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

June 22, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L031 - Mon 22 Jun 1987 / Lun 22 jun 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOUTH CARLETON HIGH SCHOOL BAND

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

VILLAGE OF ARKONA

POLIO PLUS PROGRAM

PENSION BENEFITS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

RESPONSES

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

AUTO PACT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

SPEECH PATHOLOGISTS

HUMAN RIGHTS

POLICE PURSUITS

PIT BULL TERRIERS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RENT REGULATION

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

TRANSIT SERVICES

FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT

HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY

FILM INDUSTRY

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOUTH CARLETON HIGH SCHOOL BAND

Mr. Sterling: I am very pleased to inform the Legislature of the excellent accomplishments of the South Carleton High School band in Richmond, Ontario, located in the great riding of Carleton-Grenville.

This band consists of 52 tremendously talented students ranging from grades 9 to 13. Recently, it won the title of Most Outstanding Band in Canada. For the South Carleton senior high school band, it was the crowning of a very successful year.

They went through three different competitions this year. The first one was a regional stage band festival competition of Musicfest Canada. They competed at the very highest level and received the gold medal for their efforts. Next, they competed in the Ottawa Music Festival and again won their category with a mark of 92 per cent.

As a result of this continued success, they were invited to participate in the national finals in the Congress Centre in Ottawa on May 17. The national finals consisted of 8,000 musicians from across Canada, and by day's end the South Carleton band had been awarded the honour of the gold medal and the title of the most outstanding band in all of Canada.

School bands at South Carleton are a well-respected tradition. They have achieved their success under the direction of Dave Yensen, and I add my congratulations to him and his students.

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I wish to rise to condemn this government's outright abdication of the responsibilities of this Legislature in its passage of a resolution to make Ontario nuclear weapons free. Ever since we have done that, this government has either not done anything to promote a nuclear weapons free Ontario or has actively assisted in our increased involvement. We are now, through Ontario Hydro, going to be exporting tritium, known to be used in the development of nuclear weapons. We are now going to be supporting, without saying anything to the contrary, Varity Corp.'s development of the engines for new missiles that will be launched in the coming years.

We have heard from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that he thinks my solution of changes to the Planning Act is unworkable according to a legal opinion he has received. Yet we have had not one proposal from him, even though my two bills have been before this House now for several months, not one suggestion about how they could be amended to make them work.

We have the preposterous hypocrisy of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) of the province of Ontario acting as chairman of a panel at the Canadian Conference on Nuclear Weapons and the Law last week, two days before the Premier told me he had legal advice that we could do nothing in Ontario to change the Planning Act. The people of the province have a right to know why this government is moving back from this Legislature's decision to make Ontario nuclear weapons free, and they need to know before we rise from this House.

VILLAGE OF ARKONA

Mr. D. W. Smith: Yesterday, June 21, I was pleased to welcome His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, Lincoln Alexander, to the village of Arkona.

Arkona is a small, thriving community in my riding of Lambton. His Honour began his visit by taking

part in the 80th anniversary service of St. Stephen's Anglican Church in the village. Following the service, we went over to mark the official opening of the Arkona Lions nonprofit housing project, the Orchard View apartments.

These apartments were developed under a federal-provincial nonprofit housing program and sponsored by the Arkona Lions Club. This project was really a dream of its chairman, Peter Thuss, as well as the Lions and Lionesses. It started about seven years ago. I have to say they were turned down in March, 1985, but I was very pleased and proud to have the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) approve the project in April, 1986. This project went forward and now the seniors of Arkona and community have a very excellent place to live for many years to come.

POLIO PLUS PROGRAM

Mr. Barlow: There is a 66-year-old gentleman from the great riding of Cambridge sitting in the gallery this afternoon. He got here by a rather special mode of transportation known as walking. Louis Sponder walked 100 kilometres from Cambridge to Queen's Park in support of Rotary International's Polio Plus program, a campaign in conjunction with the World Health Organization to totally rid the world of polio plus five other childhood diseases.

If the members are not yet impressed with the ambition, initiative and enthusiasm of this senior citizen, they should consider this: after having a bit of a rest here, he is going to walk back to Cambridge, starting today. He was joined on his walk by the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) and myself -- partway along the route, I might say -- along with three students. Two are exchange students from Cambridge, one going out in the next month to Brazil, one to Italy; and also we have a student here from the Philippines who is finishing up her term. These people have joined Mr. Sponder.

I would like all members to recognize Mr. Sponder for the great effort he has put forward for this program.

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. Morin-Strom: On behalf of workers in my community and across the province, I would like to express serious concerns about Bill 170, the Pension Benefits Amendment Act, which is expected to reach final vote later this week. There has been much debate about the need to protect pension benefits through mandatory indexing, and surely the final amendments will be passed to provide such protection against inflation.

Today I would like to focus on the issue of pension portability. This is the number one concern for up to 4,000 laid-off steelworkers in Sault Ste. Marie. These workers generally have between six and 18 years of service at a company with an excellent pension plan. Many are awaiting guarantees of pension portability before they can consider jobs elsewhere in the province.

Unfortunately, the new Pension Benefits Act is woefully inadequate in this area. Because most of these workers are under age 45, their pensions are not vested. The new two-year vesting requirement covers only pension benefits acquired since January 1, 1987, so a steelworker with 15 years loses a pension benefit worth $270 per month.

As well, under the current wording, a worker has no guarantee that his new employer will accept pension credits for transfer. The employee may get only a relatively small dollar amount put into a locked-in registered retirement savings plan. I want to appeal to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) and the Liberal government this week to accept the New Democratic Party amendment that would guarantee true pension portability.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. O'Connor: In March of this year I surveyed over 2,400 employers and injured workers in my Oakville riding, soliciting their views on the Workers' Compensation Board. I would like to share with my colleagues, and in particular the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), the findings from Oakville.

In surveying the employers, only two per cent replied that they felt the WCB had improved its service, 57 per cent felt it had got worse, 14 per cent said it stayed the same and 27 per cent did not know. When asked if they supported a royal commission with a mandate to create a new and relevant Workers' Compensation Act, 86 per cent of employers were in favour.

With the injured workers' survey, when asked if they felt that their claims had been handled fairly, only nine per cent said yes, 73 per cent said no and 18 per cent could not answer. When asked if they were satisfied with the service provided by the WCB staff, only 18 per cent were satisfied and 64 per cent were unsatisfied. Asked the same question as the employers regarding a royal commission for a new Workers' Compensation Act, 91 per cent of injured workers said yes, not a single one said no, and nine per cent had no response.

The most interesting consensus that emerged from this albeit unscientific study is that 86 per cent of employers and 91 per cent of injured workers support the suggestion of a new Workers' Compensation Act, relevant to the 1980s and beyond. I am sponsoring two forums in my riding on Wednesday, June 24, to address this issue. I anticipate forwarding to the Minister of Labour some very positive and constructive suggestions from my constituents in Oakville as they relate to the Workers' Compensation Board.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

Mr. Laughren: In view of the fact that the government decided not to call for third reading of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, on behalf of the government and the official opposition I would like to invite every other jurisdiction to flood the Ontario market with lottery tickets and eat into the $500-million profit that now funds a lot of programs much desired by Ontario citizens.

I would also like, on behalf of the government, to invite every entrepreneur from anywhere in the world to come into Ontario, buy Ontario lottery tickets, sell them at whatever price they want and sell them in whatever jurisdiction they want, regardless of the laws of that jurisdiction.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: My colleagues heard that I was making a statement today and it is a preliminary response to the House on the federal government's white paper on tax reform.

It is a complex document that will require a great deal of thorough analysis by all interested Canadians. At this stage, the overall impact of the white paper proposals on individuals and families cannot be determined because of the uncertainties surrounding the sales tax proposals in a later stage of the program.

It is important to recognize at this time that this is a white paper. There will be a period of consultation during which the federal government will have to consider suggestions for amendment and improvement. It is our understanding that no substantive legislation will be brought down until the late fall.

Mr. Wilson has provided us with an extensive set of proposals covering the three major federal revenue sources, with implications for individual taxpayers, businesses, regions, provincial governments and possibly municipalities and other public organizations. Careful scrutiny of these proposals with respect to their impact on this government's fiscal, economic and social objectives is obviously required.

We intend to participate fully in a consultation process with the federal government and the other provinces, which begins with a meeting of officials on July 10 and will include, I expect, a meeting of ministers in the fall.

As we begin this process, I emphasize that we will want to listen to the views expressed by interested citizens, groups and businesses in our province. Also, I intend to refer the white paper to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs with the expectation that it will hold public hearings beginning in September and report to the Legislature. To facilitate the process of the committee, Treasury staff will provide a series of technical reports on various aspects of the white paper after they have consulted with federal officials.

There are some aspects of the white paper that I would like to comment on now. Members will already be familiar with the main elements of its proposals.

With respect to personal income tax, the main thrust of the proposals is to reduce the number of brackets from 10 to three, convert a number of exemptions and deductions into nonrefundable tax credits and generally effect a reduction in the total amount of income taxes paid to the federal government. We estimate, based on the information we now have, that the personal income tax proposals would reduce the Ontario portion of this tax by $411 million in 1988 and an amount slightly larger than that in the years up to 1992.

There will be an automatic increase in established programs financing payments to Ontario of about $100 million per year, bringing the net impact to a loss of about $300 million per year in these revenues.

On the corporate side, the proposals aim to broaden the base of the tax by reducing or eliminating certain write-offs and deductions and to lower the overall tax rate. Generally, federal corporate tax revenues would increase. If the base-broadening proposals were fully implemented in the Ontario corporation income tax, our revenues would rise by about $165 million in 1988 and by an amount substantially more than that in each of the following four years. By 1992, Ontario's revenues would be $612 million greater from corporations under these assumptions.

It must be borne in mind, however, that Ontario's comparative position with US federal and state corporation tax rates is of prime importance in order to maintain and strengthen our ability to compete. A careful review of provincial rates in the light of the federal proposal must be undertaken.

As I indicated in my budget statement last month, this government welcomes tax reform initiatives that will deal with the unfairness of the current tax structure, ensure that our economy continues to create jobs and be competitive, make the system simpler and improve national tax harmony. I am encouraged to see the emphasis placed on reducing the tax burden of lower income people, since the federal government has been adding to that burden in its previous budgets. Also, the shift to a tax credit rather than an exemption system takes a step towards a guaranteed income system, an area that will receive particular attention in our analysis of the white paper.

