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

April 29, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

FUEL CONVERSION PROGRAM

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

HYDRO EXPORTS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

EQUAL PAY

COMPENSATION FOR UFFI HOME OWNERS

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

STOL SERVICE

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGES

EQUAL PAY

PETITION

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO HYDRO

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL INTEREST AND DISCOUNT RATES ACT

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

FUEL CONVERSION PROGRAM

Mr. Samis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: A week ago the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and I raised several questions about a report from officials within the Ministry of Labour regarding hazards involving the approximately 13,000 vehicles in this province that were converted to propane. At the time, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) said he was not aware of the report, but he was rather upset by its contents.

In view of the serious nature of the allegations in that report affecting the health and safety of motorists in this province, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could use your good office to ascertain if the minister will report to the House on whether he has done anything as a result of the report, or whether he has decided not to accept the report. Surely, members of this House are entitled either to a statement or to a response from the minister in view of the seriousness of the allegations.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister will take note of the member's concern, and will respond as quickly as possible. I shall draw it to his attention.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I know that many of the honourable members have been following the issues raised in the last number of months concerning the Whitchurch-Stouffville landfill site operated by York Sanitation Co. Ltd. There has been a considerable amount of concern among residents of that community that the quality of their drinking water has been affected by leachate from the landfill site. While the public health concern is not supported by the evidence gathered in an extensive and far-reaching water quality monitoring program by my ministry, it does persist in the minds of the many residents.

I believe their peace of mind will benefit substantially from three decisions I am announcing today.

First, the ministry's director of environmental approvals, after an extensive review with qualified technical advisers, has rejected a proposed expansion of the York Sanitation landfill operations.

Second, the director is preparing a notice to revise the certificate of approval for the existing operation. This will set stringent environmental controls, spell out the quantity of wastes that will be permitted at the site and serve notice to the owner that the site will no longer accept garbage after June 30, 1983. It will likely take a further six months to properly restore the site as part of the close-out procedure.

Third, my ministry is requiring the operator to provide water service from the Stouffville municipal system to the 12 homes closest to the landfill site.

As members know, following extensive hearings last year the Environmental Assessment Board recommended that approval be given to the application by York Sanitation to expand landfill operations into adjoining areas of their property. The director of environmental approvals, who is responsible for certification of waste management sites and other community services, reviewed this recommendation, all relevant documents and technical evidence and a continuing flow of scientific information from monitoring activities in the area. Based on this review and continuing consultation with qualified technical staff, he has ruled against the application to expand.

There are a number of technical considerations that are key to this decision:

First, the application for expansion submitted by the applicant is conceptual and lacks the necessary information and data required by the ministry to evaluate the proposal fully.

Second, the information that has been provided has some fundamental errors which make the proposal unacceptable since the site may create a nuisance and a health hazard. In addition, ministry staff and the director are not satisfied that the liner which York Sanitation proposed to use would provide the degree of protection required for the landfill operation.

Third, it is apparent from studies that the area proposed for expansion is significantly different and more sensitive than the areas which were previously landfilled. The northern portion is a significant source of necessary ground water recharge and therefore susceptible to contamination from filling the northern portion.

Fourth, the Ministry of Natural Resources has advised us that part of the proposed landfill expansion falls in a provincially significant natural bog area containing several regionally rare plants which would be adversely affected.

The existing landfill operations at the site have been conducted under short-term certificates of approval issued by the director while ministry staff studied all facets of the application and the operation of the existing site in relation to the extensive monitoring we are now conducting in the area.

To date, we have completed more than 25,000 analyses of some 2,000 samples of drinking water taken from wells in the area. Although all of the analyses to date have not detected levels of any hazardous contaminants in the local wells attributable to the landfill site, the disposal operation did produce detectable changes in some of the nonhealth-related parameters, such as hardness, sulphates and chlorides. While these upward trends are not significant in themselves, they must be considered in conjunction with the history of the site.

Therefore we have decided to take the additional two measures which I outlined for the long-term protection of the local environment and community health.

We will order the company to provide a municipal water supply from Stouffville to the 12 properties closest to the landfill site where the possibility of long-term effects, if any, are most likely to occur. The director of environmental approvals will issue a new certificate of approval governing the existing site and serve notice that the owner must not receive wastes after June 30, 1983.

During that time, the operator will be allowed to accept no more than 1,100 tons a day until an allowable final contour of the site is reached. This will bring the present site to capacity and provide sufficient time for York Sanitation to reallocate its operations to other locations without disrupting service to its clients.

The owner will be required to complete covering, contouring and landscaping necessary for the environmentally safe closing of the site. The close-out conditions will also require the company to design and develop long-term monitoring and environmental protection measures for the site's permanent security.

My ministry will continue to impose enforcement and application of all existing environmental protection measures at the site as a condition of continuing operation. This will include the ongoing ground water monitoring program conducted by the company and we will require substantial but fair financial security to be posted by the company to ensure the security of the site after it is properly closed.

Ministry staff will maintain our ongoing program of monitoring and water quality analysis to ensure no long-term problems arise from this site either before or after its closure.

In arriving at these decisions, all factors were carefully weighed and several regulatory options were considered by the ministry. All of the necessary resources of my ministry will now be applied to see that the course of action required is implemented by the company as quickly and as effectively as possible.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. He is under the gallery. Perhaps we could wait for a second until he takes his seat. Perhaps you could urge him.

Mr. Martel: He is coming on stage; he wants the cameras on.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps a drum roll would be in order. Do you have a statement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Later.

Mr. Bradley: Wait until the cameras are in place.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Too early.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me welcome the Minister of Health on his early arrival today. Perhaps he will be so kind as to bring the House up to date on the state of the negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association after his personal intervention, and let us know whatever information he has gleaned about the state of disruptions in the hospitals. I refer specifically to the number of cancelled operations and the state of the hospitals in this province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations were quite productive yesterday. It was a long and useful session. I had a chance to exchange with the members of the board of the OMA the government's views of the situation, to confirm our bona fides, our belief in the profession and our desire to arrive at a fair settlement. I explained to them why I thought the current proposal was fair, and they had an opportunity to explain to me why they thought their demands were reasonable. They also had an opportunity to explain just how angry they were, and why. All of that was useful to both sides.

Before we finished, after a long four and a half hours, we agreed that it would be useful for the negotiators to reconvene today. At the start of all this I said this was a situation which changed literally from hour to hour. The negotiators have spent many hours of many days looking at many proposals and, notwithstanding the fact that both sides expressed reluctance to send the negotiators back to the table if we did not feel there was some purpose to be served, it was agreed that the negotiators could perhaps do something useful today. As a result, the negotiators began meeting this afternoon at 1:30.

I am awaiting word from our negotiators as to the progress of those negotiations. I hope they go well, once again, as I am sure the member does.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary question by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: This is not a supplementary; it is part of the original question. I asked the minister about the state of the hospitals in the province, how many cases of cancelled surgery there have been and what reports he is getting back about the disruptions and the possible threat they represent to the health care system in this province.

Mr. Speaker: That would properly be a supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: It is not. That was the second part of the original question, as you will recall. I am sure if you check Hansard, you will agree.

Mr. Nixon: I remember it clearly.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not remember that, but in any case --

Mr. Kerrio: That is a very convenient memory.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have a short memory.

Rather than list 250 hospitals, it might be helpful to provide the member with some breakdown by regions. This is as of yesterday.

In the eastern region there was no increase in emergencies. In fact some hospitals had a reduction in emergencies. In eastern Ontario, cancellations of elective surgery were about 40 per cent. Generally speaking, most physicians were available in most hospitals.

