attempt will be made to resolve them in the other half.

Ms. Gigantes: What the minister is saying to us is: "I have one big problem. I can solve half of it, but I am not going to do so. I am going to solve the whole thing at once, and I am depending on the feds to do it." When he does that, he is underlining the commitment of this government to the commercial sector of day care.

I ask the minister to justify that position in the light of the fact that he told the day care lobby: "Future initiatives of this government with respect to day care are going to be in the noncommercial area. There is no question about that." There is some question about it today.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are two distinct issues in the member's question, and the first one is our future intent. We have clearly indicated in the whole area of social services that in the future we are going to put more stress on the nonprofit sector than on the commercial sector. That is a fact; we have not changed that.

However, at the same time, the member knows that in many communities in this province a high proportion of spaces is available only in the commercial sector, and in some communities, even large ones such as Hamilton, 85 per cent of the spaces are available only in the commercial sector. We cannot turn our backs on those parents and those children who choose to use that option.

The member is also aware of the fact that all the ministers of social services will be meeting with the Honourable Jake Epp on January 26, and he has indicated to us that at that time he will give some sense of where the federal government is going. Subsequent to that meeting, we will make our own Ontario decisions on how we are going to deal with the situation, based upon that new information.

14:40

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I think one of the first bodies that needs some help in

interpretation is this Legislature; but I do not know whether it would qualify for any of our grants or programs.

None the less, translation and

interpretation are among the crying needs of many of our multicultural communities, especially long-term immigrants approaching senior ages.

The ministry has a number of programs I am sure all members are aware of. We start by training community interpreters, which is becoming more and more a professional occupation. We also give dollars to official interpreter service organizations, and we are increasingly funding community groups that also pay for volunteers who do the interpreter training.

The ministry is very cognizant of the need for

interpretation as a professional service, and we are providing services to other ministries. For example, we have a magazine called New Beginnings, which is our first signal to other ministries to take advantage not only of language translators within our ministry but also those within the community.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Will the minister indicate to the Legislature the state of unemployment in northern Ontario, the problems of the resource sector and what he intends to do to help the workers in the industries of the north?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As has been mentioned on several occasions, we are not happy with the unemployment rate in northern Ontario. We want to see it come down, and we are working very hard to put in programs that will bring that unemployment rate down.

Mr. Pope: This minister said the same thing in the spring of 1986 and has done nothing about it since then. The minister will know that the overall province-wide rate of layoffs declined by one per cent in 1986 from 1985, even though 1985 was significantly higher in layoffs, by 16.5 per cent, than 1984. He will also know that although the provincial average declined by one per cent, the layoff rate increased by 254 per cent in northwestern Ontario, by 47.9 per cent in northeastern Ontario and by three per cent in eastern Ontario.

There has been a significant increase in layoffs in northwestern, northeastern and eastern Ontario. The government has done nothing about it. When will it start helping the workers of these regions?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member fails to state such facts as that there are 156,000 more people working in Ontario, that we have the lowest unemployment rate in all Canada and that we are working very hard.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma would like to ask a question if the members will allow it.

HAZARDOUS SPILLS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who is consulting behind your chair, Mr. Speaker, if he will return to his seat.

[Applause]

Mr. Wildman: Note that only some applauded.

I would like the minister to explain why his ministry charges Ontario Hydro for a spill that is estimated at 8.8 grams of polychlorinated biphenyls into the sewers of this city, spills that have occurred at Gloucester Street and Adelaide Street, but at the same time does not charge Ontario Hydro for spilling thousands of times as much PCBs into the Mississagi River in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the honourable member may know from previous answers I have given in the House, I as the minister do not instruct the investigations and enforcement branch to lay charges against any specific person who is in violation. It has a blanket authority from me to investigate all these matters, regardless of where they are in the province and regardless of whether they are in the public sector or the private sector.

When the investigations and enforcement branch has gathered sufficient evidence that may used in a trial, it then proceeds with the laying of charges and the establishing of a court date, along with the court, of course, and they proceed at that time to address the matter.

If any evidence is forthcoming, and if the member has some evidence that would be helpful in regard to a particular court action, we will be pleased to have that evidence. I would suspect as well that our ministry, as it does in almost all these cases, would have the investigations and enforcements branch investigate and determine whether charges should be laid.

Mr. Wildman: Surely the minister is aware that Ontario Hydro spilled into the Mississagi River waste oil from a transformer it was moving at concentrations of 70 per cent PCBs. That is almost pure PCBs, but the ministry has not yet charged Ontario Hydro. However, the spills I refer to that are subject to prosecution in Toronto were measured in parts per million.

Surely the minister is concerned about the effects on the tourist industry and the fact that the fish in the Mississagi River may pick up the PCBs, and surely he is concerned that Ontario Hydro would allow such a spill to take place even after it was directed by his own ministry to ensure that the open drain to the river was cut off before the transformers were moved.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In my capacity as Minister of the Environment, I share the member's personal concern, as a representative in the area, for activities that are detrimental to the environment. I am aware of the situation. I know the member himself was deeply interested in it and immediately, as it happened, drew certain things to the attention of our ministry that were very helpful.