In examining the overall impact of the tax proposals, one of my major concerns will be to assess their effects on middle-income families. In my budget statement I encouraged Mr. Wilson to take back his $500,000 capital gains exemption. His proposal to leave it in force for small businesses and farmers, while reducing the general exemption to $100,000, is in line with our recommendations.

One implication of the personal income tax package that will have to be looked at is the reduced incentive for making charitable donations. Hospital boards and many other charitable organizations will want to assess the impact of this measure on their future fund-raising abilities. Careful assessment of the impact of the white paper on the education system is also needed. The proposed treatment of charitable donations and the changes to tax relief in respect of educational expenses will affect students, their parents and our educational institutions.

I intend to examine fully the impact of the tax measures on job creation and investment and, in particular, what their effect would be in the context of a Canada-US trade agreement. Important sectors of the Canadian economy could have their taxpaying circumstances altered significantly under the corporation income tax proposals.

The white paper itself documents that mining, manufacturing and financial institutions, insurance and real estate -- industries that are heavily concentrated in Ontario -- will all pay more. Our analysis of the proposals and the reaction of these industries, which provide about 30 per cent of the jobs in our province and have generated about 45 per cent of its real growth over the last several years, will be an important part of our review.

The implications for housing construction and the economy of northern Ontario will also have to be studied very carefully. Another area of concern will be the impact of the proposals on Canadian film development and other cultural industries.

For the second phase of the tax change process, the white paper proposes three options to replace the federal sales tax, including a federal goods and services tax, a federal value added tax and a national sales tax.

The proposals for a multistage federal sales tax are one of the most difficult, complex and controversial parts of the package. The federal government has invited the provinces to consider participating in a new national sales tax.

In Ontario we have a mature, well-understood sales tax system, which is productive and up front. As I indicated on Thursday night, I am not anxious to eliminate the provincial sales tax. It is up to the federal government to persuade provincial treasurers of the advantages of a new national sales tax.

Through the public hearings of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, I expect we will hear the view of Ontario's citizens, businesses, municipal governments and other affected groups and agencies which will help us evaluate the final implications of the federal proposals, some of which may impose considerable new costs on their operations.

My final point in this statement concerns the overall impact of the proposals on the provincial fiscal situation. I have already referred to the white paper estimates of the impact of its personal and corporate income tax proposals on provincial revenues on a calendar year basis. This estimate does not take into account any potential impact of a new sales tax on provincial expenditures. It also assumes that the province parallels all base changes and makes no adjustment in its own tax rates.

Under these assumptions, our revenues would fall by $136 million in the first year. However, the white paper also includes a provision for a one-time personal income tax payment acceleration in 1988. Taking this impact into account, our revenues would rise by $77 million in 1988. After a slight decline in 1989, Ontario revenues rise somewhat through 1992. These figures are presented in an appendix to this statement.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I look forward to extensive consultation on all aspects of tax reform. At the appropriate time, I expect to report more formally to members on the status of our deliberations with respect to the federal white paper.

RESPONSES

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

Mr. Grossman: Responding to the response of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) on the federal white paper, I would like to begin by pointing out just how hypocritical some of the comments contained in his statement are.

The Treasurer begins by suggesting that this matter will be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. That is the same committee which recommended that the Treasurer do something dramatic about the deficit this year, and that his budget accommodate increases of a dramatic nature as well in the education areas; two of the most critical recommendations, and he ignored both of these.

Second, the Treasurer had -- what shall we call it? -- the temerity to suggest over the weekend that this may offer him another excuse for having to increase provincial taxes once again; this from a Treasurer who in two budgets increased 19 taxes in Ontario: personal income tax, corporate income tax, gasoline tax, land transfer tax, even fishing licences, automobile licences, liquor licence fees, and on and on to a total of 19 tax increases.

For this Treasurer now to try to find an excuse for another tax increase, as opposed to an excuse for a tax decrease, is appalling and will undo all or any good the federal government reform measures intend to do. We can hardly talk about tax reform in this province when this Treasurer has 60 per cent more money coming in in personal income tax, has increased 19 taxes and, in total, has about 50 per cent more revenue to spend and does not care a twit about reducing the tax burden on people in Ontario.

I thought too that it was an opportunity for the Treasurer to lay out in some proper perspective on pages 3 and 4, not his concern about losing personal income tax points but rather to highlight the appendix which he chose, just in essence, to leave in the appendix. The appendix shows that the revenue implications begin at plus $77 million for Ontario in 1988 and, with the exception of 1989, then skyrocket to plus $227 million by 1992.

With this extra revenue coming in, a responsible Treasurer in this environment should have been talking about piggybacking on the federal proposals by perhaps revoking his gasoline tax increase, by perhaps giving back some of the personal income tax increase he put in, by perhaps revoking or narrowing down some of the corporate income taxes he increased, particularly since he refers so eloquently to the concerns he has about our competitive environment in the tax area.

I might say that on page 4 he has the nerve to say, "I am encouraged to see the emphasis placed on reducing the tax burden of lower-income people, since the federal government has been adding to that burden in its previous budgets." The Treasurer holds the Canadian national record for increasing the tax burden on lower-income people. He should be thanking the federal government for trying to alleviate the burden he put on lower-income people in this province.

I might also say that on page 5 the Treasurer wrings his hands over two items: first, funding for education and the impact the tax changes might have, this from the Treasurer who has reduced funding for elementary and secondary school education by $61 million this year and has reduced dramatically the proportion of the provincial budget spent on education, in this case by about one per cent of the total overall spending.

The Treasurer then goes on to express his great concern about the impact of all this in the context of a Canada-US trade agreement. If the Treasurer has this concern, may I invite him to invite his leader to get off the fence and get involved in the Canada-US trade negotiations so the Treasurer will not have to stand on the sidelines wringing his hands worrying about those negotiations, whereby he may find a launching pad for more tax increases.

All in all, in this amount of time after the federal white paper has come forward, it might have been appropriate for the Treasurer and his staff to have been straightforward in terms of the revenue impact and say he would hope these tax reforms will give him an opportunity to make Ontario more competitive and to take back some of the 19 tax increases he personally has brought in during the last two years.

Mr. Harris: I just want to comment on page 1, the

section that says: "It is important to recognize at this time that this is a white paper. There will be a period of consultation.... It is our understanding that no substantive legislation will be brought down until the late fall." We concur. I wonder if the Treasurer may want to relay that position to his federal colleague.

Mr. Laughren: A couple of months ago, before the Treasurer's budget and before, of course, the federal white paper on tax reform, this party had asked the Treasurer to introduce an element of fairness to this tax system in Ontario, at which point he replied, "Well, we do not want to do anything dramatic while the federal white paper is pending."

The Treasurer has no more excuses. The white paper has been presented, and in the Treasurer's statement, he states on page 4, "As I indicated in my budget statement last month, this government welcomes tax reform initiatives that will deal with the unfairness of the current tax structure."

The Treasurer keeps saying those kind of words but does nothing at all to implement them. The Treasurer had an opportunity in his own budget to introduce some fairness to the Ontario tax structure and did virtually nothing at all. It is still an outrage in Ontario that a family of four living at the poverty level pays provincial income taxes in the neighbourhood of $400. Totally, they pay more than $1,000 in income taxes to the federal and provincial levels. The Ontario Treasurer has not introduced a minimum corporate tax, which he could have done. We still have no succession duties, and we still have a capital gains exemption.

Finally, I think it should be clearly understood by people in Ontario just what the federal government intends to do with its national sales tax. Unquestionably, that will mean a sales tax on virtually everything consumers buy, and I suspect that will include food as well. It makes me very nervous to see the Treasurer flirting with the federal government in terms of co-operating on a national sales tax program that will undoubtedly include higher sales taxes, which everyone knows are a form of regressive tax. I would urge the Treasurer to dig in and not give in to the implementation of a national sales tax, which I believe will include a tax on food as well.

Mr. Rae: In following up the comments of my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), I just want to indicate that what we see here is the emergence of a Nixon-Wilson axis, a collaboration between the Liberal Party of Ontario and the Conservative Party of Canada to take money out of the pockets of working people and to raise taxes across the country. Ontario will be into it up to its eyeballs.

Nowhere in this statement do we see from the Treasurer of Ontario the kind of attack on the program announced on Thursday by the federal Minister of Finance that the people of this province would expect to see from a Treasurer who was really fighting for them, their interests and their families. What was announced by Mr. Wilson on Thursday was a fraud on the Canadian public. He was simply announcing that he was going to be giving with one hand and then taking with the other in an enormous tax grab, post-election.

Do we see the Treasurer of Ontario standing up and fighting against that? No. What we see him saying is: "It might not be so bad. It is going to give me an extra $500 million until 1992. Why should I rock the boat? Why should I complain when this money is coming forward and falling into my hands like so much manna from heaven?"

In the last two years, we have seen a transformation of the Treasurer, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, formerly somebody who spoke up against the sales tax, formerly some-body who when he was in opposition made fun of the reliance of the Tory party on the sales tax. Now he praises the sales tax in Ontario and says, "At least it is up front." So was Jesse James; he was up front too, and the Treasurer is no better than Jesse James.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier. In the Meech Lake accord, the right is given to provinces to opt out of national shared-cost programs, with compensation. I am sure that before he signed that agreement, he would have been aware of the number of federal-provincial agreements -- at least the major ones -- that come up for renewal in the next period of time and thus would be caught by this clause. I wonder if he might share with the House, say, the two or three major federal-provincial programs that will be up for renewal, say, in the next two years.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I guess implicit in what my honourable friend is suggesting is that there will be some major fragmentation of the programs. Let me give my honourable friend an indication of what is transpiring at the present time. For the last several months, there have been intensive discussions with the federal government with respect to a national child care program. This kind of program would come into effect under that provision.

What it says is that the federal government can set the national objectives, but in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. So it is not as if there are any new powers conferred one way or the other. As the member knows, with the national assistance act and others there are various different types of programs across the country at the present time. That kind of thing will be ongoing. There will be consultation with respect to the national objectives and the federal government will have the final authority.

Mr. Grossman: Before the Premier has to go to Hansard and correct it again, I presume he meant the Canada assistance plan, not the national assistance plan. I will save him the problem of contacting Hansard.