In the southwestern region, emergencies were about the same as usual, in fact also with some decrease. Elective cancellations were running between 60 and 80 per cent. Generally speaking, there were no serious problems reported by the hospitals in this region.

In the central west region, emergencies generally increased. Elective cancellations were about 15 per cent and no serious problems in general were reported.

In the central east A region -- I can break these out if required -- there was no increase in emergencies. Elective cancellations ran between 25 and 50 per cent. In general the hospitals reported no serious impact as a result of the job action.

In the central east B region, emergencies generally increased and elective cancellations substantially increased. But again, in general no serious problems were reported.

In the northern region, emergencies generally increased and elective cancellations substantially increased. However, there were no serious problems.

The foregoing is the general situation with the hospitals as learned from phone calls made and received by the ministry to and from all our area teams throughout the province. I can give the member some information with regard to some specific hospitals if he so desires.

Mr. Peterson: Given the already serious backlog in the system, albeit in some hospitals it is more serious than others, and given the compounding effect that these cancellations have on that, is it the minister's plan to now accept further job action next week or does he have an alternative to that?

Hon. Mr Grossman: Yes, I do have an alternative and that is a negotiated agreement.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the minister is still not able to say anything other than that, generally speaking, there have not been any problems. I am sure everyone regards that as about the most ominous thing he could say.

Can the minister give us an understanding of how many hospitals have replied to the telexes sent out on April 20? Can he tell us how many hospitals have replied indicating they were totally prepared to deal with a withdrawal of medical services and how many hospitals and which hospitals indicated they were not prepared for the walkout? Can he also tell us how many hospitals in the province are in a category for which the minister cannot say they are prepared or not prepared?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Subsequent to the telex, I believe my area teams have been in touch with each and every hospital in the province, almost all.

Mr. McClellan: Does the minister know or does he not know?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The captains of the area teams have reported to us that all hospitals have been contacted.

Mr. McClellan: Either he knows or he does not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have been in this House a little bit too long, unless I have seen details of the phone calls from 250 hospitals, to put myself in a position of allowing the member to stand up tomorrow on a point of personal privilege to say he has information from someone, who works as a clerk in someone's office in some hospital, that they were not contacted.

I can report to the member that my staff indicates every hospital has either communicated by letter or been spoken to by phone. Again, there may have been one or two missed, but I do not believe that is the case.

The process we used was so effective that where any deficiency was reported to the area teams and the ministry, we were able to work with the hospitals to make sure that the hospitals were satisfied they could meet their obligations under the Public Hospitals Act.

While I emphasize I believe job action should not have been taken, if the member will look at the hospitals across the province and what did happen during the last two days, he will note the hospitals were able to cope.

With the cooperation of the physicians, they put in all standby mechanisms, in some cases increased the numbers of physicians on duty in emergencies where necessary; doctors did make their hospital rounds the way they are required; hospitals had put in sufficient mechanisms to ensure that where elective surgery either had not been scheduled or was cancelled for some people, appropriate steps were taken to ensure those operations were either proceeded with if they became emergencies, or rescheduled at a reasonable time.

If the member will look at the sequence of events over the past few days, when we have had a chance to analyse what happened in the hospitals I believe we will find that many of the procedures that would have been booked for Tuesday and Wednesday were booked on Monday, today and Friday, so that there was a longer use of the operating rooms during those three days. A great number of those cases that were cancelled were proceeded with some time this week. I cannot say all of them or the majority, but a great number.

Ms. Copps: Has the minister or a member of his staff been in contact with any of the support people involved in this moving around of elective surgery, for example the president of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, who believes that the nurses are already strapped to the limit in trying to cope with the increase in elective surgery on days not included in the doctors' walkout. If he has not been in touch with the RNAO personally, why not?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This morning, I spent the hour from nine to 10, not only with the president but also with the president-elect and 700 members of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, to whom I delivered a speech which the member will be delighted to know was warmly received and was interrupted by applause four times. The president had every opportunity to relay all her concerns to me.

2:20 p.m.

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister, I am sure, is well aware of the National Energy Board decision giving its approval to the General Public Utilities cable. It is now very clear that this matter is coming back into the minister's court with respect to his opinions and influence on the effects it will have on the environment if this project goes through.

Who is speaking for the environmental concerns on this issue? Is the minister prepared now to have an open environmental hearing on the matter so that we can publicly discuss all the questions attendant thereto?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that nothing has happened at the NEB hearing which in any way has brought it back into my court, I think was his expression.

The process, as he knows full well, is unfolding. The matter will be before the Ontario cabinet at the appropriate time. That has always been part of the process, and still will be. At this stage, as he knows, the matter is before the federal cabinet.

If he wants to know what influence is going to be brought to bear and what opinions I have on the matter, I do have some very strong opinions and they will be part of my submission and recommendations to my colleagues when the matter is before the Ontario cabinet.

Unlike the federal Minister of the Environment, I do not consider that my oath of office is such that I can discuss publicly at this point my recommendations to cabinet. I think the Leader of the Opposition will realize the degree of influence that the Minister of the Environment in Ontario has is probably more substantial than has been demonstrated by the recommendations of the federal minister to the National Energy Board.

Mr. Peterson: Let me warn my friend the minister about his declaration of the world unfolding as it should. Others have made that kind of statement in the past, and it has come back to haunt them.

The minister is aware of the legal opinion that was presented to Ontario Hydro, and I assume it is Hydro's official position that the government of Ontario retains the ultimate power over this project by virtue of sections 24 and 70 of the Power Corporation Act, both of which require an order in council before such a project can proceed; that clearly puts the ball in the minister's court.

I have heard, and perhaps the minister will confirm, that he was planning a special hearing on this matter but that the stronger voices of the Hydro interests in cabinet were able to suppress his environmental concerns. How can we be sure the minister has a strong voice when he is not prepared to discuss this publicly? Since this violates the entire spirit of the environmental legislation in this province, why can we not have an open hearing? The minister is no good behind closed doors.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I caution the Leader of the Opposition not to believe all the rumours he hears. I realize his desperate wish to understand environmental issues may lead him to be gullible at certain times, but that is a very dangerous area in which to unleash his gullibility. With respect to what goes on in cabinet, I do not think his sources are very reliable.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that he and the cabinet to which he now belongs are ready to repudiate the commitment given clearly and unequivocally by his predecessor, Mr. Parrott, on April 22, 1980, to the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), when Mr. Parrott said the project would be "subjected to the full environmental procedure under Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act"?

What has changed since that date to make the minister so wishy-washy at the present time? Does he not think the people of Ontario would be prepared to pay not only for full environmental assessment hearings but 10 cents a month to avoid the additional acid rain that will result and that will fall in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of a repudiation of anything that either my predecessor or I have said. I am not sure whether the answers to the questions on the Order Paper have yet been tabled; there are three legal opinions, one of which runs to something in excess of 50 pages, which are being tabled in the House and I would commend them for reading. They will answer the question in terms of the status of our Environmental Assessment Act in this particular instance.

I share a very deep concern about environmental matters with some of the interest groups in the province. One thing I am becoming increasingly impressed by is the fact that there are many people who are concerned about the environment, but they are very bad at arithmetic. If one looks at the available information on the existing regulation on Ontario Hydro, if one looks at the data with respect to the emissions that may be attributable --

Mr. Foulds: Just keep the promise.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I certainly am keeping the promise. Don't worry about that.