I should point out that when the charges were laid, for instance, in the Hydro case in Toronto, they were laid after several months of investigation; they were not laid immediately. I know that in the situation the member has drawn to my attention again, because of its seriousness, our investigations and enforcement branch will be conducting an investigation. When sufficient evidence has been put together to proceed with a court case, we will be happy to indicate, through the means of a press release, that charges have been laid.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Morin: I would like to address this question to the Minister of Education. Recently I attended a parent-teacher association meeting of St. Matthew's Junior High School in Orleans. More than 500 parents were present. They expressed their concern that the province is not moving quickly enough to provide capital funding for separate schools, which are suffering from overcrowding because of the shift of students to these schools under equal funding legislation. What is this minister going to do to resolve this problem of overcrowding?

14:50

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank the honourable member for his question and for his many vigorous representations on behalf of his constituents in that important part of the national capital area. As I have indicated to this House on previous occasions, the new government has, in its first 18 months, substantially improved the capital grants to Ontario school boards.

In so far as the matter of separate school extension is concerned, we made a commitment when we took office that we would not release any of the funding for extension purposes until the law was enacted. That was done in late June 1986. Since that time we have released about $33.2 million in capital grants to help those extending separate school boards meet the kinds of needs the member has identified.

As I recall, about $1 million of that capital grant allocation has been awarded to the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board to help with projects, such as St. Matthew's school to which the member made reference, but we are not going to solve the problem overnight. I want to assure the member and his constituents in Carleton East that we will do everything possible to meet the real needs of those fast-growth areas.

MINISTRY ESTIMATES

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. Now that he has been relieved of one of his responsibilities, will he be so kind as to assure myself and this House that he is negotiating feverishly with his other cabinet colleagues to ensure that the estimates of the Ministry of Correctional Services will be coming forward as soon as possible, since they always seem to be getting bounced?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Yes. We are looking forward to the estimates for Correctional Services and have conferred with the Treasurer's office. At present, the date happens to be approximately late January.

Mr. Cureatz: Since the minister has had so much time in the preparation of his estimates, will he at least assure me that he will anticipate the kinds of questions he and I have already discussed and that those inmates who are going through the system will be getting adequate health inspection and dietary evaluation to ensure that all possible avenues are looked at in terms of their rehabilitation?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I assure the honourable member that we are doing everything possible to ensure that all inmates' rights, whether in the field of human rights or that of dietetic conditions, are responded to appropriately.

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Premier. In the past few weeks, I have been receiving a lot of letters of congratulations for the Legislature about the passage of resolution 1 to make Ontario a nuclear weapons free zone. The page has just brought the Premier a sample of my first question.

A lot of these letters have lines in them, such as the one that follows from young Sheila Brown, "Where do we go from here to make sure that this resolution is implemented in a meaningful way?" It has been almost three weeks. What is the Premier doing to make the will of the Legislature the policy of the government? Can we soon expect a government statement such as the ones passed in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I recall the debate and I congratulate the honourable member for putting forward the resolution, as he did two or three years ago. I believe I spoke on that resolution at the time and supported it. Even though I do not vote on private members' resolutions, it is one I would have supported as a statement of principle and of our collective protest against the insanity of the global arms race. That being said, how does one translate that statement or sentiment? The things the member is talking about mean different things to different people. I viewed it in a moral context. How would we translate that into specific public policy? How far does it go? What does it actually mean?

My friend, familiar with the rules of this House, as others are, will be aware that to take a resolution, a statement of principle -- and I think that came forward eminently clearly from this House -- and translate that into a specific act is sometimes a different question. If my friend has specific ideas on how this thing should be translated into legislation -- he has just sent me something; I am not sure what it is, but I will read it -- then I am obviously interested in the ideas he has. I do not have a specific piece of legislation in mind.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am always willing to help. The first piece of information is a statement of the same principle, but it would be a government statement, which I think is an important distinction for us to make as our next step.

Following that, I ask the Premier to look at the whole question of tritium exports. We have total control over the production of tritium through Ontario Hydro; yet there is a major question as to whether we should be exporting tritium. Can the Premier tell me at this point what his government's policy will be on the export of tritium, especially since the Canadian fusion fuel technology project under the control of Hydro is currently discussing using tritium technology with military interests in the United States?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The export of tritium is a federal responsibility. We are of the view that it should not be exported for nonpeaceful purposes. We have said that before. That is the view of this government. Therefore, any exports will be checked out with that policy in mind.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Cordiano: I have a question for the Attorney General. On January 9, 1986, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) stated with reference to Sunday shopping, "If the law is not changed, thousands of unemployed will be denied the opportunity of part-time work." Will the Attorney General comment on the question of whether part-time work would be created in this province as a result of the opening up of Sunday shopping?

Hon. Mr. Scott: A complete analysis has not been done to answer that question, but it is unlikely any part-time work will be created in significant amounts by any such change. I point out to the honourable member that this was the expressed opinion of the Leader of the Opposition on January 9. He now has been overruled by the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) and a different opinion has been taken.

Interjections.

Mr. Cordiano: I would like to ask the Attorney General by way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member will wait until the members allow him to be heard. We will just wait.

Mr. Cordiano: Does the Attorney General agree with this comment made by the Leader of the Opposition at the same time: "The government is willing only to `review' the legislation with no commitment to broaden it. The Progressive Conservatives are prepared to stand up and be counted, to say we must change the law to greatly expand Sunday shopping in response to demand"?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member for Downsview does not understand. They have changed their minds since they saw the poll. Now they take a different view. That question and answer are out of date. That was given in January. One must be up to date with that party. The member for Oakville will give him the true answer about where that party stands today. Who will tell him where it stands next week I cannot imagine.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to tell the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) he cannot ask his question for a while. Order.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the newly appointed acting Solicitor General. I raise this question with some trepidation about his role as Solicitor General, knowing how harshly he responds as Attorney General to questions from the opposition.