Might I repeat the question he still has not answered? I am sure he is aware of the number of federal-provincial programs, shared-cost programs, that will expire in the next two years and thus be quite impacted by the accord he signed. Could he -- l repeat the question once again -- share with us which major cost-sharing programs will expire in the next 24 months?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot give the precise number. There is vocational rehabilitation and a variety of others. There is nothing new or dramatic about this. It is on an ongoing basis. They are regularly being renegotiated and discussed.

Mr. Grossman: That is of course --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Give us a list, Larry.

Mr. Grossman: I might say to the Treasurer that I would have thought his Premier might have had a list before he was so eager to sign the accord, that he might have known how many people he was putting at risk in this province to having totally new programs; but of course, just as he did not understand the immigration clause, he did not even know which federal-provincial programs were up for grabs.

Could the Premier outline for us one major federal-provincial program that will expire in the next two years and thus be subject to the possibility of the federal-provincial differing arrangements coming into force. Tell us just one of the major cost-sharing programs the Premier put subject to this particular new clause.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to the honourable member's question is it will not come into effect until it is passed by all the Legislatures; and it takes three years to do that, so the answer to the question is none. The Leader of the Opposition does not know the question. That is the problem.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier does not know what he signed. He does not know what is in the accord. He does not know the impact of the accord. He does not know the questions and he does not know the answers. The Premier has embarrassed this province in signing that accord.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister today simply confirm that the maximum liability he and his government have placed the taxpayers in, in terms of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. sale to Lavalin, is $190 million payable by the province to Lavalin on October 15, 1987?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: No, I cannot confirm that to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Grossman: I am not surprised the minister does not know. We are used to that. Would the minister not agree --

Mr. Barlow: He doesn't know.

Mr. Grossman: It is probably the first time he has seen it. How is he going to answer it?

Would the minister not agree that the cancellation of the Via order will impact the deal by $190 million and that by the terms of the Via Rail side letter, which we finally got from the minister, the minister must compensate Lavalin on October 15, 1987 or go to arbitration for that amount? Would the minister not confirm that is precisely the arrangement? What alternative arrangements has he made to compensate Lavalin to date?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: That is the same side letter the leader had some time ago. It has not changed anything since he asked the questions previously. I remind the leader that it was his friends in Ottawa who cancelled the Via order which was anticipated by the consortium that was established between UTDC and Bombardier, but I cannot confirm the figure he is using. He is using a figure that does not relate in any way to the side letter or the arrangement that was made between this government and with Lavalin.

Mr. Grossman: Let us be clear. The minister may not have anticipated the cancellation of the order, but certainly Lavalin anticipated the cancellation of the order. That is why they refused to close the deal without having the minister's signature and that of his government and Kirk Foley on behalf of UTDC to this undertaking prior to closing the deal. They were prudent enough to anticipate the possibility of that order not going through. I presume the minister was so careless that he and and his government would agree to sign anything, which has now resulted in a possible liability to the Ontario taxpayers of $190 million.

Just to clarify what liability the minister put the taxpayers under in this province, I shall ask a question which will give the minister the opportunity to clarify it. Would the minister agree that this document makes the government liable to Lavalin for a certain amount due to the cancellation of that order? Second, can he give us his estimate at this time -- and I am sure he has one -- hat that liability might be?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am not sure which question the Leader of the Opposition wanted answered first. Like so many of the figures he has used related to this transaction, I do not know where the leader gets the figure of $190 million. Any liability this government would incur relates only to the unused capacity in a couple of years time, and this government has managed to keep UTDC and Lavalin busy, both with the orders in Kingston and Thunder Bay now and for the next couple of years, and we have all kinds of prospects across North America. I do not think that clause is ever going to be utilized to the disbenefit --

Mr. Grossman: Of course it will, on October 15.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: No. That is only when it triggers in to even start to negotiate. Perhaps the member should read it further.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Premier about the auto pact and the free trade discussions between Canada and the United States.

Many people who have watched the Premier over the last two years feel there is a kind of double game being played. On the one hand, the Premier is indicating to the federal government all kinds of general concerns with respect to the negotiations. In particular, apparently, he has most recently raised the question of the inclusion of the auto pact in those discussions, yet the Premier knows full well that the auto pact in effect has been on the table since those negotiations began. He is fully aware of that. He knows it. He knows that is the cost of doing this kind of business in terms of these discussions.

Now we have the staff briefing memorandum of the US Congress, of which I have a copy, with respect to a conversation with Bill Merkin, the deputy chief US negotiator, in which he states categorically: "Auto tariffs will also be dropped. The administration is also trying to address the issue of offshore production and plant closings."

I wonder if the Premier can tell us when he is finally going to get off the fence and simply indicate to the federal government that not only is it his desire that something special be done with respect to the auto pact but simply state categorically that any agreement which includes the auto pact is not acceptable to the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: May I say to the honourable member, I am delighted to have his support, because that was done probably a year and a half ago, I think, and many times along the way. I think my position is very clear. If my honourable friend cannot see it clearly, that speaks to his deficiencies. I am glad he brought the question up, because it has been raised on many occasions.

As the member knows, he has had assurances from the Prime Minister on this particular matter. I hope we can take those at face value. But it is a position on which this government is clear and unequivocal. I am very happy to say that it has had the support of this House as well. I am surprised the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition did not bring that question up today, because it is important, and it is important that the message goes clearly forward from this House with respect to the integrity of the auto pact and its importance for all of Canada.

Mr. Rae: Before the Premier rewrites history entirely, let me remind him it was over a year and a half ago that I told him in this place that he was the last person in Canada to believe Prime Minister Mulroney when it came to any assurances of what was or what was not on the table.

What I want to ask the Premier is, what is it going to take to get him to stop the talks in their tracks and simply to start standing up for the working people of this province when it comes to an agreement that he has been involved in, that he is implicated in, that he has condoned, that his officials have participated in, on which they have been in briefings up to their eyeballs; they have participated and been in on them?

I say to the Premier, what is it going to take for him to change that tactic of simply going along in order to get along, and do something concrete and specific in order to stop the talks in their tracks when it comes to the auto pact and other problems which are going to take jobs away from the people of Ontario and not provide employment to Ontarians?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In spite of my honourable friend's rhetorical flourish today I can say, and any close observer of the talks would say, that Ontario has occupied that position for a long period of time. I do not have to come to the leader of the third party and apologize for the forcefulness of our position. Indeed, he may want to observe a little more closely what is going on there. Our position is clear. It is on the record. It has been on the record many times. My honourable friend may not see it, but I can assure him that everyone else sees it.

Mr. Rae: I want to indicate to the Premier that when history is written what it will show is this: the Premier of Ontario had an opportunity two years ago to stop the talk in its tracks. He chose not to do so. He chose to get along, to saunter along, to raise academic, theoretical questions but never to be there when the tough questions had to be dealt with. When there was a question as to whether the talks would proceed or not, Ontario said, "Proceed."

I would like to ask the Premier, what is it going to take for him to understand that Canada's interests and Ontario's interests are being sold out? He has been there, supposedly helping; he has not been helping, and he has not been dealing with that issue. What is it going to finally take for him to deal with that issue? What is it going to take?

Non. Mr. Peterson: I do not want my honourable friend to have a stroke on this particular issue. What is it going to take for him to take a breath of air in between those accusations?

I say to my honourable friend, he is absolutely wrong. He is a victim of his ideological straitjacket, intellectually so; he has been that way for a long period of time. I can tell him that any observer of this scene knows that Ontario has been constructive, it has been forceful, it has been direct and it has put forward its positions in very clear and unequivocal terms.

My honourable friend will know the federal government has the right to talk with the United States whether we like it or not, but we have the right to protect Ontario in the areas of our jurisdiction, to protect all of Canada, and I can tell my honourable friend we are prepared to exercise those prerogatives and those powers any time it is necessary.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Rae: By the time the Premier makes up his mind, the agreement will have been signed, sealed and delivered five years before. That is the truth of the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The new question is to which minister?

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The general insurance companies in Canada writing auto insurance and other forms of casualty and property insurance have just issued their profit figures for the first quarter of 1987. They show that in the first quarter of 1987, the period ending March 31, the insurance companies had their best first quarter ever on record, record-breaking profits, nearly $378 million, a yearly net income figure ending March 31 of $1.17 billion.

Can the minister explain why, when faced with those figures, he chose to take as his period of the cap the period after the biggest profit increases in the history of the insurance industry of Canada? Does he not realize that his proposals are going to build in the most inflationary increases that have ever been seen in the history of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party, as he usually does, indicates he does not understand what that legislation is. The whole essence behind Bill 56 is to be an interim stage so that when the rate review board comes in, and until it does, the industry cannot raise rates in anticipation. It has nothing to do with what has gone on in the past. It was meant to be an interim step to keep the companies from trying to anticipate a rate increase in anticipation of the rate review board.

Mr. Rae: The minister may be right. I may not understand much but I think I understand the minister and I understand exactly whose interests he is protecting when it comes to car insurance in the province. That much I understand.

I just go back to my question. Can the minister tell us why he chose to entrench the most inflationary increases of all time as the basic standard by which he would allegedly be "protecting" the drivers of Ontario in this so-called interim legislation, which is the only legislation, I might point out, we have been privileged to see introduced by this government?

Can the minister explain why he chose those extraordinarily exorbitant profit figures as his base? Is he perhaps relying on the rather porcine presence of the insurance industry, as it is presented in its ads recently?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Again, I repeat that the reason we chose April 23 is that April 23 is the date I made the announcement. We were saying we were going to be implementing a rate review board that would take effect and it would take a look at all the rate categories in Ontario. It would make determinations based on its investigation, but in anticipation of that I wanted to prevent the insurance companies from raising their rates before the rate review board came in. That is the only purpose of Bill 56.

Mr. Swart: I am really amazed that the minister has expressed no concern over an 80 per cent increase in profits over and above the previous highest profits in history. It is almost unbelievable.

Given that the minister is a willing participant in letting, even assisting, the insurance companies to sucker the motorists of this province, will he now do something real for the motorists? Given these horrendous profits, will he replace his useless rate-schedule-capping bill with a real freeze, retroactive to January 1, so that no driver, unless his or her record has worsened, will pay a cent more for insurance in 1987 than he or she did in 1986; and will he require the insurance companies to refund everything that has been paid this year above the 1986 rate?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: For some time now, the member for Welland-Thorold has been getting on his soapbox and reiterating the terrible horrors that are going on in Ontario.