If the honourable member keeps repeating this assumption often enough, I am sure he will convince himself that there will be increased emissions, and increased contributions to acid precipitation. The fact of the matter is that is not correct; we are reducing them. One might also read the National Energy Board's decision, which includes some very significant comments on that very subject.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer the minister has given, and in view of the fact that the federal Minister of the Environment has opposed the recommendation of the National Energy Board which has no proper imposition of tough acid rain controls, will the minister now assure the people of Ontario that he will participate in and give them the opportunity to participate in environmental assessment hearings? Also, since the minister did not participate to any great extent in the National Energy Board hearings, will he indicate to the people of Ontario what is really going to happen because of the export of this power?

Incidentally, it is going to provide 500,000 more tons of acid rain over the 10-year period.

Will the minister now assure the people of Ontario that the Environmental Assessment Act will be applied so that everyone can have an opportunity for input?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that all of the environmental impact issues are being looked at in great detail and that the executive council of this province, when it discharges its responsibility under the Power Corporation Act, will be fully advised on all environmental aspects; and I assure him that will be a very important part of the consideration.

Once again, I would emphasize, and this is not to foreshadow in any way what the decision of the cabinet might be, that even if there were no further controls imposed upon Hydro, the assumption about the increased contribution to acid precipitation is still wrong. Whether this goes ahead or not, Ontario Hydro will be reducing its emissions by about 50 per cent.

Mr. Kerrio: Tell your American friends that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have. They are not as hard to convince as some of the sceptics on the other side of the House here. The honourable members not only blind themselves to the facts but they cannot add two and two.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to send over to the minister my $1.40, which will make up for the amount of pollution that will fall on my property; I am prepared to give him $1.40 to make up for that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The member for Port Arthur with a new question.

Mr. Foulds: I might remind the honourable member that we do have very effective pages who can do the job he has just requested.

2:30 p.m.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Minister of Health whether he can give us his categorical and absolute assurance that none of the cancelled surgery yesterday throughout the province, and in excess of 500 cases in Metro Toronto, was urgent? And can he assure us that there was not the slightest health risk involved in any of the cancelled surgery?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously I cannot give the honourable member a categorical assurance at 2:30 this afternoon about all the cancellations that occurred yesterday. He knew that when he asked the question. If a more reasoned and fair question were asked, such as whether we are going to be getting information from the hospitals that will allow us to review all those cancellations and ensure that proper action is taken in each and every case where there is the slightest risk to health, the answer to that question is yes.

Mr. Foulds: Maybe I can ask the minister, as rationally and calmly as I can, what he thinks the degree of risk should be for the patients of Ontario. What does he think the degree of risk is going to be next week during the three-day walkout? What level of risk for the patients of Ontario is he willing to tolerate before he takes action to end the walkout? How much gambling is he going to do with the health of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The simple answer is that I expect each and every physician in Ontario to meet the same standard of care for his or her patients that he or she maintained before the strike began. That is very simple and very clear. It is their obligation under the legislation and they cannot fail to meet that obligation. They have to decide how they choose to meet their obligations to their patients, as indeed they have to decide when they take a three-week holiday or a one-day holiday or when they happen to be sick themselves.

Whatever sequence of events and whatever causes their absence from their offices or causes them to have to cancel elective surgery, I expect them to be as careful and as cautious in the case of rescheduling or looking after their patients during job actions as they are when they are absent from their offices for other, more reasonable reasons. That is very simple.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that under the present circumstances, when a death occurs or a serious downturn in a patient's wellbeing occurs in the context of the strike, the family and friends and others will attribute the death or the downturn to the strike? Does he not recognize that it is going to cause severe problems for the medical profession, and indeed for the Ministry of Health, when we find out that across Ontario there are examples of people who, unfortunately, have had deaths and are going to attribute them to the doctors' strike, whether it can be proven or not?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member raises a very valid point, and I for one urged that message on the Ontario Medical Association in one of the private meetings I had prior to yesterday.

The member has heard me indicate that we believe it is important that all steps be taken to protect patients' health and welfare throughout this job action. He has also heard me indicate that I think the job action is inappropriate. He has also heard me say that I believe in some cases that, while health was protected, there are circumstances in which the job action presents a terribly unfortunate and in some cases tragic appearance surrounding it.

I say in all seriousness to the member, I could not have stated the case to the OMA with more urgency and emotion than I did. Not yesterday, but on a previous occasion, I indicated to them that regardless of how outraged they are at their current levels of income -- and I make it quite clear that I do not think they ought to be outraged at their current levels -- no matter how unhappy they are with their working conditions or their incomes, there are certain actions they have decided to take that will have certain implications for the general reputation and high degree of respect I believe the population still has for the profession which cannot be bought and never can be regained.

I said this with as much passion as I could, and I like to believe the OMA did not think I was saying it from the standpoint of a negotiating tactic, nor as the Minister of Health, but as a citizen of this province. I said they had to think very carefully about the implications of what they were doing, because certain perceptions would arise that would cause irreparable damage in some cases to the reputation and high regard we all hold for the profession. In politics, we know that the perception and the reality may not be quite together but that after a while the perception becomes very much a part of the reality in terms of things like regard and respect.

I make it very clear that I believe the government's offer, had it been even less fair or generous than it was, did not warrant the job action for precisely the reason the member points out. There is a price paid every single minute of every day when a job action is undertaken or even talked about, let alone in those circumstances where people will emotionally connect what has happened to them personally to the job action that is being taken. This can never quite be repaired.

The problem for government is that there is a temptation for us to do almost anything to stop that situation from developing, because we care, as all members of this House care, about the regard our citizens must hold for our profession in order to have the whole system work.

I regret that the doctors have decided to go ahead with it. I am aggrieved by some cases that have been brought to my attention. It is clear after thorough investigation that nothing could have been attributed to the job action; but none the less, the aggrieved families -- and certainly I would share that -- will feel that it was somehow related. It would be hard at this emotional time to disconnect them emotionally.

I have urged that position every time I have had an opportunity to talk with the profession. I suppose, because I am one of the people negotiating, it is seen not to be as sincere as I know the member's concern is. I hope the physicians are aware of all this and pray, as I do, that the instances in which that happens are minimal.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, leaving aside the secondary concern about the image of the profession, I would like to focus again on what I think is the central issue; that is, the degree of risk or threat to health care.

Since the minister has admitted in response to the question of the deputy leader of this party that he cannot tell us the degree of risk involved this week, he is therefore gambling that there is no threat to patients or of his being in default of his duties under the Health Disciplines Act.

Can the minister tell us how much more gambling he intends to do? Does he intend to permit the level of risk this week to take a quantum leap next week, with three days of back-to-back withdrawal of service, when he cannot assure us that there is no risk today?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in these circumstances I think it would be a little more appropriate for the honourable member not to take the time to set up a political scenario which will allow him to lay the blame on this minister or this government in the event that some physician or some hospital fails to meet their obligations.

2:40 p.m.

If the member will think about it for a second, that question could be asked of me whether or not there is a strike on. On any normal day of any normal month of any normal year, there are all sorts of things happening in the hospitals of this province. That is why we have hospital boards. That is why we have regulations in place calling for things such as medical advisory committees. That is why we have accreditation in place. That is why the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is well armed with legislation. That is why we have a variety of things in place.

He could ask the same kind of question literally on any day of the week. The answer to the question is simple. To the degree to which we must rely upon the hospitals, the physicians and everyone else in the health care system meeting their duties under the legislation, the risk is unchanged. Whether or not a physician is absent or many are absent for reasons related to strike action, those hospital bylaws are in place.

The medical advisory committees and the physicians have certain responsibilities. The only risk I take is that someone will suddenly decide to violate a hospital bylaw, to violate a regulation of the College of Physicians and Surgeons or suddenly to undertake medical malpractice or professional misconduct. That kind of risk is in the system every day of every year in every country, in every jurisdiction. That happens to be the fact.