A week ago in this House, I raised a question about the concerns that have come to my attention from volunteer firefighters who are being denied the opportunity to study on weekends at the Ontario Fire College to upgrade their education and training. These are volunteer firefighters. I know the minister is up to date on this issue.

Can he give me some indication what his ministry has done since a week ago with respect to reviewing that particular problem? His ministry is not providing the funding or the instructors for the education of these volunteer firefighters.

15:00

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to tell the honourable member, who is the chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice, that the new acting Solicitor General is much better behaved than the Attorney General and is very grateful for the question he has asked.

I am aware of his concern. I am not aware of how to respond to it, but I will be schooled within the next few hours and will report to the honourable member very quickly. I thank him for his question.

Mr. Brandt: I am not through yet. By way of supplementary to the newly appointed Solicitor General, who will apprise himself of this problem very shortly: there are some 300 applications that have already been set before his ministry with respect to volunteer firefighters who wish to study on weekends. These are individuals who are taking their own time to provide themselves with the knowledge they need to assist the various small communities throughout our province. I have personally received more than 20 letters within the past week, since I made the statement in the House, concerning their interest in receiving the education that can only be provided by the Ontario Fire College.

Mr. Speaker: What was the question?

Mr. Brandt: In his newly appointed role, will the Solicitor General lean over and talk to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) about getting adequate funding to provide the budget that will be necessary to fund the year 1987 and provide these people with the kind of training they absolutely have to have?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am even more grateful for the supplementary question, which allows me the opportunity to share with the honourable member the view I know he has of the important contribution volunteers make, not only to the fire departments across the province, particularly in the smaller communities, but also to the auxiliary police forces.

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable members for the applause, which gave me an opportunity to think deeply about this question.

Both the member for Sarnia and I share the view that everything it is possible to do should be done within the limits of fiscal responsibility to ensure that the appropriate education is made available at appropriate levels to those who can benefit from it in providing this voluntary service. It may be that my friend and I can go jointly to the powers that be to make this important request. I am very pleased to have his co-operation and assistance.

If the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) would ask questions such as that, he would get answers.

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Warner: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Is the minister prepared to investigate the massive budget cuts that were announced at Centennial College?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I remember the days, and they were not so long ago, when we used to stand up and say, "I want to thank the honourable member for the question." I want to thank the member for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to correct the misinformation he has provided for us. There are no massive budget cuts at Centennial College or at any other community college. In fact, year after year, the budgets of our community colleges have increased by some 10.9 per cent. Mr. Speaker, if you call that a budget cut, I do not know what.

Mr. Warner: It is unfortunate the minister is not better informed. According to the president of the college, it has a deficit of $2.7 million, which by law it is not permitted to have. That will result in cuts. The staff and students are asking that the minister investigate, have a look at the books and find out what is going on at Centennial College.

First, will the minister investigate these cuts? They are being made. Second, because the college has experienced an increase in its student population, can he guarantee that whatever cuts must be made to match the deficit, there will be no loss of jobs and the quality of education will not be compromised?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I can guarantee my friend that the steps we have taken with Centennial College and our other community colleges in the past 17 months have dramatically improved the quality, not only at Centennial but also at colleges right across the province.

He refers to a deficit. I do not think the appropriate definition for a deficit is a budget cut. There was a rather dramatic increase in funding at Centennial and many additional professors and teachers were hired there. We are aware of a small deficit in the budgetary process, but given the increase in student population, we are sure we will be able to cope with it. We are looking at it, but it is not a budget cut, as my friend suggested, that the ministry imposed upon Centennial College.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. More than three months ago, his government promised the people of this province that it would provide a safety panel made up of international experts to look at the question of nuclear safety and to look at nuclear plants from the point of view of design and operations, as well as emergency plans to protect the population. Three months has gone by. Where are the plans?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This has to be very clear. The Ministry of Energy does not participate in emergency plans, which are the responsibility of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I am sure the honourable member is aware of that.

We are looking for the kind of person who can fulfil the role of inspecting our plants across Ontario and, I hope, extending them. The Honourable Marcel Masse, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has agreed to give his wholehearted support to that kind of an examination. It is under way. Within the next short while, I expect to have the name of the chairperson who is going to do that very important examination.

Mr. Gordon: I am surprised at the answer. In August, more than three months ago, the minister promised he would establish a safety panel which would ensure that nuclear power plants in this province would be looked at by international experts. Darlington has proceeded on

schedule and both Bruce and Pickering are in the final stages. How is it going to be possible to make design changes or to change the operations of those plants, given the time that has gone by? The minister is making it almost impossible for that panel to have any kind of substance to it. When is he going to act?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have already told the member that we are acting. We are doing it in a very responsible way. The individual who will head up the examination and take the lead role in examining the safety of our reactors in Ontario has to be very carefully chosen. That is under way. It is a very important undertaking by a government that fully understands that it has to be responsible to the people.