If I could have the indulgence of the members of the third party, I would like to quote from a letter sent by Barbara Powell of Coquitlam, British Columbia, that appeared in the London Free Press. It says: "Upon obtaining a residence here in BC, we contacted the provincially run Insurance Corp. of British Columbia for coverage equalling that of our Ontario policy. The full price given was $927. With our current two-year safe driving record, that amount is discounted 20 per cent to $742, still over $200 more than our annual payments in Ontario. Not only this, but IBC requires that the amount be paid in full by cash or cheque within 30 days of obtaining a BC residence.

"In comparing the systems, it seems apparent that provincial control means a decrease in personal service and the loss of the competitive market and the consumer freedom to shop and compare -- a substantial loss of flexibility in the system."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Grossman: I hate to interrupt the policy research of the minister.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I want to come back to the Minister of Transportation and Communications, who a moment ago denied the liability and the extent of the liability to Lavalin.

On May 19 of this year, just over a month ago, we raised this issue in the minister's absence with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), who was well seized of the knowledge. In the lengthy answer he offered us, he said, "We have a potential liability of $190 million."

Was the Treasurer wrong, totally wrong or somewhat wrong when he gave that information to the House? If he was wrong, how wrong was he?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I can say without equivocation that the Treasurer of this province is never wrong However, the figure of $190 million refers to 50 per cent of the Via Rail order, the 50 per cent that Lavalin may have gotten. That is where the $190 million comes from.

Mr. Grossman: We are talking about almost a $200-million liability to the Ontario taxpayers; enough of the minister's flippancy and cuteness here. The Treasurer has not said the total liability to be shared among others, but he has said the potential liability, which the Treasurer has to pay for out of provincial revenues -- and I presume he would have known the amount -- is quite clearly $190 million.

Every reading of the documentation would also indicate that the total amount of the Via Rail deal has to be compensated by the provincial government.

I will read from the undertaking. "The parties acknowledge and agree that the work expected to be available to the new company from the Via project was fundamental to the decision to enter into this agreement." It goes on to say, "If it is not available to the new company by September 15, 1987, an appropriate compensation shall be negotiated. In the event you are unable to reach agreement on the compensation by October 15, 1987, arbitration begins."

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Grossman: In view of that clear documentation, would the minister please be kind enough to admit that the information he offered a moment ago was perhaps inaccurate and that by September 15 -- and the latest, October 15 of this year -- he has to come up with compensation for the $190-million liability which the Treasurer has confirmed he has?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I have to repeat that the $190 million is the total value of Lavalin's share of the order, not the exposure to Ontario. We do not have to come up with $1.90 in September or October of this year. The side letter that the Leader of the Opposition refers to -- and I have a copy of it as well -- only triggers arbitration that would not take effect for two or three years, depending on levels of production within Lavalin.

SPEECH PATHOLOGISTS

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. The minister will be aware of the desperate shortage of speech pathologists in northern Ontario. For example, the Elliot Lake hospital, St. Joseph's General Hospital, has been trying without success to get a speech pathologist for five years. He will know that children in Thunder Bay have to wait nine months to a year for assessment. He will know that stroke victims throughout the north do not recover their speech because of a lack of speech pathologists.

Does the minister recall making a commitment to me on February 10, in the estimates of his ministry, and in this House on February 11, that something would be done within a week or two? If he does, can the minister tell me why, as of Friday of last week, nothing had been done?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: May I turn this over to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who is right on top of the situation?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member well knows, we -- the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- have a bursary program to train northern students in the very areas he has described. Part of the difficulty, as he also knows, is the shortage of spaces in Ontario universities in which those students can be trained.

I have consulted with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara). He, in turn, has consulted with universities across the province which offer these programs, suggesting it might be in their best interest to expand them. If that is not forthcoming, we are prepared to have those students trained outside Ontario. The only condition we would attach is that their credentials would be recognized once they come back to Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask a supplementary question, and ask the minister to redirect it to the Premier.

As it is a matter in which the Premier must knot together the bureaucratic obfuscation that has taken place among the Ministry of Skills Development, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health, so that this problem has not and will not be solved, will the minister ask the Premier to stand in his place and answer the question so that students will get more bursaries, those bursaries will be available if they go to schools outside Ontario and the Premier will double the number of spaces available in Ontario before September of this year?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As I am sure the honourable member is also aware, the money for the bursaries for both the Ministry of Health and for my ministry comes from the Premier's Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Therefore, he is very much involved in the process. He has made it very clear to the three ministers that he does want a resolution to this.

The difficulty my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities has is that he is not able to dictate to the universities that they must expand certain programs or that they must create programs. He is prepared to attempt to get that expansion. If it does not happen, then we will deal with the problem in the way in which I described to the member.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question for the Attorney General.

The minister will be aware of the barring of 11-year-old Sandra Bernier from serving as an altar girl at Sacre-Coeur church in Toronto solely and only because of her gender. In the light of the minister's publicly espoused commitment to equality rights, particularly his support of the Justine Blainey case and his quest for fairness, could the minister advise the House what steps he intends to take to rectify this discrimination against this young girl?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I had not, frankly, turned my mind to the question of whether the provisions of the Human Rights Code applied to this particular case, but the honourable member can be sure I will do so. I thank him for his question.

Mr. O'Connor: To add to the weight of the argument, the minister will understand the parallel that does exist between the two cases. We are dealing here with two significant provincial institutions, one being the Ontario Hockey Association and one being the Roman Catholic Church, both of which are subject to the general laws of the province and one of which has been brought to its knees, so to speak, in allowing a young girl to play hockey on boys' teams.

Can the minister see the parallel and would he take that into account when determining whether it is subject to the Human Rights Code?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Only my honourable friend, like myself a Roman Catholic, could make the comparison of Mother Church and its outpost in Toronto to a hockey league, but I understand the point he has made and I undertake to look into the question of whether the provisions of the Human Rights Code apply to this particular case.

POLICE PURSUITS

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Almost every day the press reports another high-speed police chase in Ontario. We have the worst record in Canada for fatalities and injuries from this dangerous practice. When is the minister going to end this carnage by issuing a clear-cut statement to all police commissions and police forces in Ontario that high-speed police chases are not an acceptable method of law enforcement in this province?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I can say to the honourable member that at no time during my tenure of office will I be declaring a policy that totally alleviates and rids us of all high-speed chases. It is not my intention. In the very intensive review we have done, we intend to see how it can be restricted, so that there is an opportunity to weigh carefully all the voices that are heard on this issue. There is a very large constituency on both sides of the question. We are currently in the process of going through our cabinet committee on justice and then on to cabinet very shortly.

Ms. Bryden: The minister has been giving this answer and similar promises of impending action for almost two years, but nothing ever happens. In the meantime, innocent people are being killed or injured or suffer serious property damage. Public outcry is growing. When will the minister stop stalling and demand that police commissions and forces immediately start instituting alternatives to police chases and bring out guidelines which will assist them in the kind of alternatives he would recommend?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We have a set of guidelines at the moment that have been widely circulated. We are going to take new guidelines on which the work has just about been completed and will probably be passed as regulations which make them mandatory across the province.

At the moment, there are a set of guidelines in accordance with the number of police commissions, as each has chosen to develop its own, which are quite consistent with those of the government but not totally in line. Our new policy, which I know will be before the respective committees very, very shortly, will give additional guidance and alternative measures to police officers before they initiate a pursuit, and also when they consider the abandonment of same.

PIT BULL TERRIERS

Mr. Brandt: I too have a question for the Solicitor General on a different topic, if I can get the Solicitor General's attention. As he is well aware, there have been a number of reported incidents throughout Canada and the United States with respect to the problem that was raised, I believe, by one of his colleagues as well, relating to the control of pit bull terriers. Recently in Alberta there was another incident written up in the media with respect to another attack by this particular breed of animal.

As the minister is aware, these animals are not bred as pets; they are bred as fighting animals. I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he intends to bring forward any kind of additional regulatory control or legislation, which I think is badly needed in this province to control this type of vicious animal.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Prior to bringing forth any legislation, it is always appropriate to find out the extent of the problem as it exists or the amount of concern that exists in the province. I note in today's media a number of incidents that have occurred with regard to the pit bull terriers and it is my intention to ask our officials to try to determine how widespread the use and abuse of such animals really is in this province. That will give us some guidance as to whether we should bring forward some regulations to limit the keeping, the breeding, etc., of these animals.

Mr. Brandt: I have a supplementary, because I do not think the minister indicates the kind of urgency I would like to see from his government with respect to this problem.

I urge the minister to move on this as expeditiously as possible, before another attack occurs. These animals are simply not controllable by their owners. There has been incident after incident which indicated that once the animal charges and attacks, the owners cannot break the animal loose from whomever the victim might happen to be. Before someone else is attacked, I urge the minister to do something to control this particular blight in our province. It is a horrendous problem that is going to cause harm to some individual in the not-too-distant future if he does not take action.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am not sure whether there was a question. I did not hear one, but I might suggest that there is a particular act at the moment and it perhaps requires additional enforcement. The Dog Owners' Liability Act is one that would allow the police to take action against such dogs if they are shown to be unmanageable.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Minister of Labour with respect to a practice that was brought to my attention by the United Brewers Warehousing Workers' Provincial Board. The minister will know that Brewers' Warehousing is a private consortium of Labatt's, Carling and Molson breweries, and it has engaged the services, if we may refer to them as services, of a certain Robert Cronish, QC, who has been put on retainer to initiate appeals and to challenge the entitlement of the pension of every single employee of Brewers' Warehousing who is in receipt of a Workers' Compensation Board pension or benefit.

Each and every employee of Brewers' Warehousing who receives WCB benefits is having those benefits challenged.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. McClellan: Would the minister undertake an investigation of this situation and report back to the House on the propriety of the three largest breweries in this province abusing their employees in this way, abusing the Workers' Compensation Act and violating the rights of employees to workers' compensation?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I do not think it is necessarily a matter of Brewers' Warehousing, Brewers' Retail or the three largest brewing companies. That is a matter that the honourable raises, which, if true, would be of concern to me no matter who the employer would be.

I share the honourable member's concern over the obvious spinoff effects of this.