To date, as one reviews the activities as they have been undertaken, the physicians and the hospitals have gone to great lengths to meet their obligations. Are they being met in every single instance? Obviously I cannot answer for every single instance, because we do not have all the information in yet. But I say to the member that if he had asked me this question last March, before the strikes were undertaken, I equally could not have answered the question, because it depends on everyone in the system exercising his responsibilities under the legislation.

We write the legislation, we pass the legislation and we enforce the legislation; but if someone is going to undertake medical malpractice or ignore the needs of his patients, that is on his shoulders. I do not believe they are about to do that.

Mr. Foulds: I am sure the patients of Ontario are glad to know all the regulations are in place. It is too bad the doctors have not been.

EQUAL PAY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my middle-aged adversary the Minister of Health with regard to the Gunderson report.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health?

Mr. Foulds: Pardon me; the Minister of Labour. Does the minister fully realize that his ministry recognizes as a matter of law that it is all right to pay women in Ontario less than men for work of equal value requiring equal skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions?

He will recall that on April 3 he said: "Within a few weeks I expect to release a report from Dr. Morley Gunderson of the University of Toronto. I believe that his latest findings will shed further light on the causes and possible remedies to narrow the gap between wages paid to men and women."

Now that the Gunderson study has been made public and in it he says, "Equal pay legislation in Ontario has not been able to reduce the earnings gap significantly," will the minister bring to the Legislature before we rise in June a bill requiring equal pay for work of equal value which will remedy the situation?

Hon. Mr Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the age factor that was brought up earlier, I had always thought the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) was much younger than I, and I had indicated as much, only to be told by the acting leader of the New Democratic Party that the member for Sudbury East was as old as I, or older.

Mr. Martel: Oh no. I used to listen to the minister when he was announcing. I was a kid. He used to announce hockey games in northern Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Now back to the question --

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Now back to the question: The answer to the acting leader of the NDP is no, I do not have any intention of introducing equal pay legislation before the end of this session.

Mr. Foulds: In view of the fact that the Gunderson report says the current legislation will never close the gap between the wages of men and women, can the minister assure us that will stop? What action is he prepared to take? Is he just going to tinker with the legislation? Is he going to fail to act on the Gunderson report after his implied commitment of April 3?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I expect to receive three more reports before the middle of June, including the report of the women crown employees office, which will be tabled in this House within the next couple of weeks, and the Ontario Status of Women Council report, which will be tabled shortly. In all, there will be three reports before the end of the year, and I would like to have the benefit of all three.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware of a further study which tends to bear out the findings of Professor Gunderson. I am referring to a study that was carried out under a grant to the Child in the City program. It contained a stratified random survey of more than 500 families, and the results confirmed Professor Gunderson's findings that female earnings are approximately 60 per cent of male earnings.

Given these findings and the fact that the Gunderson study for the ministry indicates that even the introduction of equal pay for work of equal value, while it would be helpful and useful, would not wipe out the discrepancy between male and female wage levels, will the minister now review his earlier refusal to begin requiring affirmative action programs rather than simply continuing to promote such programs, as he stated in his speech last Friday night? Will he review his earlier refusal, since the evidence shows the promotion of the affirmative action program has produced little, if any, result?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I think there are different ways of interpreting the Gunderson report. With respect, let me just refer to a couple of statements that Dr. Gunderson made.

The author notes that, generally, equal pay for equal work legislation is not portrayed as a powerful and important policy option and that its potential is limited. He also observes that "To the extent that it is successful, it runs the risk" -- and I believe this is most important -- "of reducing employment opportunities for females by raising the relative costs." In addition, he points to equally serious limitations in relation to equal pay for work of equal value.

In other words, after studying the Gunderson report, I truly have not read anything that would cause me to change my earlier opinions.

Ms. Copps: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that when the minister reads, he should not read selectively. He should read into the record the last paragraph of the Gunderson report, which puts the case for equal pay for equal value very clearly.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a point of privilege.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he will not bring in any new legislation in the equal pay field this session because he wants to wait for three new reports. Is he not aware of the statistics prepared by his own women's bureau, just this month, which show me that further reports are not necessary to prove the ineffectiveness of the present legislation? They show that the number of claims dropped from 223 in 1980-81 to only 96 in the last fiscal year and that only 48 employers were found in violation and were required to pay about $500 to only 600 employees. Does this not show the ineffectiveness of the present legislation and the need for immediate revision?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my information is that 1,057 have benefited in the total amount of $547,968 from equal pay investigations. I think that is a rather respectable and impressive figure.

COMPENSATION FOR UFFI HOME OWNERS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue regarding the decision of the Algoma assessment review court to decrease the assessment of 37 homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulated in that area on an across-the-board basis.

I remind the minister that earlier this month, in response to the 20 per cent across-the-board cuts in New Brunswick, he said, "To cop out of the problem arbitrarily, as New Brunswick has done, and come up with a figure may have some simplistic appeal to some members, but it does not to me." It apparently does to the review court in Algoma.

My question to the minister is this: Will he now move to establish a reduced assessment for UFFI homes across the province on a uniform percentage? Alternatively, will he establish test cases in communities throughout the province to determine a standard of reduction which can then be applied uniformly in those municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that is exactly the process that is now under way by the assessment review court. We suggested it go that route to see whether there is some pattern.

Twenty per cent across the board, as I think I indicated in discussion last week, would have been unfair to many of the home owners, particularly those who have already been adjudicated in Sault Ste. Marie. I think this proves that the approach we are taking is correct, fair and equitable.

After we have had decisions from many other municipalities throughout the province, we then may have some pattern to look at in assessment for 1982 and 1983 taxation.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, will the minister consider following the Metro Toronto procedure for deemed appeals and applying such a reduction to all UFFI home owners whether or not they went through the appeal procedure?

Second, will this government make a commitment to make up any shortfall in assessment revenue so that municipalities will not have to suffer the loss of what could be a drastic reduction in assessments and taxation revenues from the UFFI homes?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no. As I have indicated on more than one occasion, the situation vis-à-vis the changes in properties in the city of Toronto was a unique and isolated situation and will not be done uniformly throughout the province.

The answer to the second question, I think in fairness, is also no. If there is any kind of compensation due from any level of government back to the municipalities, it is at the level of government which caused the problem in the first place. It is domiciled in Ottawa and is called the federal Liberal government.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, even though these two members have asked the same question I asked two weeks ago, the minister still cannot give the right answer.

Does he not realize that what the assessment review court has done is directly contrary to what he said should be done, which is that a uniform reduction could not be given? In fact, they gave a uniform reduction of 50 per cent on all the residents, although the minister said that it would be unfair, that a conclusion to do so would be falsely reached and that it was simplistic.

Does the minister know that 113 homes in Sault Ste. Marie have been identified as having urea formaldehyde foam insulation; that probably at least 200 homes there were insulated with UFFI --

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently for the supplementary.

Mr. Swart: -- and that only 20 per cent of those will get a reduction in their taxes this year? How can the minister pass the buck to the federal government, when he has responsibility for assessment and does not deem that they have all appealed their assessments and are entitled to this reduction?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the honourable member does not like to hear an answer, that if it is not the answer he wants to hear then it is an incorrect answer. It is very difficult sometimes even to understand what his question is; so to come up with the right answer as he deems it is rather difficult.

I will repeat what I said a moment ago to the original question, because the member obviously was not listening or did not hear. What I said to him two weeks ago has been proven in what happened in Sault Ste. Marie. In the Sault the court deliberated on the cases before it, came across with a determination within that municipality based on the property values in that municipality and made a decision accordingly. The same process will be carried on in many other jurisdictions throughout the province. Whether this ends up being a pattern that is followed remains to be seen.