We are going to examine our Candu reactors as they have never been examined before. That is why we need the kind of person I am going to make sure performs that very important task. The people of Ontario are going to be well satisfied with the person who is chosen, and the member will be satisfied too.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the minister of commercial relations. Has the minister been quoted accurately in saying that he will not do anything for the 40 home buyers who have agreements to purchase homes in the Bolton area from the Georgian Group? Is that a correct statement? Can he not do anything? Why does the minister not introduce legislation to deal with this problem?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I said I will not do anything until I get a full report. I have talked to one of the principals of the company, who maintains he had a conditional sales agreement which was perfectly legal and binding. I have had officials from the Ontario New Home Warranty Program meet with the municipality and with the builder. I have yet to receive their report. Until I do, I do not know what it is that I am acting on.

15:10

PETITIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Gordon: I have a petition here that was collected by Edna Stillar and Linda Tchorzewski of Sudbury with regard to the issue of Sunday shopping. For the edification of the House, both of these women were threatened with being arrested by the mall manager when they were objecting on that Sunday to the opening of the Loblaws Superstore in Sudbury. The petition reads as follows:

"Stop...just for a moment. Do you want our community, where we all still have a family life, to become a hectic, commercialized city where the almighty dollar means more than you and I?

"Look around you. We now have store hours 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday and all day Saturday for your convenience. Can we not hold on to our one day to spend with our families and friends? Look at your groceries. Are you really buying anything that could not wait till tomorrow? Look at the faces serving you. Don't they have a right to be home with their families?

"Listen to our plea for your help. Sunday is a religious day, a family day, a quiet day, a day we all look forward to. Help us protect Sunday."

More than 1,179 people signed this in the space of a couple of hours.

I have a second petition here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Addressed to whom?

Mr. Gordon: The first one was addressed to the Solicitor General.

Mr. Speaker: Generally, they are supposed to be addressed to the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. Gordon: They are addressed to the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I see.

Mr. Gordon: Now that you have made it quite clear to me, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very much. That is one for you.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Gordon: This petition was gathered by a very well known teacher in the Sudbury region, Mrs. Vi McDougall, a librarian at Sudbury Secondary School. This petition has 8,615 signatures on it. It is entitled, Discrimination.

"I support the business and technical teachers in their appeal to have their business and trade experience acknowledged as contributory years in superannuation since those same years were necessary for entrance into the teaching profession.

"I feel that since the business and technical teachers had no option in the decision as to whether they belong to a registered pension plan or no pension plan, this is a form of discrimination."

L'OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS LE DIMANCHE

M. Guindon: J'ai deux pétitions sous forme de lettres de gens de la circonscription de Cornwall. Elles sont adressées au procureur général (M. Scott) et se lisent comme suit:

"Je désire, par la présente, vous exprimer ma désapprobation concernant l'ouverture des magasins le dimanche. Tout comme mes concitoyens(nes) de Cornwall je crois qu'une telle pratique donnera lieu à une détérioration de la vie familiale. Je ne crois pas qu'une telle pratique puisse se justifier en pensant qu'elle réponde à un besoin essentiel. Je vous invite donc à faire tout en votre pouvoir pour que la loi du dimanche soit maintenue et je vous remercie de l'attention que vous porterez à cette requête et des gestes que vous allez poser à cet égard."

La première pétition porte 135 signatures et la deuxième, dans le même esprit, en porte 301.

SUNDAY TRADING

Ms. Gigantes: I have a petition which has been drawn up by the members of the St. George's Anglican Church in Ottawa in protest against the opening of stores other than convenience stores on Sunday in defiance of the law. They ask that Sunday be preferred as a quiet day for family get-togethers, for church attendance and relaxation.

It is signed by 47 members of the congregation of St. George's. I would like to deliver it to the Attorney General.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PENSION BENEFITS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 170,

An Act to revise the Pension Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to introduce for first reading the Pension Benefits Act, 1986. This act replaces the Pension Benefits Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980. It includes many important reforms and changes that will be of major significance to the retirement future of the people of Ontario.

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Gordon moved first reading of Bill 171,

An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gordon: The members of this Legislature had a pretty good example this afternoon of how much care and concern this government has when we talk about nuclear power. This is exactly what this bill is about.

This bill would see that no further nuclear power plants would be built in this province. It means we would move into a future that was unclouded by the fear of nuclear accidents. It would recognize that this government has taken no steps to see that radioactive wastes are transported and hauled in a manner that is safe. I believe this bill is absolutely essential at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The member was getting more into a debate than an explanation.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for orders of the day, I would like to inform the members that, and this is very important, pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) -- this was yesterday -- and the matter will be debated at 6 p.m. later this afternoon.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answers to questions 407, 489, 490 to 493, 498 and 504 in Orders and Notices, and the interim answer to question 494 [see Hansard for Monday, December 15].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There is a remote chance there might be some votes based on work we do this afternoon in committee when that order is called a bit later. It is agreed that any votes to be taken from the committee divisions will be held at 5:45 p.m.

OLEOMARGARINE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 14,

An Act to amend the Oleomargarine Act.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the members will recall, the purpose of this amendment is to alter the description of the test used to determine the level of colour in margarine. The amendment removes the requirement that the test result be "read under conditions substantially similar to those established by the United States Bureau of Internal Revenue." The US standards of testing now are obsolete, making the existing

section of the act unenforceable. The amendment involves the

section of the Oleomargarine Act that prescribes the shades of yellow that can be used in margarine sold in this province.

The act deals with other aspects of the manufacture and marketing of margarine as well, such as product composition, labelling and advertising. This amendment will renew enforcement provisions in a way that the objectives of this legislation, and consumer protection particularly, will be achieved.