While we would not want in any way to impede the right of employers to challenge a claim for entitlement where they feel there is a good and sound case, or indeed to challenge the level of a pension -- that right, and I am sure the honourable member agrees with me, has always been given and is given fairly, just as the right is given on the other side -- I would be greatly concerned if that right is to be used in any and all cases in which an employer is involved, and I indicate to the honourable member and to the House that I will raise this matter with Dr.

Elgie, make inquiries and get back to the House as soon as I have further answers.

Mr. McClellan: I understand the difficulty of the situation, but I think it would be helpful if the Minister of Labour investigated and made a statement, at least about the propriety of Molson, Carling and Labatt's treating their employees or anybody in this way.

By way of supplementary, it is my information as well that the three brewers, through their consortium, are using the medical reports, which their friend Cronish obtains through these blanket challenges, to question the right of injured employees to work at Brewers' Warehousing and to use these medical reports as the basis for harassment and even dismissal of injured workers, as I say based on the medical reports that Mr. Cronish is able to obtain from the Workers' Compensation Board in the course of these spurious appeals.

May I ask the minister, therefore, to investigate that matter as well and to comment on when he will bring in an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Board that will provide mandatory reinstatement of injured workers with the accident employer as a matter of legal right?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I certainly will take up the additional issue that the honourable member has raised because there is an important principle at stake. I agree with the difficulty of the issue, but nevertheless I think it is one that needs to be addressed.

In terms of mandatory reinstatement, we are currently awaiting final comments from a number of parties on all sides of the issue of permanent partial disabilities. We have asked for these comments by the end of this month, and once we have received them we will begin to put together our package of amendments, which I hope to present to the House in the fall.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware that on May 25, a 160-ton crane overturned at the construction site of the domed stadium. His ministry's report on this incident has now been made available to us. This could have been a much more serious accident with potential loss of life, and his ministry's report indicates that the operation of moving the crane could have been carried out in a safe manner had the manufacturer's instructions been carried out, which they were not. Given this negligence on the part of Ellis-Don Construction, will his ministry be laying charges in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am glad my honourable friend has already reached a conclusion. The honourable member knows that these matters, where appropriate, are referred to the legal branch for consideration. Should it be deemed advisable that charges be laid, the appropriate charges against the employer will be laid.

Mr. Harris: Early fall?

Mr. Gillies: Now that the minister has the report from his own officials, we would have expected a somewhat more definitive answer. In view of the fact that this is one of the largest construction projects going on in the city of Toronto right now, probably in the province -- the number of workers and the amount of activity is considerable -- will the minister give this House an undertaking to make special efforts to have inspection services on site so that the many workers working at a feverish pace on the domed stadium are guaranteed the kind of protection they deserve?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can tell the honourable member that the frequency of inspections obviously g_s up with the complexity and size of these construction projects and it is no different in terms of the SkyDome project. As the honourable member points out, the inspection report into this crane incident, which we are very thankful did not lead to injuries or death, is now complete. Matters will go on to the legal branch. I know the honourable member knows the procedures that are followed. I am very surprised and really quite amazed that his colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr.

Harris) does not understand that these matters go forward in the regular way and are handled by the legal services branch of the ministry, so that politics is kept out of these very serious matters.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Housing. The minister is more than likely aware that on June 11, in his absence, I asked the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to pass on certain documents to him that indicated clearly that a landlord demanded $1,600 key money from tenants. I assume the Treasurer passed on that information. Can the minister report on the investigation his ministry carried out on The Eglinton Terrace Inc.?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have not yet seen that case and I am not aware of any cases where there was key money being handed to a landlord. If there are such, there are processes within the ministry that can handle that situation.

Mr. Grande: I am appalled that the Minister of Housing is standing in his place, 11 days after a question has been brought to this House where $1,600 key money had been paid by tenants to a landlord -- illegal money, according to his law, Bill 54 -- and the minister says he has done nothing up to now. I will pass the documents on to the minister if the Treasurer has not given them to him yet.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Grande: Would the minister get on with investigating this situation and lay charges with this landlord before other landlords get the idea that the Minister of Housing is not going to investigate illegal key money questions in this province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Lest the member go away feeling that the matter has not been investigated, I just said that I personally have not seen it. I understand from the Treasurer that he did pass it on to my staff. Please do not give the impression that we do not have a process in place to look after key money and a proper investigation take place.

Many times members rise in this House and feel we conduct investigations inside this House. The staff of the ministry is handling the matter, and I will personally get back to the member and give him an update of where the case is.

Mr. McFadden: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Housing about a matter of great concern to many tenants in Metropolitan Toronto. Numerous rental units in Metropolitan Toronto are being leased and then rented out as short-term residences to out-of-town visitors at inflated rates. As the minister is aware, it is illegal for landlords and tenants to rent out residential rental units if the rent charged is above the legal rent provided for under rent review.

My staff has discovered, for example, that Manfred Schon, president of Executive Suites Ltd., has possession of numerous apartment units in north Toronto for this purpose. My staff has raised this problem with the officials of the Ministry of Housing. Is this particular practice contrary to Bill 51, and if it is, when can we expect provincial housing legislation to be enforced to deal with this kind of practice?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Yes, the act is contrary to Bill 51; and as the honourable member stated or implied, a landlord cannot increase the rent more than once in any calendar year of that lease. If that is done, that makes it illegal. There is a process with which to deal with that.

Mr. McFadden: Besides the issue of the enforcement of the law, we have here a very serious situation where many tenants are tremendously anxious when they find strangers coming and going weekly out of neighbouring apartment units. Will the minister undertake to investigate thoroughly the instances of this kind of practice, which we understand is happening at 33 and 111 Davisville, 200 Balliol, 33 Orchard View Boulevard and 100 Wellesley Street East?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Definitely; if they are cases of impropriety, we will investigate and deal with the matter accordingly.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The people who have been travelling Highway 401 in my riding have been putting up with the deplorable condition of that particular part of the highway between Tilbury and Belle River for a long time. I understand there are no funds allocated for this fiscal year to do the work that is required to repair that stretch of the highway.

Can the minister tell us how much longer the people in that area have to put up with this deplorable condition of Highway 401 before he can get the the proper funds down there in the southern of this province to fix that highway?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member will know I was down there and visited that

section of the highway personally just a couple of weeks ago.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Does the member want an answer or not? The member was just as bad this morning on our competition.

I was down on that

section of the 401 a couple of weeks ago and gave the member the commitment, as I did to the other people, that I would consider that a very high priority and address it as quickly as I could.

Mr. Hayes: I do not know how the minister can say it is a high priority; maybe he could give us a date. What has happened is they have done a 22-kilometre stretch, and there is at least four or five times that much more to go. I would just like the minister at this time to give us a date when he is going to proceed with the work on the 401 and let the people down in that part of the province know that Ontario does not stop in London, Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: With the amount of attention Essex county has had from this government over the last two years, I think the people down in that area know full well that this government pays equal attention to them. The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) has been extremely successful in getting the attention of this government.

As I said in the first response, it was only, I think, two weeks ago last Friday that the matter of the westbound lanes of the 401 was brought to our attention. We are addressing that as a top priority. I cannot give the member an answer today because of the planning and technical reviews that are required, but I will at the earliest possible date, as I promised him and the people.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Would the minister please advise this House on what plans the ministry has to upgrade or expand and improve GO Transit service on the Stouffville, Markham-Unionville-Milliken and Richmond Hill-Langstaff lines?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member for York Centre will well know that on May 7 I made a statement in this House that outlined the transit forum advisory group that we were establishing. It is now functioning within the greater Toronto area, including the entire region of York. They are participating. Certainly, we are looking to those expansions of the GO service as well as other interregional transit systems and transportation services.

Mr. Cousens: York region has doubled in size in the last five years. We still have only one train going down from Markham-Unionville-Milliken to Union Station. We still have the same service of 10 years ago on the Richmond Hill-Langstaff line. We have no peak-time service. We have no service on Saturdays or Sundays. There is no doubt that the east-west lines are served far better than the north-south lines. How much of the $100 million that has been allocated in the budget is going to be spent in south York region?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Perhaps the member's colleague the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) would offer the Lakeshore extension funding to the Stouffville line. I do not expect that to happen. We made the financial commitment, in October 1985, to expand the Lakeshore line into Burlington and other places, which we are doing, and now we are looking at addressing the other needs on any other lines that are available to us, as the member well knows.

FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Could he explain when this government will be able to respond to the resolution passed by the annual conference of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs in Niagara Falls in early May, in which it said, because of the high price of fire protection equipment and the requests that have been made by small municipalities for provincial assistance, that the provincial government should respond to the unanimous decision of the Legislative Assembly that such assistance be provided to small municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: One of the things we would look at in that regard is some of the other things we were doing to assist those same municipalities. Last year at approximately the same time there was a great demand from a number of members in both parties opposite for additional opportunities for the training of the volunteer sector of our firefighting department. We have increased that, as they know, very substantially this year to many more classes and additional staff at the Ontario Fire College, so that trained firefighters will be the emphasis we are placing this year in our firefighting program.

Mr. Wildman: Perhaps the minister can make clear to us what he intends to train these firefighters to use if they do not have the hoses and nozzles, the protective equipment, the pumps and the vehicles they need in order to fight fires? There is no question they need more training, but surely they need the equipment on which to be trained.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Yes, we all need equipment, but I think a survey of these northern units would find there has been considerable equipment provided for them through the northern development fund that has been established. They have had a great deal of it; they can always use more, as can every municipality everywhere.

HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY

Mr. Andrewes: I was inclined to ask a question of the minister without portfolio, but I see he is probably very busy with his plaques.

I want to put a question to the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware of something called a memorandum of understanding, which normally exists between ministers and the heads of crown agencies, which allows the minister to give certain policy direction to those crown agencies.

Can the Minister of the Environment tell me what direction he has given to the Ontario Waste Management Corp. regarding the researching and development of alternative technologies to the absolutely monstrous proposal it has proposed for my riding?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is interesting that in the last few years it has changed from a proposal to a monstrous proposal in the member's riding, but I certainly understand the member's concern at this time to ensure that there is an appropriate process followed.

In regard to the Ontario Waste Management Corp., which Premier Davis set up a number of years ago to deal with the problem of waste management in the province, particularly that of a hazardous nature, there is indeed a memorandum of understanding between the ministry and the OWMC.

I can tell the member that on many public occasions -- and I think he may be aware of this if I try to stir his memory in this regard -- I have indicated a desire to see a number of options looked at in terms of dealing with hazardous wastes in the province.