The assessment review court is an impartial tribunal that will be hearing these cases in all fairness, and the decisions will come forth accordingly.

I have indicated before that part of the responsibility in an appeal is also on the appellant. Those who did not appeal may have felt they did not have a problem. It is amazing how the member has a crystal ball to know that there are some 200 homes insulated with urea formaldehyde foam in Sault Ste. Marie. There are probably not even 200 people who know they have such a home, but the member with the crystal ball does. That is very nice.

In fact, after the end of the appeal process, whether in Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Windsor, London or wherever, home owners who have a UFFI problem can make a case if they wish to approach their municipal councils and receive some tax relief under the Municipal Act.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the co-operation of all honourable members once more to limit their private conversations.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In answer to my first question today, the minister suggested that what he and his assessment review courts are now doing is having test cases around the province. Earlier, on April 16, the minister said:

"To assume everybody has had an equal change in the value of his property because of that foam insulation, I think is a decision that is falsely reached; the review process of the assessment review court will properly allow the evidence pertaining to each and every property to be brought before it."

Are we having test cases, or are we going to have reviews of each and every assessment appeal?

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, that is really not a point of privilege. I ask the minister not to reply to it.

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I think that in principle the minister's statement today on Stouffville was a useful one, but some specific concerns arise from it.

Will the minister tell us why, when the Environmental Assessment Board's hearings last May clearly established that there was only a year and a half left in the present dump site, he has now extended that year and a half to slightly more than two years? How did he or his staff pick the June 30 date, when all the information presented in the hearing indicated it would be finished this fall?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, waste disposal sites do not just automatically self-destruct at a given time. The estimate one makes of the time that remains in the life of a given site depends on a number of factors, one of which is the rate at which it is filled. We have not extended that in any way.

The simple answer to the honourable member's question is that the estimates which were presented before the hearing a year ago were based on a projection of a certain rate of filling. I understand the rate has not been as fast as was anticipated at that time. It is not a question of any more being allowed in.

3 p.m.

In order to tighten up the

schedule so that there is a predictable and firm closing date, we have established a tonnage limit on a daily basis, plus a time limit that now fixes it firmly at a date after which, whether they have filled the site up completely or not, they can accept no more waste. In other words, there is some incentive for them to get on with the closing now that a new certificate has been developed.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, there are always a number of reasons why time frames can vary. Perhaps the minister can consider that the company used the year-and-a-half figure during the hearing in order to emphasize urgency in terms of the expansion proposal.

In the latter part of his statement the minister commented: "The close-out conditions will also require the company to design and develop long-term monitoring and environmental protection measures for the site's permanent security." Can the minister assure the residents of Stouffville that "protection measures for the site's permanent security" means a total containment system?

When the company has designed and made these proposals, can he assure the citizens there will be public hearings so that the public can be fully satisfied, in order to accomplish what he is trying to accomplish here for their frame of mind, that the site will be safe and that the proposals will do what they are supposed to do in containing the site?

Hon. Mr. Norton: There are times when I think some members would like to subject that community to endless agony. I can assure the member that the most advanced possible measures will be required. I do not yet know what they are. The specifics have to be worked out with consultants. That is part of what is now under way.

As far as assurances with respect to containment are concerned, I suppose no one can ever give an absolute assurance. Nothing in this world is absolute that I know of, except the mindset of the NDP. I can assure the member we will take every possible precaution to ensure that the close-out procedures are safe.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if he will be tabling a copy of the certificate of approval that will go out to the company, and advise us as to the conditions that will be laid down there, dealing with the amount of money to be contributed by the company to this fund he has made the statement about?

If a difficulty develops subsequent to the closure of the site, will the Ontario government meet any shortfall of money that may result from this fund not being substantial enough to rectify any problems that exist?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer to the last part of the member's question is it would have to be the responsibility of the government if that kind of thing ever happened.

With regard to the tabling of the information, as soon as it is available it will be tabled. Members are getting some advance information today. The actual certificate is not yet in the hands of the company. There will be some detail work to be completed after that. I can assure the members they will have copies as soon as they are available.

STOL SERVICE

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications --

Mr. Roy: Your first question of the cabinet.

Mr. Piché: I would like to remind the House that this is not my first question, but it might be my last.

The question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications and/or the Minister of Northern Affairs. The minister will be aware, after reading yesterday's Toronto Star, and other newspapers of course, that after considerable delay STOL service from the Toronto Island Airport using the Dash-7 aircraft is now expected to begin next year, linking Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa.

Not only will many passengers benefit from this service, but the purchase of the 50-passenger Dash-7 aircraft built here by de Havilland will also contribute to the creation of jobs and benefit Ontario's economy.

Mr. Speaker: Can I have the question?

Mr. Piché: The question is coming, Mr. Speaker.

As many as 11 aircraft will be needed, at a cost of over $80 million. Because of the Dash-7's ability to operate from short runways and its fuel economy, I would like to ask if the minister is now willing to establish a pilot project of STOL service from the Toronto Island Airport to northern Ontario communities. Would not such a service more adequately meet the needs of many people living in some northern Ontario communities?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the honourable member that certainly the Dash-7 is a very wonderful piece of equipment.

Mr. Haggerty: Better than that jet aircraft.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is an equivalent piece of equipment to a Challenger.

I will be glad to consult with the Minister of Northern Affairs, who is directly responsible for the operation of norOntair, although my ministry is involved very much with his ministry in the planning of norOntair expansions.

The problem that one deals with is the size of the Dash-7. It is a 50-passenger airplane, and the fact is that in many communities more frequent service with a smaller aircraft is more desirable. There are, no doubt, some routes the Dash-7 will grow into and, of course, I think that is what my colleague had in mind when he ordered two Dash-8 aircraft, which are an intermediate capacity transit system for northern Ontario.

I think the Dash-8 will be the ICTS of northern Ontario, and we will fill in that gap. There is no doubt that eventually, as the traffic grows, there will be a role for the Dash-7 aircraft as the member suggests.

Mr. Piché: The minister is also aware that since one of the companies that is heavily involved in this new project through one of its affiliates is the northern company Austin Airways, now is certainly the opportune time to give serious consideration to this much-needed service to northern Ontario -- something that many communities in the north have been working towards over the last few years.

Mr. Breithaupt: Don't you agree?

Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, the minister is aware of Austin Airways' involvement. We are all aware of the Deluce family, the old White River Air Services and Austin Airways, which has been a landmark operation in northern Ontario for many years. It is now a part owner of Air Ontario and of the proposed new partnership that will operate the STOL service between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

No doubt that operator has a great deal of experience and would be very much aware of the needs of the communities of northern Ontario.

3:10 p.m.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Copps: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Some of the members may recall that on April 26 the Minister of Community and Social Services, in answer to a question I raised about children's mental health services in Windsor, stated, "She went away from that open setting," etc. "Part of the problem has been her parents' demand from the very beginning that she be put in a secure setting. She was placed in a secure setting and now she is in the London Psychiatric Hospital."

The minister may be aware that in fact --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Strike three, you are out.

Ms. Copps: This is a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: May I hear it, please?

Ms. Copps: The information is that young child is not now, nor has she ever been, a patient in the London Psychiatric Hospital. That information has come not only from her and her parents, but also the records department and both adolescent wings of the London Psychiatric Hospital. I suggest it is the minister who is monumentally misinformed and I would like him to correct the record.

Mr. Roy: Apologize.