15:20

Mr. Andrewes: In the absence of the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), I am pleased to indicate to the minister and the government our party's support for Bill 14, a long-awaited piece of legislation in Ontario, one that is going to have a ringing significance throughout the province. I am sure the minister will be delighted to have it as part of a jewel of his crown.

The legislation enshrines the historic view of this Legislature -- is the minister paying attention? -- that it is appropriate in the province to give a measure of protection to the dairy industry from a product that is similar looking, and some might say similar tasting, but certainly lower in cost, a product that is known as oleomargarine or margarine. I am sure there are many honourable members, including the minister, who well remember the days when one took the little pouch and the coloured tab and squeezed it and made it whatever colour suited one.

Although we support the extension of this protection to the dairy producers, it is incumbent on this Legislature, from time to time, to review these statutes so we can assure ourselves that they do serve the best interests of the public. That is why we are here. Certainly, a statute such as this one serves the best interests of the agricultural sector at large.

We know the dairy producers of the province support the legislation, support the protection that the legislation provides; and that the bean producers, whose product is subsequently made into oils, perhaps have a different view and, from time to time, have indicated their opposition to this legislation.

It is fair to say the minister will agree that certain consumer groups have indicated their concerns about this type of legislation, if not this specific legislation. Ontario is the only province in Canada that provides this protection to its dairy industry. For those who are protected under these statutes, it is incumbent on them to defend vigorously the position they wish this Legislature to hold to, so that as legislators we can act in the best interests of the public at large and, more particularly in this case, of the agricultural sector at large.

Without any reservations, with those brief comments, I indicate our party's support for Bill 14.

Mr. Hayes: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am here to speak in support of Bill 14, the Oleomargarine Act, which is very important because it does give protection to the dairy industry in Ontario. We know that if this is not passed and is not amended to make it enforceable, the industry will be affected financially. As we know, the agricultural industry has had enough problems.

It is very important also that it protect not only the dairy industry but also the consumers in Ontario from the possibility of margarine being disguised as butter in some restaurants, for example. At the same time, the consumers should also have the right to know exactly whether they are being served butter or a type of margarine.

It is a bill that is long overdue, and we should proceed without delay to pass it. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I support Bill 14.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions and comments?

Mr. Pollock: I may have a conflict of interest because I am a dairy farmer and that may put me in a different stead, but anyway, I support it. We should have some protection out there and distinguish butter from some of the cheaper spreads. I want to put that on the record.

Mr. Breaugh: I am rather shocked and taken aback, Mr. Speaker. A member has just declared both a conflict of interest and his intent to vote on a matter. I am sure you will want to rule on that.

The Deputy Speaker: I take it that was a comment rather than a point of order.

Mr. Breaugh: You called for comments, Mr. Speaker, and that was what I gave you. If you do not want them, you should not ask for them.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any further questions and comments?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I want to thank --

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe you were asking for comments and reply on a speech by the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes). You did not call for further debate.

The Deputy Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Sterling: If the minister is summing up at this stage of the game, this is a second reading debate.

The Deputy Speaker: That is correct. I take it there was no reply.

Mr. Sterling: I want to speak in support of this bill. I want to thank in particular the many milk committees from the various dairy farmers across this province that have taken the time and effort to visit each and every one of their MPPs to ensure that this act is passed.

I want to indicate to the Legislature, however, my dismay at the length of time it has taken the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) to impress his House leader and the Liberal government that this is

an act that is very important to the agricultural community and that it should be passed forthwith.

If the Minister of Agriculture and Food had taken the time to come to our Agriculture and Food critic and the other caucuses, he would have found that he could have had speedy passage of this last May when it was introduced. It has taken this government some eight months, during which time there has been no protection for our dairy farmers, when this act could have been passed prior to taking the summer recess last year.

Therefore, I indicate my wholehearted support for this act but express my dismay at the Liberal government's priority in dealing with agricultural problems and agricultural legislation when this act could have been passed six to seven months ago.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions and comments? Any debate?

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to be on the record as being in favour of Bill 14,

An Act to amend the Oleomargarine Act. I want also to thank the milk committees in the riding that I represent for having made representation.

An additional concern I want to warn the minister about is that there is always a possibility dairy products will be mixed with nondairy products. I hope the minister is satisfied this will not occur and the nondairy spreads, as we know them, will be easily recognizable by colour, as has been traditional. I caution him that the blending of dairy and nondairy spreads must be prevented at all cost.

15:30

Mr. Harris: I do not plan to be very long. I understand our party is supporting this bill and I understand why. Before I make my few brief remarks, I want the farmers to know I am supporting this bill; however, I am supporting it because there does not appear to be any will or initiative on the part of this government to take this issue -- the bull by the horns, so to speak -- and deal with it in a far more responsible way than this bill does.

If the intent is to support those grocery stores in the province of Quebec that line the Ottawa River and that great border between Ontario and Quebec and adjoin the ridings of Nipissing, Timiskaming, Cochrane North and Cochrane South, what we create in essence is a very flourishing trade that does not benefit the farmers, because those retailers are buying margarine and want to buy margarine.

It does not benefit the consumers, who end up having to travel some distance to get it. It does not benefit the margarine companies in Ontario or our corner stores, which earlier in this session this government purported to want to support with some hokum, cooked-up bill on illegally selective beer and wine in corner stores. I might add that as I read the bill, it left only about three in my whole riding of Nipissing eligible to sell it. I checked with two of them and they said, "We do not want the bloody stuff in our stores." Demarco's Confectionery was one that would have met the Liberal requirements.