The member may recall that even last week I was discussing this at a waste management conference where I indicated that our ministry is involved in the business of encouraging industries to deal with many of their wastes at the site itself, either by the changing of process or by simply not utilizing materials in the first place that would produce this kind of material.

On a number of public occasions I have indicated to our ministry and to the OWMC that all possibilities should be explored in this regard.

Mr. Andrewes: I do not want to let the minister get away with scattering the pebbles on everything. Let us be specific. What policy direction, which it is the minister's prerogative to give through the memorandum of understanding, has the minister given to the Ontario Waste Management Corp. with regard to alternative technologies?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The mandate that Premier Davis established for the OWMC is a mandate that the OWMC is supposed to follow. I have indicated that I believe the OWMC should be following that particular mandate that was set out by the former Premier of this province when he established that corporation. When the member was a member of the cabinet, he will perhaps recall some of the discussions that took place at that time before there was a siting of the proposed facility in the constituency he represents. That is understandable.

I want to indicate, as the member would know, that in terms of process it is highly inopportune and inappropriate for the Minister of the Environment to interfere politically in the environmental assessment process as it relates to the OWMC. As the member will recall, before the site was selected, at a time when the member himself was somewhat neutral to the project, I indicated at that time that I would not give a political decision on the siting of the facility or the kind of facility that would be located there.

FILM INDUSTRY

Mr. Allen: A question to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture: As she knows, her ministry has responsibility for a program, the Ontario Film Development Corp. With respect to the development of film in this province, I think she would be happy, as I am happy, that there have been so many foreign film crews in the province, in Toronto and neighbouring cities doing film development.

Is the minister aware that the foreign film developers in this province, rather than availing themselves regularly of our own film technicians, accountants and other personnel who are necessary for mounting these film operations fly in outside personnel on a spot basis, such as director technicians or what have you, of whom we have very competent members in this province? What is she doing to protect the positions of those specialized people in film development in our province who so badly need that work and whom we need to give the work to in order to develop their crafts?

Hon. Ms. Munro: The ministry has been working with that particular cultural industry for a period of over two years. It is also pursuing the questions that the member has raised through the Ontario Film Development Corp. In terms of public issues that I have been stating, I have been recommending to various film endeavours to continue to use technicians and creative people living and residing in Ontario. I will continue to take forward the issue the member has raised. I wish to assure him, however, that it is an issue I am familiar with.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you orally, under standing order 30(a), notice of my dissatisfaction with the answer of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to my question about speech pathology. I will be filing the appropriate notice.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can have the attention of the members. We have now come to petitions. Do any members have any petitions? Reports by committees?

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Laughren: I will make a very brief statement. There are a number of things I would like to have said about the committee's work. The committee worked very hard in coming up with a report on which there was consensus and then attached two minority reports to it; but I must say the whole process became redundant when the minister introduced legislation.

As committee chairman, I am getting increasingly concerned about committees going down one track and the ministers of the crown going down another track, meaning that the committees are very often spinning their wheels and doing work that really has no relevance when the ministers of the crown decide to go their own ways. I think of a couple of examples.

One was this one where the committee was working very hard on the whole question of termination and severance pay, employee adjustment, justification for shutdowns and specific references to northern Ontario, and just as the committee completed its work, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) introduced his legislation. I think the government has to understand that if the committees are going to do good work, they have to feel they are doing relevant work.

The other example was when the same committee was holding public hearings on Bill 115, the Ontario Lottery Corporation Amendment Act. When the government moved it to third reading, it was referred back here to third reading and then the government decided not to call it for third reading.

If members of the assembly, particularly of the government and the cabinet, want committees to continue to do the important work of this assembly, they are going to have to treat the work those committees do in a more serious way and not regard them as simply something to take the heat off the government.

I, as just one committee chairman -- I am not trying to attach any more importance to that position than it deserves -- find it offensive to chair a committee, see members of all three parties working extremely hard on the reports, and then have all the work undone because of some kind of self-serving decision on the part of the cabinet.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. D. R. Cooke from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: This report is a unanimous report, but I have to emphasize it is a report of observation as opposed to recommendations that the committee made during its visit to Washington in April this year during which time we concentrated our efforts on discussions with members of the Congress concerning trade relations between the United States and Ontario. The committee was fortunate enough to meet in a very short period of time with, I believe, something in the neighbourhood of 17 congressmen and senators.

I would suggest that the one theme in these observations is that these discussions for the reasons of our very much intertwined trade situation should continue as often and as thoroughly as possible.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cousens moved first reading of Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Election Act, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cousens: This is a bill whereby, when it is passed, members of the armed forces, their spouses and their children who are of voting age will be allowed to vote in Ontario elections without having to fulfil the six months' residency status required under present legislation. This means that we show a special understanding of those who serve our country, who are moving not only within Canada but also across the world in the service of their land, when they come back to Ontario. Knowing they have kept in touch with what is going on in the province, they will then have an immediate --

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other principle in the bill? You have explained the principle. You are now debating it.

Mr. Cousens: Therefore, I hope the House will appreciate the service of our armed forces and will quickly expedite the passage of this bill.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Warner moved first reading of Bill 90,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Warner: Before we move to second reading, the purpose of the bill is to provide a vote on both the board of governors and the college council for students and staff members. The representatives are to be democratically elected by their peers with equal numbers of males and females from each group.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 79,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am pleased to lead off the debate on this legislation, Bill 79, the successor legislation to Bill 101, which will provide for worker and community right to know.

I think it is fair to suggest that the measure before the House today, for which we are asking approval in principle at this time, is central to the effort to prevent work place injury and illness. I know that all members are keenly aware of and interested in that matter and I look forward to contributions from all sides of the House.

In the last two years in which I have served as the Minister of Labour, it has become clear that optimal work place health and safety in Ontario requires, first, the vigilant and vigorous exercise of mutual responsibility by both labour and management in our work places; and second, the right mixture of prevention and protection with the accent on prevention.

The government proposal we are debating today, Bill 79, seeks to enhance both, for it seeks to provide the work place parties with information that they need to operate with the greater awareness that will produce prevention. It provides for full disclosure to employees of hazardous materials in the work place. It provides for participation by this province in the national work place hazardous materials information system, or WHMIS, which will ensure that information is presented to employees in a clear and understandable way, and most important, in a practical way.

It provides that workers will receive the kind of training they need to make effective use of the information they have received, something that has not happened in the past, and if we are to talk about prevention something that will have to happen in the future.

Bill 79, which we are debating today, is designed to make sure that workers do know what is in the work place, what the potential hazards are and how to obviate those potential hazards.

Before I outline the clauses in this legislation, let me take members back to how the national right-to-know scheme will work, the WHMIS scheme. Through an amended Hazardous Products Act, Parliament intends to place duties on persons who supply hazardous materials for use in the work place. These duties will be to evaluate the material pursuant to criteria set out in the regulations.

Where the material is deemed to be hazardous, labels on each container of the product will be required. As well, material safety data sheets will be required with the first consignment of the product to the work place. Details for the content of the labels and the MSDSs will be set out again in the federal regulations. The federal legislation will also provide exemptions from the disclosure of specific information for companies that fear their trade secrets will be breached. An agency to assess exemption requests, along with an appeals mechanism, will be created.

All that will come forward later this month. As I understand it, the federal government right now is either having or shortly will be having discussions at the committee stage, even while the final wording is being put on the amendments to the Hazardous Products Act. Those amendments will be presented later this month and it is expected they will pass before Parliament adjourns for the spring.

At the same time, our bill in Ontario, in concert with WHMIS, will require the employer to ensure that the labels and the MSDSs are present in the work place and that they are used by the people working with the substances. Employers would also have duties, where the product is produced in-house, to evaluate and provide labels. In both cases, the employer would require material safety data sheets to provide worker training.

It is specifically because this province is participating in the national scheme that much of the detail for our right-to-know system will be set out in the regulations. This approach will ensure that we have the flexibility, and we do need it, to be consistent with the federal legislation and indeed with the legislation that will be coming forward from our sister provinces.

In parallel with WHMIS, the main themes of Bill 79 involve ensuring, first, that clear information on hazardous materials and agents is disclosed at the work place; and second, that workers are trained to use that information in an effective manner. Bill 79, however, goes beyond the national base established by WHMIS in three important respects. It provides for inventories of hazardous materials and agents to be created and disclosed. It provides for information on physical hazards as well as chemical and biological ones, and uniquely it creates a community right to know about hazards in local work places.

In the area of disclosure, the proposed

section 22b places a duty on employers to ensure that hazardous substances present in the work place are labelled and that MSDSs are obtained or prepared by the employer. Further, an employer must ensure that a material is not used at all unless the requirements concerning labels, material safety data sheets and worker training have been met. All would have to be met before the material could be used in the work place.

Section 22e provides for an exemption from disclosure requirements for confidential business information validated by a board. In addition, confidential business information is exempt from disclosure from the time a claim is filed until the claim is finally determined. Our government would have the power to accept an agency established by the federal government to validate confidential business information. Of important note, however, is the fact that the bill also provides for disclosure of confidential business information so that patients can be treated in medical emergencies.

The proposed

section 22g provides that an employer shall ensure that a worker exposed, or likely to be exposed, to a hazardous physical agent, receives instruction and training. The instruction and training are to be developed in consultation with the joint health and safety committee and they are to be reviewed at least once a year.

Section 22f that is now proposed in Bill 79 provides that information is to be available to workers who are likely to be exposed to a hazardous physical agent such as lasers or noise. It requires that this information be furnished to the joint health and safety committee or to the worker representative, as the case may be. In addition, a notice must be posted identifying and warning of the hazardous physical agent in that part of the work place in which the thing is used or operated.

The proposed clause 22a(2)(

b) requires an inventory of hazardous materials to be prepared in consultation with the workers, to be maintained in the work place and to be made available to all workers in the work place.

I have been having some discussions with my colleagues in the other two parties and I want to indicate, in anticipation of some of the comments they will make, and to the House in general, that we intend to move amendments to

section 22c to strengthen the community right-to-know provisions. Employers will be required to furnish inventories automatically to medical officers of health and fire departments in their localities when prescribed by the regulations. This will allow and ought to allow for an orderly phase-in of these provisions.