Mr. Kerrio: Either you or Claire Hoy.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, with the full consent of her parents at a court hearing, she was remanded --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh, yes, my dear. At a court hearing, with the full consent of her parents --

Ms. Copps: She isn't there. Call the records department of the London Psychiatric Hospital.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue?

Mr. Speaker: I think it is a matter of clarification. There is a difference of opinion. If you want to clarify the record, I will listen.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, I would if I am ever to be allowed to clarify anything for the honourable member without being rudely interrupted. To clarify the record, the particular young lady, on --

Mr. Roy: Get your facts straight.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh, it is from the court, Albert; the place where you attend.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: On March 16, 1982, there was a show-cause hearing. Does the honourable member know what a show-cause hearing is? In attendance were her, her lawyer, her parents, the case worker representative, etc. She was placed as a ward of the Roman Catholic Children's Aid Society for the County of Essex, and I do want to clarify --

Ms. Copps: Have you spoken to the records department of the London Psychiatric? She is not a patient there. If you check with the records department you will find out. You have been monumentally misinformed.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You know, you are kind of cute when you get mad. Could you be quiet for a minute?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to rule that it was not a point of privilege in the first place. There was no special privilege of any member affected. It would be better brought up in question period or ministerial statements.

Ms. Copps: Get your facts straight.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member has a question, she may ask it during the proper time allotted for that tomorrow. I am not going to debate it. Please resume your seat.

Ms. Copps: The interjections are on both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: That does not make them any better.

Ms. Copps: Who is running this House, Frank Drea or you'?

Mr. Speaker: I am going to have to ask you to withdraw that remark.

Ms. Copps: Are you going to sit down?

Mr. Speaker: Sure.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, not wanting to impugn your integrity, I will certainly withdraw that remark.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege -- that was a very wise ruling, by the way --

Mr. Eakins: Tell us about your brother.

Interjections

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGES

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on April 23, I rose on a point of privilege and asked the Minister of Community and Social Services why he had misrepresented to the House an appeal that his ministry had taken against a decision of the Social Assistance Review Board. He accused me, saying that there was no appeal and that "the member is wrong, just as he was wrong last week." I sent the minister a letter of appeal, and that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege, with all respect. Your privileges have not been abused in any way.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you, then, if a minister stands in his place and wrongly accuses a member of something, do you not believe that in fact the member's privileges have been impugned? I just cannot understand how a minister can get up and make that type of accusation without privileges being abused.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very good point; it has been brought up before, of course. I have no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong. It is not for me to judge. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion. I do not have any special knowledge, and I do not know whether the minister did something or did not; I do not know whether the honourable member did something or did not. That is not my role.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: But certainly your role is to ensure that when someone makes an accusation, as the minister has done, and a member gets up in his place to refute it, as my colleague has done -- you can say, "I absolve myself of any responsibility for finding out the facts;" I can understand your dilemma -- surely you should hear out the entire point of privilege, because you have to make some judgement or you have to refer it to someone? It simply cannot go by the board.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is quite right. If it is a matter of correcting the record, that is one point; but in actual fact his privileges were not abused in any way. Now, if he wants to correct the record, fine.

Mr. Di Santo: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the record be corrected.

Mr. Speaker: The member wants to correct the record first.

Mr. Di Santo: Yes. I want the record to be corrected because an appeal was in fact made by the Ministry of Community and Social Services through its lawyer, Ms. Leslie McIntosh.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would have replied to the honourable member except that he sent over a request for a written answer. That is in the process of being transmitted to him, and he knew that when he popped up today.

The simple fact of the matter is that the appeal the member talks about was never proceeded with, was not an appeal, is not before any part of the Social Assistance Review Board and did not concern the matter he alleged the appeal concerned, period.

Mr. Speaker: We have heard both sides, and I do not know yet who is right and who is wrong.

EQUAL PAY

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Unfortunately, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has left the House, but I would like to correct the record of the previous debate regarding statistics from the women's bureau on the number of women who received awards in the last fiscal year.

I said it was somewhat over 600; the minister said that to his knowledge it was about 1,000. I have here the report from the women's bureau, and it says that over the past two years it was about 1,000. I was referring to one year, the latest year.

3:20 p.m.

PETITION

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Elston: I would like to correct the record too, Mr. Speaker, but I have a petition instead. I will try again today. Pursuant to subsection 33(

b) of the standing orders, I have a petition signed by 20 members requesting that the annual report of Ontario Hydro for the year ending December 31, 1980, be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

Mr. Speaker: I am advised that is in order. It is indeed statutory.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL INTEREST AND DISCOUNT RATES ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 91,

An Act to revise the Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act.

Motion agreed to.

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 92,

An Act to amend the District of Parry Sound Local Government Act.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 93,

An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act.

Motion agreed to.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 94,

An Act to repeal the North Pickering Development Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Grande, first reading of Bill 95,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of

section 1 of this bill is to provide for the Legislature to sit part of every month during the year instead of the current policy whereby it may sit continuously for a four-month period in the spring and two months in the fall and be recessed or adjourned for the rest of the year.

The proposed

section 2 declares that the designations "member of the Legislative Assembly" and "MLA" are the official designations of the persons who are elected to the Legislative Assembly.

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Elston moved, seconded by Mr. Mancini, first reading of Bill 96,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for environmental rights in Ontario. The bill permits an action to be brought in the Supreme Court of Ontario by any person for the protection of the environment. The bill also provides for public notice and review of certain approvals, permits or other environment-related orders before the approval permits or orders come into force.

Other provisions of the bill provide for public access to information relating to environmental decisions and for regular review by the Environmental Assessment Board of all regulations affecting the environment.

The bill also permits the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish a fund to assist persons in public interest groups for the purpose of ensuring that points of view representative of significant bodies of opinion are adequately represented in environmental proceedings.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 83 and 84 [see Hansard for Friday, April 30] and the interim answers to questions 88, 89 and 90 standing on the Notice Paper [see Notice Paper].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

Mr. Charlton moved second reading of Bill 45,

An Act to protect and enhance the Quality of Drinking Water in Ontario.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have had the opportunity to introduce this bill in this Legislature and to debate it this afternoon.

Over the course of the next decade, drinking water quality in Ontario is going to be one of the three major issues in the environment sector.

It is the newest issue in the environment sector and it is probably going to be the issue of most public concern as our knowledge about what we have done already to our environment grows and as the effects of that damage become apparent.

As I start this debate, there are a number of people I would like to thank who have been involved in this process. First, I would like to thank several thousand citizens of this province who are involved in the more than 50 groups who made presentations to our joint federal-provincial task force on the question of water.

Those presentations helped us to become very clear about the concerns that exist out there across Ontario and about some of the things, at least, that need to be done in order to help citizens deal with the situations they find in their communities affecting their water supplies.

3:30 p.m.

I would like to thank my colleagues, some of the members of our federal caucus, and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who were members of that task force and who put many long hours into this project, which is very far from being completed at this point. We are only at the beginning, but this is the place to start. I would like to give very specific and very special thanks to Toby Vigod of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Anne Wordsworth of Pollution Probe, who helped us in the development of the specific aspects of this bill.

The bill deals with a number of very important matters in relation to drinking water in Ontario, and the problems that citizens of this province have run into with their drinking water. The first and basic principle set out in this bill is that somebody has to take clear responsibility for the safety of the drinking water in Ontario. In this bill, that somebody is the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton).

At present, there is no clear jurisdiction. There is much overlapping of jurisdictions in which the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and the local health authorities are all involved. Nobody wants to take clear responsibility. Everybody is always passing the buck. So the first thing we have to establish through this kind of legislation is clear responsibility.