The owner said he was not the slightest bit interested in having beer and wine in his store. A couple of others were there as well. Anyway, I am digressing.

What bothers me is that in my part of Ontario, this piece of legislation does not do what it is intended to do. It does not help the farmers. In fact, it penalizes those stores in my riding that lose margarine sales as merchants drive across the border of Quebec to bring it in. Of course, it hurts consumers who have to drive some distance. As you can imagine, they cope as best they can. They pool their resources. The margarine comes across the border in truckloads and then is distributed. I hate to mention it, but they probably load up on a case of beer while they are there as well.

I express those concerns to the Minister of Agriculture and Food and to the government and suggest this issue is one that ought to be resolved in a more businesslike and organized fashion. Having said all that and not being the government, where I would have dealt with it much differently were I in that position, but being only in the opposition, I will support the bill.

Mr. Hayes: I do not know whether I heard the previous speaker properly, but I think I heard him say the bill was not going to help dairy farmers in this area, which it does. My understanding of the bill is that it stops products that could be passed off as butter from coming across the border from Quebec into Ontario. The minister might correct me on that, but I am sure that is so. It will help enforce the existing act to stop a product that is disguised as butter from coming into Ontario.

Mr. Harris: Let me say in reply that the member somehow or other thinks this government or any government has the power to stop a consumer from going across the border into Quebec to a grocery store and buying some margarine and, God forbid, bringing it back into his home. I do not know where he got the idea that this is illegal.

We know this government has the Ontario Provincial Police investigating everything under the sun. There are more investigations going on. I am surprised the OPP force has not tripled or quadrupled in size to deal with the multitude of investigations of activities that this government has fouled up and cannot administer or govern properly.

All I am telling members is what is happening and will continue to happen in my part of the province in northern Ontario. Stores in northern Ontario lose margarine sales. Consumers are inconvenienced in getting the product they want. If that is the net result of what is happening, it is of no benefit to the farmers either.

Perhaps the minister has a magic wand he is going to wave that tells me this practice will cease. I doubt it, but I will be the first to congratulate him if that is the case.

Mr. D. W. Smith: I want to make a few comments on Bill 14 as well. Since I come from the riding of Lambton, which has quite a few dairy farmers, I thought I should make these comments.

I have worked with the dairy industry in a couple of jobs, and I know the dairy industry needs all the support it can get. It produces a product that I believe is superior to margarine. The only difference I can see, and I have eaten both products, is that one spreads a lot better when it comes out of the refrigerator. That is about the easiest way to tell the difference between these two products. As for eating them, in my mind, butter is by far the superior product, and I think we should protect it.

Leaving the colour different from margarine will tell people who buy the two products what they are getting. We have to protect our dairy farmers. They work seven days a week. Not too many industries can say they do that. Therefore, on behalf of the dairy producers of Lambton, I am pleased to support this bill.

15:40

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I thank my colleagues in the House for their continuing faith and confidence in this minister and this government to bring in good consumer protection legislation.

There was a suggestion that this legislation supports the dairy industry. That is not the only reason we are bringing it in. This legislation is not merely an attempt to protect the dairy industry; the primary function of it is to provide protection for the consumers of this province.

We have found a number of restaurants in this province serving butter-coloured margarine as butter in the past 18 months. We know there are fraudulent cases out there where margarine is being passed off as butter. Because of the wording of the existing legislation, we are not able to enforce it. That is the reason for the amendment to the Oleomargarine Act.

There was also a comment that Ontario was the only jurisdiction that had this colour differentiation in butter and margarine. At one time, all provinces had separate colour standards, when only white or near-white was allowed. Ontario maintained the separate standard as a consumer protection measure. Other provinces removed the colour restriction; however, I understand Quebec has decided to reintroduce a colour standard similar to Ontario's. I refer to a statement by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Pagé, which was recorded in the October 1986 issue of the Quebec Milk Producer magazine. It reads as follows:

"A regulation of coloration similar to the one existing in Ontario will be introduced. Moreover, we will have margarine put in different displays in stores so that the consumer can differentiate margarine from dairy products. This will mean better consumer protection and awareness."

The bill is all about consumer protection. Some mention was made about consumer complaints. The Consumers' Association of Canada sent a newsletter out this past spring and asked consumers whether they were happy with the colour of margarine. In response, they received two letters that were somewhat critical of the colour differentiation we have. There are not too many consumer objections to this legislation.

The member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) mentioned that the bean producers of this province objected to this legislation. I do not think that is the case, because the dairy industry of this province uses a lot of the products of the bean producers. As a matter of fact, many of the products used in the manufacture of margarine are imported products which are not benefiting our bean producers one iota. The bean producers are not concerned about this act. They are only thankful that they are able to sell their products to the dairy industry of this province.

I think I have responded to most of the concerns expressed. Once again, I thank the House for its support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to

section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to indicate that it has been agreed that if there are any votes on the sections we deal with in committee, the votes will be held at 5:45 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there unanimous agreement that the vote be held at 5:45 p.m.?

Agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: We do have a bit of a problem. There is something out of order. On the previous vote, the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) declared a conflict of interest. He then proceeded to stay in the chamber, and I heard him vote in favour of the bill. It seems to me this is a matter you have to take under consideration.

The Deputy Chairman: I am sure you know this comment was made in the House, not in the committee.

Mr. Warner: The committees are an extension of the House.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. We are on

section 18. It is the amendment proposed by the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), subsection 18(3a). The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) had the floor yesterday.