These amendments that we will come forward with will be in addition to the provisions in the existing

section 22c of the bill. These existing provisions provide that the inventory and the material safety data sheets are to be made available to the local MOHs and to the local fire departments upon request. This means that members of the public may request a copy of the inventory and of the material safety data sheets through the local medical officer of health, whether the inventory has been automatically filed or not.

In addition, the amendments I will be introducing will protect the confidentiality of those requesting information from medical officers of health. The bill also empowers the government to phase in the mandatory reporting of inventories to the Ministry of Labour. This constitutes a change from the original bill, and I want to indicate that very clearly. I know my friends the critics for the other two parties understand this, but I want the House to understand it is a change from the original bill, which required the immediate filing with the provincial government of all inventories.

Quite frankly, we have made the modification because we have concluded that phased-in reporting to the province itself will make for a more orderly flow of information and therefore a more practical and workable system, one in which the government will have the flexibility to set priorities and address the high-risk areas first.

Finally, the bill provides for its measures to come into force on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor. This will ensure that the legislation to implement the national right-to-know scheme, the work place hazardous materials information system scheme, comes into force on the same day all across this country.

As I indicated at the outset of the debate, the right to know about hazardous materials in the work place in clear and contemporary ways is basic to prevention of work place illness and injury. I believe the measure that is now before the House for second reading provides for such a right in a most progressive and constructive way and I hope this assembly will permit its speedy passage.

Mr. Martel: I might indicate that the member for Lambton (Mr. D. W. Smith) and I have agreed to reverse positions and I am going to lead off.

It would have been really decent for the Minister of Labour to have indicated as we debated this, and he had his opportunity -- but then he is gracious, as ever -- that as late as last Thursday, until he received copies of my amendments, his bill was not going to make it compulsory for people to report. He is now prepared to move some amendments. We are still discussing those amendments as to precisely what they will say, but as late as last Thursday and on the weekend when I spoke to some of his staff and for two hours this morning when we went over amendments that we could work out, he had no intention of having that mandatory aspect in the bill.

I am glad he has come on side at this late moment but it is interesting that he would not indicate what prompted him -- let us put it that way -- to change his own bill, which was introduced only last week, because it certainly was not their intention to do so.

I have to indicate that it is my intention to dwell on this legislation at some length because of some serious problems. The WHMIS bill of course, as the minister knows, is going to provide for chemical, biological and hazardous physical agents in the work place and that is a step forward. However, that has not come about because people are really concerned about workers' rights; it really has not. It has come about because of cost.

The fact that people die in the work place every day, one every working day of the year in this province, and that it is estimated that 6,000 people are losing their lives annually in Ontario alone due to stress or carcinogens according to Dr. Yassi, or that 3,600 die in Canada annually from cancer, is not what has prompted this particular piece of legislation.

Let us see what is happening in Canada. "In Canada, more working days are lost through accidents and illnesses than through industrial disputes." Can the members imagine that? "Findings of a federal socioeconomic impact analysis completed in 1985 on the use of hazardous materials in the work place estimated the social costs due to exposure as a result of their use in 1984 to be about $600 million." That kind of jolts people into wanting to do something.

"These costs represent approximately 31 per cent of all payments made by the workmen's compensation boards in Canada, although only a small portion of the $600 million was actually compensated by the boards. These costs include injuries, illnesses, fatalities, cancer-related diseases and fires." It is interesting, though, that the majority of cancer cases are not compensated yet, because we cannot prove -- that is the theory -- that they are caused by exposure to industrial toxins.

Last week in this Legislature, we had the whole matter of the gold miners. We are in this dilemma that 600 or 700 people have died. We know they have died because of something in the work place, something that may be called dustiness, but in fact we have not been able to attribute the actual cause. We know the general population is not dying from those causes; therefore, it must be something in the work place. How are we going to compensate? We have now brought it down to the fact that we might compensate 90. Is that not wonderful? I am not sure how you pick the 90. That is for lung disease.

Radon daughters in Elliot Lake are what they are compensating for, but in the gold mines radon daughters are not given much credibility as one of the factors. It seems illogical.

Gold miners have a much higher incidence of stomach cancer. We do not know why and we have to try to prove what is causing this. The point I am trying to make, though, is that these people are not compensated. They are not in these statistics.

As Weiler said, I guess in his second report, the costs for industrial diseases will in fact eventually exceed compensable accidents. That is worrisome, because we have known many of the causes of industrial diseases for years. For example, we knew that cancer would be caused from exposure to uranium. The first case was brought to light in 1919 in Czechoslovakia. We went our merry way for the next number of years, until right now in Elliot Lake there are approximately three miners dying from cancer per month.

It is overwhelming but we really have not done much with this. Really, the work place hazardous materials information system is a labelling process. We are going to label things and we are going to know they are a danger. That is some advance because I recall questioning this minister about Falconbridge and the fact that it brought in uranium that was involved with nickel. The workers were not warned that they were working with uranium. Falconbridge wanted to make its money on extracting the nickel from that particular material.

"The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration has indicated that approximately 25 million workers -- about one in four in the American labour force -- are exposed to one or more chemical hazards. The same situation likely exists in the Canadian context. In 1985, there were an estimated 575,000 existing chemical products in the US and hundreds of new ones being introduced annually. This poses a very severe problem for workers."

I have always taken the position that what in fact you have to do is to pre-market-test anything that comes on to the market, but you cannot convince governments to protect people. Industry goes crazy when you say to pre-market-test stuff. They go absolutely bananas. Look at Thalidomide, and what we have done to so many youngsters. We are not prepared to say that if you want to put something on the market, it has to be safe and the onus is on the producer to make it safe. We will not do that. We do not have the courage. You hear all the excuses. "It is going to hurt our industry." So what?

Do we hurt people or do we make them pre-market-test it if they want to sell it? Of course, I take the latter view. My free enterprise friends say: "It is okay. Poison them. When you kill enough of them, we will do something to regulate it."

One only has to look at asbestos. One only has to look at uranium. We knew uranium was going to kill people. One only has to look at the old sintering plant. One only has to look at Bendix in the minister's own riding. But to talk about pre-market-testing drives the free enterprisers absolutely crazy. I do not know why. You have to drive safely in this country. Theoretically, you are not allowed to go out and kill someone. But you can put something on the market and if it kills someone, so what? Too bad for those who got killed or died from it.

There is something seriously wrong with that whole concept, to my way of thinking at least. I am told that I am not very progressive, that we cannot do that to industry. I say to industry: "So what? If you want to sell it, make sure it is safe."

Let me continue: "Exposure to hazardous materials may cause or contribute to many serious health effects, such as heart ailments, kidney and lung damage, sterility, cancer, burns, rashes. Some hazardous materials may also be safety hazards and have the potential to cause fires and explosions and other serious accidents. "

That is the background against which we bring in a WHMIS bill, a bill that will label material so workers know or will get data sheets that will tell us of the possible dangers. I am going to come back to this theme in a few moments because even that is a farce. We do not test anything. Nothing we have on the market has been adequately tested to this time; there are 58,000 or 60,000 we are looking at.

I want to tell members the reason I have some difficulty with this. We bring in

an act. Of course, I read the minister's statement last week or the week before when he introduced the bill. You would think he had invented WHMIS. Today, he talks about amendments that he did not intend to move. He does not say who was pushing him. He does not say that he was going to let the bill go without making it mandatory and so on. He has changed. Is that not strange? He shakes his head. He will have his opportunity. I listened carefully to him.

I want to tell members what is wrong. I want to quote a document I got. When we raised this document in the House, the minister chose to ignore responding to it. It is his own advisory council, a group appointed by him to give him advice as to what he should be doing with respect to occupational health and safety. His own advisory council said, "The promise of an improvement in the future wellbeing of workers implied in the royal commission has, for the most part, gone unfulfilled."

I can be accused of being biased, and I am, I have never shrugged away from that; but if I were told by my own advisory council, made up of people from industry, the university community and labour, that Bill 79 has not worked and is not doing what it is supposed to do unless we change the way Bill 79 works, then these amendments will not be worth a row of beans.

That is one of the reasons I moved the eight amendments that I did; I gave them to the minister last Thursday as prescribed under the rules, and today he comes back and is making a change. He does not say why. It is the age of enlightenment, I guess. Somebody on his staff said to him, I am sure, "Bill, I think you should move these." It has nothing to do with the amendments I presented to him. I am sure the minister was going to do it all on his own, and if you believe that then I have a bridge I want to sell you after.

The advisory council went on to say the following: "Ministry of Labour inspectors write thousands of orders every year to correct violations of the act and regulations. This apparent lack of measurable progress at the shop floor is evident also in the result of council surveys of joint health and safety committees." I want the members to keep tab of that, because I am going to tell members why the minister has to change the act.

At this point I will just refer to the fact that when the survey was done for this advisory council, of 3,000 companies surveyed the Ministry of Labour did not know that fully 1,500 had toxic substances in the work place. The Ministry of Labour did not know that one half of the places were using toxic substances.

His bill did not read clearly. He says: "I did not understand it. Certainly, my staff did not understand it." I want to tell the members that the Metropolitan Toronto people examining this bill did not understand it. I am going to quote from the bill and maybe the members will be able to understand my dilemma; perhaps they can tell me what this means.

"22c(1) A copy of the most recent version of the inventory and of every unexpired material safety data sheet required by this

part in respect of hazardous materials in a work place shall be. . . (

c) furnished by the employer to the medical officer of health of the health unit in which the work place is located upon the request of the medical officer of health."

What does that mean? Does that mean it is compulsory to report? I see my friend shaking his head. Certainly it does not, and I agree with him and he agrees with me, and my amendments address that. It says you have to report. It has to be compulsory to report; otherwise you will never know you have a survey that says of 3,000 companies surveyed, the Ministry of Labour did not even know that in 1,500 of them there were toxic substances.

It goes on to say the same for the fire department; and finally, shall be "filed with a director." I simply say that the survey indicated these places were not reporting and the Minister of Labour did not know. I read that

section of the act and it certainly does not read to me as though it is compulsory to report. If that is what the minister meant, I will accept his word, but that is not what it reads, and I think there is some agreement on that.

The Minister of Labour gets up today and attempts to create the illusion that the whiz kid from Windsor, himself, none other, saw the problem and he is going to fix it up by his statement today. He would not say, "Look, somebody else discovered it." He does not have to name me; I could not care less. On reflection, he could have said, "Concern has been raised by other people about what was not clear and we want to clarify it;" but not the minister.