In Ontario we now have legislative standards for air. That is not true in the case of our drinking water. Instead, we use guidelines, and I think we all know what guidelines mean. When it is under the guideline it is safe; when it is over the guideline it is not safe and it becomes a recommendation, "Please do not use the water."

That is not good enough in terms of this province's dependence on our water supplies. We need clear, legislative standards for dangerous substances, and when those standards are exceeded there must be clear legal stoppage of the use of that water.

As well, there must be a responsibility on the part of the ministry to provide alternative supplies, and an ability for the ministry to clearly prosecute the offending polluter. We have set out in this bill a procedure by which those standards will be set. It is a procedure in which the public of this province will be involved from the outset. That is another very important aspect of this bill, and of the discussion around safe drinking water in Ontario.

One of the things that has happened over the course of the last decade, and, more specifically, over the course of the last three or four years, is that the Ministry of the Environment in Ontario has lost much of its credibility with large segments of the public in this province.

That is because, although in the environmental legislation set out in this province we have some very clearly established principles of public participation, unfortunately, the minister, the ministry and the cabinet of which he is a part -- and again, we should note the total absence of the cabinet this afternoon -- have taken the approach of exempting project after project, under a number of pieces of legislation, from the public part of the process under that legislation.

There is a very clear mistrust out there. We had a prime example of that just last week, around the whole question of testing of some new technologies for the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls in this province. There was the feeling on the part of both the provincial and federal ministries and the proponents of some of those technologies that because of that mistrust, very quietly they had to find a place to do that testing, in the likelihood that the communities involved would oppose it. That trust has to be re-established and some of the processes set out in this bill will help that occur.

The bill deals with both public and private water supply systems. A public water system is defined as a system whereby some public body, perhaps a public utility in a municipality, supplies people with a service for water. The bill sets out a number of duties for those suppliers; these include frequent testing for the substances for which we have set standards in the province, and an obligation to provide customers with full information about that testing on a regular basis. We have suggested that be included with the billing for the water.

In those municipalities where water cost is included in tax bills, etc., then the information should be made public through the media so that the people in the community are kept informed on a regular basis of the testing that is being done.

We have proposed in the bill that there be public involvement in the regulation-making process, which is the setting of standards under this act, fairly quickly after the passage of the act, so that we are not still sitting here, 10 years down the road, waiting for the government and the ministry to move.

We have proposed that within 180 days after royal assent the minister and the ministry will be responsible for publishing draft regulations in the Ontario Gazette, and that some 90 days thereafter, if there are objections registered, public hearings will be held so the public can have input into the process. This is important because the public will not have confidence in any legislation or regulations in this area that are pushed through without their being able to have input.

The act makes it an offence to supply customers with water containing any contaminant or substance that exceeds the standard that has been set, or that contravenes the prescribed standards which we have set. The basic difference between contaminant and substance is the degree of toxicity.

The bill also sets out a number of penalties for those who contravene this act, penalties that relate, as I suggested, to exceeding the standards or to the providing of information, etc. We have set the penalties at a level of $50,000 for any contravention of

section 6 which deals with contaminated water that exceeds the guidelines. We have set penalties of $25,000 in the case of any other contravention of this act.

3:40 p.m.

We have also attempted to deal with the serious problems of many of the environmental and local community groups around this province that have had problems or even suspected problems with their local drinking water which they have been unable to resolve. They have had no clear method. There has been no clear apparatus to enable them to come to a resolution of their concerns or their problems.

We have tried to deal with some of that in this bill by doing a number of things such as setting up a water review board to deal with matters relating to water problems. We have also set out a

section dealing with private remedies where citizens have the right to take action against a polluter for damages.

For example, earlier this afternoon we talked about the situation in Stouffville which has been going on for about a decade now where the citizens have been able to find no clear method to remedy their complaints. We all know what that situation revolves around so I will not go through all the details. Citizens have had testing of the water done privately, the ministry has done testing and York Sanitation, which runs the landfill site in Stouffville, has done testing. Repeatedly, there has been no agreement among those three bodies about which test is right and which test is wrong. Inevitably, a test never agrees with the testing the others have done.

The citizens have had no clear apparatus to use to see a resolution of that, not even a separate, independent body which is prepared to hear testimony about the testing that has been done by all three of those groups and to come to some conclusion about whose testing and whose information is right. With this bill in place, those citizens would at least have some forum in which to have a decision made as to whether there is a threat to their health by contamination of their water supply from a landfill site.

It is not a perfect system. We all know we have fears about the court system, the cost and the lengthy procedures of the court system. But those citizens have spent a decade and have had no avenues to remedy their problems whatsoever.

The bill also sets out that, once an offence has been established and once a polluter who has damaged an individual's or a community's water supply has been identified, those citizens will have the right to take action to recover damages. In the law, there is no clear indication that citizens now have that right. The minister will tell us they do, but it seems strange to us that it is not clearly spelled out. If they do have that right, it certainly should be spelled out in a fashion people can understand so that they can take advantage of that right.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to bring to the member's attention he has approximately four minutes left. I don't know if you were anticipating reserving any time after the debate.

Mr. Charlton: Yes, I would like to save two minutes for the end, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps you could tell me when two minutes remain.

The bill proposes that a water advisory council be set up. The purpose of the council is to keep the minister and the ministry informed of the latest technology and the latest science, in relation to water and its safety, from around the world and from communities just outside the province, to consider matters that may be of concern in the community in relation to the safety of water, and to recommend to the minister when a matter needs to be looked at.

We have also set out the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to do research as an obligation. Right now we are in a situation where sometimes the Ministry of the Environment does research, sometimes it is the Ministry of Health, sometimes local officials who do research and sometimes nobody does research in relation to drinking water.

We have set out an obligation to assure citizens that when there is a problem with their drinking water, the causes will be found and the dangers to them in terms of their health will be diagnosed so that they are in a position to know what to do and who to sue.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to the concerns addressed by the honourable member in his private member's bill. There is no dispute about the fact drinking water must be maintained at high quality and certainly this is a high priority of this government. The policies of the Ministry of the Environment in the past and in the future certainly show this.

The Ontario Water Resources Act provides the necessary guidelines and controls to ensure the quality of drinking water in Ontario. The act gives the Ministry of the Environment extensive powers to regulate water supply, sewage disposal and the control of water pollution. It authorizes the ministry to supervise and examine all surface waters and ground waters in Ontario to determine the extent, nature and causes of contamination in these waters.

I feel that Bill 45 is redundant. If needed, regulations could be made under the existing Ontario Water Resources Act to detail any formal procedures necessary to protect Ontario's drinking water supply. What is needed to ensure high standards in drinking water is the constant upgrading of scientific techniques to monitor and control our water system. Bill 45 only provides a legal framework for controlling the quality of drinking water and does not become involved in the control of toxicants and their use in the environment.

I want to inform the honourable members opposite that we are discovering pollution sources nobody thought of a few years ago when pollutants were measured in parts per million. Our scientists now use instruments that can detect and measure pollutants in parts per trillion. To give you an example of the significance of this, everyone knows how long a period of time one second is; one part per million is the same as one second in a period of 12 days.

Mr. Kerrio: Just as long as it takes to pull the trigger of a gun.

Mr. Stevenson: Right.

Mr. Kerrio: It's the same thing. Toxics will kill.

Mr. Stevenson: Some pollutants are measured in parts per billion. One part per billion is one second in 33 years. One part per trillion is one second in 33,000 years. That is the precision with which we now detect seepage of some dangerous chemicals like dioxin from long-forgotten chemical dumps and from other, sometimes-not-yet-determined, sources into our water.

3:50 p.m.

We do not really know what effect such minuscule amounts of pollutants have on our environment or our health; but make no mistake about it, we are concerned about the effects of these small amounts. Their control remains one of the challenges we face.