Mr. Harris: Before you get to that, I wonder whether members would allow me to indicate that we have amendments coming, I believe to

section 18 and to

section 70, which deal with the proclamation sections of the bill. They are being retyped and will be circulated as soon as they are available. I wonder whether I could have permission from the committee to deal with those sections when we get to the proclamation section, recognizing that one of them deals with

section 18, which has to be amended as well, if that would be in order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I understand the amendment relates to the proclamation date of

section 18. I do not understand why

section 18 itself is amended under the proposal that is made.

Mr. Harris: Perhaps I could ask the committee whether, when we get to end of the bill, we could deal with whatever amendments we have. They are not before me; and I apologize, I am not sure what sections they fall under. I am trying to serve notice that we do have amendments in those areas, and if we have perchance passed the

section they fall in, perhaps we could agree to go back to it at that time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The concern I have is that if, as I understand it, there is an amendment that will affect the proclamation date or the process before proclamation of

section 18 of the bill, I would have no difficulty with agreeing that that course be followed; but if there is an amendment to the meaning of

section 18, that is something else and I would like to consider that question.

Mr. Harris: It has to do with the proclamation only. I think it appears in a couple of places in the bill, and we have to place amendments in a couple of different sections. By the time we get to

section 70, we will have already passed one of those sections. I am sorry I do not have them in front of me; they are being retyped. They do not deal with subsections 18(1) to (5); they deal only with the proclamation date of subsections 18(1) to (5).

Hon. Mr. Scott: On the understanding that it does not deal with subsections 18(1) to (5) but deals with the proclamation date of that

section alone, our party consents to that.

Mr. Shymko: It would add subsection 18(17), referring only to the proclamation aspect of that section.

The Deputy Chairman: Is the committee in agreement?

Agreed to.

section 18:

Mrs. Marland: In rising to continue to speak to the amendment that would permit 16- and 17-year-olds who withdraw from parental control to rent accommodations, I was saying yesterday that the question is ever ongoing as to who is responsible at what age. An example of that is how we discuss at various times who is responsible enough to drink, to drive or to fight for his country.

15:50

In speaking in support of this amendment, I think one point that needs to be made is that we are dealing here with 16- and 17-year-olds who withdraw from parental control. The focus should be on that aspect. It may be an assumption in this debate that those 16- and 17-year-olds are beyond or outside of parental control. That may not be the fact at all. It may be that the 16- and 17-year-olds choose to withdraw from parental control because there may not be any parental control.

In some examples I am aware of, there are 16- and 17-year-olds whose parents simply do not care about them. Tragically, we also have 16- and 17-year-olds who live in homes where they are very badly abused; yet they choose not to go to the authorities about it and be involved with social service agencies and children's aid societies. Where these young people choose to withdraw technically from parental control, they should be allowed to do that. In those very bad circumstances to which I have referred, I would be the first to encourage a 16- or 17-year-old to leave a violent, abusive situation.

Once those 16- or 17-year-olds make the choice to have a chance with their lives and are able to support themselves, and at 16 they can legally work and maybe a social service agency to which they have been referred is able to give them some other kinds of support, it follows that those young people should be allowed to rent accommodation.

It has been suggested that this amendment may make it easier for people in this age group to leave home and set up housekeeping with their friends, and the easier we make that possibility for them the more young people will do it. As a mother of three people who are now in their 20s and knowing a lot of their friends as they went through those ages, as glamorous and as exciting as it sounds to leave home and get away from parental control, in the clear light of dawn they often realize that being at home and having all the provisions of life there for them is ultimately the real choice.

That is the ideal choice, it is easier for them, and they are happy if they can possibly cope with it. Therefore, I do not see this amendment as something that will encourage young people to leave home. Rather, I see it as an amendment so that those who need to leave home at least have that opportunity.

The other young people, whom we call the runners, are running anyway, and there is no way they can stay at home. They end up sleeping in hallways, underground garages and so forth. We have an obligation to make accommodation as accessible as possible to them.

I know we are concerned about the landlord. It is very clear that the landlord is protected. A landlord is not obligated to accept a 16- or 17-year-old any more than an 18-year-old, a 19-year-old, a 40-year-old or a 50-year-old. The landlord is entitled to decide whether the proposed tenant, the applicant, is creditworthy. He has means and resources to establish whether the proposed tenant is creditworthy. If he obtains the appropriate credit rating, then the 16-year-old or 17-year-old can be as eligible a tenant as any person of any age.

I recognize that 16-year-olds or 17-year-olds do not go to a landlord with a long record of being good tenants in terms of their behaviour or their ability to pay their rent, but it is my understanding that young people of this age can legally contract for the necessities of life. This being so, obviously a roof over their heads has to qualify as a necessity of life.

We all know people in this age group who are very worthy managers of their lives. They have chosen, for whatever reason, to forfeit their opportunity for education and to go out to work and take on other responsibilities. It is a very fine line to deny someone who can legally work the right to contract legally for a roof over his head.

I see this amendment as being very necessary to encourage young people who may have all kinds of problems in living at home. As I said at the beginning, their homes may not be suitable places for them to live for any number of reasons. How much more sense it makes to let these young people have the opportunity to rent their own accommodation, take on their own responsibilities and go out to work and have a job to provide for themselves. We may well find that rather than causing additional problems with this age group by this amendment, we are giving them an opportunity to prove that if they are creditworthy they can be as suitable tenants as anyone of any other age.