I have some difficulty, and I quote this particular document because the minister's own advisory council is really upset. Listen to what else it says:

"The apparent lack of measurable progress at the shop floor has been a growing source of frustration to workers and their representatives. Considerable frustration has been experienced by both labour and management in trying to obtain, from the Ministry of Labour, information and

interpretation. Concern has been expressed at the general lack of training of work place parties. Frustration with the ministry has now escalated to a point where a polarized atmosphere pervades the occupational health and safety scene just as it did in the period leading up to the formulation of the Ham royal commission."

The council goes on to say:

"One obvious manifestation of this polarization has been the withdrawal of organized labour from the formal standard-setting process and the apparent lack of any progress on the part of the ministry to resolving this impasse. Other illustrations of discontent and dissatisfaction include the allegations contained in the Ontario Public Service Employees Union brief on behalf of the ministry inspectors concerned, expressed about the lack of meaningful consultation with all the stakeholders and the support given to the private member's bill, Bill 149, in the Legislature." That happens to be my bill.

There is a problem. The minister can make these amendments to Bill 79 if he wants, but if he does not clear up the other problems with respect to Bill 79, then he can add amendments till hell freezes over and he is not going to protect another worker one little more. He really is not.

A friend of mine once said the right to know about hazardous chemicals, biological agents and hazardous physical agents is essential for workers to act to protect themselves, and that is a true statement. Knowledge, however, in and of itself, does not provide protection. Think about that. You can have the knowledge that that is a hazardous substance, but if you do not have the power to protect yourself, what good is it? That is what Bill 79 does not do for the workers. Knowledge in and of itself does not provide protection.

As Bob Sass, the former Deputy Minister of Labour in Saskatchewan, has said: "Knowledge is not power. Power is power." We know in this province who has power, and it is not workers. It is interesting that it is workers who die. I do not know how many owners got killed last year in the work place. I know a worker a day died in the province. I do not know how many owners died. I know there were 442,000 accidents. I wonder how many of them were owners How many of them were on the board of directors? How many were the managers and how many were the workers? Interestingly enough, who has all the power? Not the workers; they have none.

My friend puts his eyes up in the air. I want to tell him he does not understand Bill 79. He does not, because the final power in Bill 79 rests totally and completely with management. If he does not believe me, I will give him a lesson in the bill.

Mr. Fontaine: They don't work in the mill.

Mr. Martel: Well the mill; who gets hurt in the mill? I must say to my friend I also worked in the mines. I worked on the railroad. I know what it is like there. I know what protection I had.

Mr. Fontaine: Go back. It has changed

Mr. Martel: It has not changed. Tell me why there were 442,000 accidents last year.

Mr. Fontaine: It is not all the fault of the companies, either.

Mr. Martel: I do not suggest that for a moment. What I am suggesting is that they share power in the work place equitably. I hope my friend would agree with that much, because we have to get accidents and illnesses down. We have to get rid of some of these ideas that it is managerial right only. We have to work to reduce accidents. It is the only solution. I agree with him. It is too bad the government would not, because the Minister of Labour's amendments leave all the power with management. His proposed amendments in his white paper change nothing of the power structure, absolutely nothing. That is what is wrong.

I say to my friend that I agree with him. We have to get those on; we have to stop those accidents. We do not need to be killing people. There are going to be accidents that are accidental, but there are many we could avoid and we have to work to that. If that means taking a little power away and sharing it equally, my friend and I are on the same track. We are on the same track, but we do not have it yet.

We can have this new information coming into the work place, but if workers have no power -- equal power, shared power -- then it does not matter, if they cannot protect themselves. This step has taken five years. Now we have labelling and now we have data sheets, but we still do not have power. The act has been in power for 10 years. It is time it was changed. The proposed amendments will not do it.

It is interesting to note that this was an agreement too among labour, management and government. It was tough slugging. It involved the provincial, federal and territorial governments. Do members know who was not involved in the bill presented to the House last week? Labour. The Minister of Labour introduced the bill, and after the bill was introduced a copy was sent to labour.

We had all the negotiations between management, labour, the federal government, the provincial government and the territories, and we got a WHMIS agreement. We got a bill drafted -- the second copy, by the way. Labour was not involved at all. I do not know whether management was involved. I would have hoped labour would have been involved, and I would have hoped that management would have been involved, but they were not.

That is consultation? Do members see why the minister's advisory council has put this tough memorandum, three pages, to the minister? He ignores them. They are so frustrated that they have written what is the toughest document I have ever seen against the minister, by his own advisory council. Its members are just there filling space. The minister calls on them when he feels like it for 30 seconds or 30 minutes and then summarily dismisses them. That is why they wrote that report, by the way.

Now we have the WHMIS agreement and we have the legislation in the Legislature. Labour was not involved. I do not know whether management was involved; I suspect it was not. If it had been, the hassle we are going to go through this afternoon because we do not understand the bill -- labour did not understand the bill and the Metropolitan Toronto council did not understand the bill -- would have been worked out before we brought it in here. But no, this minister and his ministry, which has been in trouble over occupational health for years, continues to persist.

Let me tell members another interesting thing. I introduced Bill 99 on January 14, 1986. In that bill, I put in the right to know for the community for a very definite reason. Lead or toxic substances carried in air do not understand the fence that is in their way. Those materials go beyond the boundaries of a plant.

My friend from Hearst, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), knows that in a mill community it is the smell that goes a long distance. Nothing stops it. There is no barrier there. That is why the community should have a right to know: so people who live adjacent to a plant, like the lead plant in Toronto that has caused such hardship, can go to the medical officer of health and ask.

The Minister of Labour did not want that in his bill originally. The day I introduced my legislation, the press raised with the minister the right to know in the community. Members of the press might not be telling the truth, but they came back to me and said: "Bill Wrye does not want it. We got it straight from Bill Wrye, not one of his officials, that he does not intend to include in his bill the community right to know."

I will never know whether that is factual or not. All I know is what the press told me was the minister's response the day my bill was introduced. He might have been tired from the night before, or something like that, or his eye might have been bothering him and he did not understand what they were asking him, but I know what they told me after they spoke to him. He said he was not going to include the community right to know.

Like the amendments today that he has so generously indicated to this House he was going to move on his own, without any prompting, without any help, he chose to indicate that he was not going to do it. That is what the Toronto Star and a number of other newspapers told me. People get into trouble out in the scrum. They say things out there, and darned if those reporters do not put them on tape or something like that and run back and talk to us about it and say, "Do you want to comment on what the minister said?" In fact, that is what transpired.

Anyway, the minister, with his usual insight and perspicacity, included it. I am glad it is there. Whether you had to struggle or rassle him to the ground to do it, it is there, and that is a move forward. However, I worry about this minister, because he then introduced Bill 101. His first bill was much tougher than his second one. The minister shakes his head. Then it was much clearer. All people beyond the ministry must be mixed up on Bill 79 --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Just you.

Mr. Martel: Just me? It must have included Metropolitan Toronto. It must have included Linda Jolley, the representative of the Ontario Federation of Labour. The minister might want to trade comments with her some time because she is the most knowledgeable person in this province on occupational health. She must have misunderstood it as well. I spent part of yesterday afternoon with her, and she misunderstood it. Everybody misunderstood except the Minister of Labour.

That is like McKenzie and Laskin. Everybody said there is something wrong with the Ministry of Labour and what is going on there, except the little band of hooligans the minister hired and paid $483,000 to do a report, a report which exonerated management. If you pay somebody $483,000 you are going to get the type of report you want, particularly if it is done in camera and you cannot talk to anybody or cross-examine anybody. You have to take his word for it.

In fact, it is interesting: McKenzie and Laskin kicked the hell out of the staff of the Ministry of Labour, particularly those darned inspectors and me and my friends in the trade union movement. It is an insidious plot; that is what it is. "This is a plot for workers to get control of the means of production in the province of Ontario." One Mr. McKenzie said that. "It is a bit of subversion on their part to gain control of the means of production in the province using occupational health and safety."

McKenzie must get up in the middle of the night and look under his bed to see whether there is a worker there trying to subvert the system. I bet that fellow has nightmares every night and has to get up. He sets the alarm clock, I am told, just to make sure he gets up every morning at 3 a.m. to look under the bed to see there is somebody there who is fomenting a plot against industry in this province.

Mr. Philip: The Frank Drea of labour.

Mr. Martel: Yes. The guy is mad. McKenzie and Laskin and the Minister of Labour are the only ones who believe there is nothing wrong or amiss out in the province with respect to Bill 79. Of course, none of us understood Bill 79 -- we have just heard him say it -- so he introduces this thing last week.

When he introduced Bill 79, like our friend who was the Minister of Community and Social Services for a couple of months, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) after Bill 101, the only thing I am convinced of, I say to the minister with the greatest of respect, is that he must have been mugged in the halls of power when he brought Bill 79 back, because it is not as strong or as clear --

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: The minister says it is, but he is already going to move three or four amendments himself one week later. Spare me.

Let us go on. I say to the minister, what use is a right to know if there is nothing to know? While the Ministry of Labour had to agree that WHMIS did not involve testing in any way, it is clear that testing of the work place materials is essential to giving any meaning to the right to know. In the United States, in a study entitled Toxicity Testing: Strategies to Determine Needs and Priorities, almost 80 per cent of 48,000 chemicals found in our work places had no toxicological information available. In other words, they had never been tested. For the other 20 per cent, the information was judged to be partial or minimal at best.

Not one work place chemical was judged to have been completely and properly tested. The minister can tell me about labelling all this stuff and putting on a danger sign, but we have not tested and we do not test what we are putting into the work place, and we are exposing people to it. Can anyone tell me how stupid that really is?

Think back to thalidomide, just as one drug, and what it did to scores of children. Imagine the same thing occurring with the chemicals we put in the work place. We put them in and we do not even know the effects. We have no idea what they are going to do, but we put them in.

When we stack up the bodies -- and by the way, in this business, of course, for those of you who do not follow it very carefully, it takes many of these substances 20 or 30 years to show themselves. My friend the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) knows that in the old sintering plants there were many people he knows in his community who died from cancer, I guess of the nasal passage.

Mr. Haggerty: The first one.

Mr. Martel: The first one was there, yes, because they did not know.

We can test all these things or we can say you can put a label on i