We have an obligation. Instead of writing off young people with a sweep of the hand and assuming that all 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who do not choose to live at home under parental control have some major problem and are anti-society and are not well-adjusted individuals, we may find among this age group a number of young people who are very worthy members of our society, who are willing to work and provide for themselves, but need a chance to provide for their own living accommodation.

Mr. Warner: I am very pleased to support the amendment put forward by my good colleague the member for Ottawa Centre. As we have gone through this bill, it has become increasingly apparent to all of us that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) would be in very serious shape if he did not have the good assistance of the member for Ottawa Centre. She has done a superb job.

This amendment will be of assistance to the many community organizations that work closely with troubled youths. There are a number of community groups that have found it very frustrating over the years to be of total assistance to young people who are in difficulty. This amendment will be most welcome to many of our community groups that are working with young people. I am very pleased to see the amendment come forward and to learn that all three parties support it so that it will become part of the bill.

16:00

[Interruption]

Mr. Wildman: Why are the Tories still debating Bill 7 up in the gallery?

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: They are Liberals here in support of the ban on adults-only housing.

Mr. Shymko: The member for Ottawa Centre may be surprised that I am supporting her amendment, but I join my colleagues in stressing the importance of this amendment. I know that over the years the problems of that sector of society, our young people of the age of 16 and 17, have been in limbo, not only in terms of the Human Rights Code and human rights legislation in this province, but also in other legislation in other areas.

It is a dilemma. We cannot perpetuate the status quo of that limbo. This amendment is the first attempt seriously to address and resolve that problem. As I watch the Attorney General, who is nodding as I mention this dilemma, I know he also shares these concerns. He has indicated that it should be resolved in due time, whatever that means. It may be in some other amendments in the future. I think we have an opportunity with what is being described as an omnibus bill to address the issue and to resolve it once and for all before the Christmas recess.

I have no problem with this amendment not only being passed but also being proclaimed following royal assent. I do not know whether the Committee for Equal Access to Apartments, which has written to my leader and to our caucus members and, I believe, to all members of the Legislature outlining its concerns, has had an opportunity to address the committee on this issue. They may have and they were probably very eloquent in pointing out the plight of these young people.

I do want to stress that in looking at the growing statistics on unwed mothers, we see an increase of single parents, of unwed mothers at a very early age, some from the ages of 14 and 15. I refer to the submission from the co-ordinator of the Committee for Equal Access to Apartments, Bruce Porter, who mentions a figure of more than 6,000 young mothers who are 16 and 17. I do not know whether these young mothers are wed or unwed, whether or not they are single parents. I imagine a vast majority of them are. Although many may live with their families, they may have other accommodation. They are legally independent, and the problems of housing and accommodation are very crucial.

I am sure if one were to hear some of the horror stories, one would not even hesitate in the passage of this amendment in view of these tragic situations of unwed young mothers who have applied for an apartment or tried to have a lease and were refused because they are not protected today by the Human Rights Code. As we address the protection of human rights of various individuals not covered, it is incumbent on all of us that we give protection to these members of our society, many of them in destitute situations.

I do not have to tell my colleagues that someone at the age of 16 can join our armed forces and can fight and die for this country at the age of 16. Yet, for some reason, although that criterion is accepted for an individual of responsibility in making the ultimate sacrifice for this country --

Interjection.

Mr. Shymko: Yes, one can. At the age of 16 one can join the armed forces. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you can correct me. It is my understanding that one can. Maybe they are not regular forces.

One can get one's driver's licence at the age of 16. At the age of 16, one can legally quit school and be independent. One is not forced to continue his education. There are many aspects where one treats young people in that category as mature, responsible, independent adults. There is an aspect of legal independence from parental care, as pointed out in the letter from Bruce Porter.

One can see many examples of that independence and legal autonomy. When we give that legal independence, we should stress the importance of enforcing leases that are signed by these individuals.

There is a great deal of misconception on the part of landlords who are confused about whether a lease signed by someone who is 16 or 17 would be legally enforceable. I think it is. The Attorney General may provide a stronger clarification of that misconception, but there is a misconception that if someone of that age signs a lease, it is not legally enforceable. I do not think that is the case.

They are protected by our common law, and therefore we should not hesitate in supporting this amendment. I am very pleased to support the amendment to subsection 18(9).

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Gigantes, do you have another amendment to subsection 18(7)? The one I have here is subsection 18(7). I also have an amendment to subsection 18(9).

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I understand it, subsection 18(7), subsection 18(9) and subsection 18(14) have motions in the name of the member for Ottawa Centre and relate to the same issue, which is the removal by amendment of the phrase "business inconvenience" in each of those subsections.

Ms. Gigantes: I would move that clause 16(1)(

a) of the Human Rights Code, 1981, as set out in subsection 18(9) of the bill, as reprinted by the Attorney General, be amended by striking out "business inconvenience" in the fifth line.

The three motions I have on this

section essentially deal with the same matter. I wonder whether I should read them all at once. We cannot vote on them that way, though, can we?

The Deputy Chairman: They are all on subsection 18(7). Are you planning to move that one later on?

Ms. Gigantes: Yes. Right. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that subsection 10(2) of the Human Rights Code, 1981, as set out in subsection 18(7) of the bill, as reprinted by the Attorney General, be amended by striking out "business inconvenience" in the seventh line.

16:10

Ms. Gigantes: Very briefly, my concern in proposing the