We are most fortunate to have in this province access to safe drinking water and excellent sanitation facilities. Our system of water supply and waste-water disposal has contributed significantly to our public health and to the relatively high standard of living which we enjoy. The closing of beaches due to an excessive bacteria count in our waters is very rare and water-borne infections have practically disappeared.

At the University of Toronto, researchers studying the mutagenity and toxicity of chemicals found in the tap water treated to ministry criteria by Metro Toronto to be cleaner than the distilled water they get in plastic bottles for use in their research.

Mr. Elston: Have your cabinet people switched from their bottled water?

Mr. Stevenson: They would rather switch than fight.

The Minister of the Environment informed this House on April 1 that his ministry is actively involved in measures to ensure optimum public safety. Our government is involved in a number of things, a continuing examination of the latest testing procedures as well as a fish-testing program which operates as an early warning system for drinking water problems.

Also under way is a special examination of our entire drinking water guidelines program. This examination, scheduled for completion in early summer, will ensure that our guidelines, technology, testing and monitoring programs continue to reflect the latest scientific knowledge about water quality effect on human health.

In 1956, the first measure was taken to establish the Ontario Water Resources Commission, to develop provincially-controlled sanitation and water treatment systems.

Today, 25 years and $4 billion later, more than 400 sewage and water treatment plants serve practically all Ontario communities. Close to 90 per cent of the population of this province is served by communal water facilities and 77 per cent by communal sewerage systems.

Our provincial government has become increasingly involved in water and waste-water systems over the past several years. We provide financial and technical assistance to our municipalities for planning and construction of new systems, providing something over $300 million since 1969 to smaller communities.

We closely control the use of our water resources. We monitor both the quality of drinking water and waste-water disposal to check compliance with provincial objectives and regulations. We provide staff training and technical assistance for the operation and maintenance of water systems.

Our province has been quite active in developing water supply and waste-water facilities. In particular, the Ministry of the Environment has financed, constructed and operated hundreds of water supply and waste-water treatment plants throughout Ontario. Currently, the Ministry of the Environment operates 93 water supply plants and 221 waste-water plants.

In addition, MOE offers the most comprehensive program of training courses and workshops to civilian operating personnel in Canada. The training centre at Brampton utilizes classrooms with lab facilities and demonstration equipment as well as an abandoned sewage treatment plant.

In 1980-81, approximately 1,500 personnel participated in the training sessions. Some participants came from the Atlantic provinces, where similar courses were not available. Between 1974 and 1980, a total of 8,300 people from all provinces and several states have participated in the program.

Drinking water quality is a high priority of this government. Our efforts to ensure the quality of drinking water are backed by a continual updating of our scientific expertise, technology and knowledge in this field. Contrary to allegations often made by the members opposite, this government cares about the wellbeing of its people. It is safe to say that the history of water and drinking water quality in this province are matters of concern and technical success rather than buck passing, as was suggested earlier.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, probably all members of this House share the concern about the quality of drinking water, but I would like to point out the fact that some members of the cabinet show their concern by purchasing their water in bottles rather than by drinking from the taps.

Mr. Hodgson: Say that again.

Mr. Elston: I note that the honourable member for York North --

Mr. Hodgson: Say that again. You were up in Stouffville the other afternoon and you are getting carried away.

Mr. Elston: I noticed that the member was absent from the meeting that day, although I understand from reports that he was hiding someplace up the road. It is significant that he was unable to speak out publicly, and if he wants to do that he can do it here in today's debate. I am very pleased that he finally showed up this afternoon to take

part in something, or at least to listen, for a change.

In any event, to address myself to the member's bill: I want to congratulate the member for Hamilton Mountain, who also showed a great degree of sensitivity by attending the meeting at Stouffville that day, as I did, to speak to the people there who had expressed a great amount of concern about the quality of their drinking water. I must indicate to all members that there is a great deal of concern which has not by any means found an adequate outlet via the legal process through the bills that are now available to the people. That is why I commend the member for Hamilton Mountain for taking steps to introduce legislation that will deal with the quality of drinking water in a meaningful way.

We understand that the government has developed legislation over the years to do a number of things, but the fact remains that no steps have been taken, to this point, to adequately enforce that legislation, nor have steps been taken to adequately address the need to introduce regulations to deal with the multitude of new and deadly chemicals that are finding their way out of dump sites and are being disposed of in ways this society cannot afford.

The member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) indicated that the bill is deficient in that it does not deal with the development of the techniques and technology that are required to deal with the problem, but I rather suspect this is not the need which has really been demonstrated to us here today. Clearly, the need is to develop a way in which the citizens of the province can enforce legislation and put into practice certain minimum requirements for the quality of their drinking water.

We know there is an ongoing process of development of technologies not only to deal with the problem of pollution in drinking water but also to deal with the problems of the disposal of the various chemicals that have found their way into dump sites over the past few years. We are confident that this sort of development of technology will continue.

Some of us on this side of the House are not pleased to see that the people who are trying to develop such technology are forced to go outside the province to do a lot of the testing and developmental work required to ensure their disposal methods are safe and practical. We are not very pleased that the government of Ontario finds it necessary to preclude any early financing of projects to deal with the disposal of environmental contaminants, such as the destruction of polychlorinated biphenyls by the diesel destruction method, which now is in its second phase and which only now has attracted the support of the Ontario government. They knew about the process before the first phase started.

4 p.m.

The record is not very good when it comes to helping develop technology to dispose of these environmentally dangerous substances. The record is not good when it comes to dealing with the problem of the emissions of sulphur dioxide. I presume that it is the standard pattern of the way that the Ministry of the Environment and the government of Ontario approach the serious problems that face the environment, and this must be changed if we hope to have any part of the environment left in a state where our children and grandchildren can hope to live in comfort in this province.

It seems to me that there is a concerted effort being waged here on this side of the House to ensure that the Minister of the Environment and other members of the Ontario government take seriously their responsibility to ensure that the environment is protected for years to come.

The introduction today of the environmental rights bill and the debating today of the second reading of the act introduced by my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain indicate a genuine concern about the track record to this point of the Ministry of the Environment with respect to the very serious problems of the environment and its reactions to the concerns that are voiced by the public.

I have always thought of the Ministry of the Environment as the watchdog, the protector, of the rights of the people; but when the Minister of the Environment goes out of this House and suggests that anybody who is loose-lipped and who criticizes his handling of a situation and the handling of a situation by his officials is wrong, it shows me very clearly that there is no public watchdog --

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The honourable member is making a very important speech and, apart from the fact that the minister is not here, we do not even have a quorum; I think he deserves more attention.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

4:07 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): A quorum is present.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: First, Mr. Speaker, let me apologize for the lack of members on our side of the House. Second, may I point out that the reason for the absence of the members, at least from this side of the House, and perhaps from the other, is an award that is being made on behalf of the Committee for Soviet Jewry, Ontario Region to Flora MacDonald. There was a representation in the form of a letter from the leader of the third party, and there were representatives from the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party present. That event was well known in this House; so I expect it was in rather poor taste at this time to have a quorum call.

It was mentioned that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) is not here. However, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, the member for Durham-York is here; so I do not know what the problem is.

Mr. Laughren: You can't maintain a quorum; you're not doing your job. Why not admit that you're not doing your job?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I do not have to do a job for the member for Nickel Belt. I do very well over here.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am a little sad to note that the government whip has suggested it is in poor taste for the rules of this House to be followed. I suggest that he did not quite mean it the way he said it and perhaps he should retract that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce has some time left, and there are a few other speakers to the issue. It was a point of privilege on which I allowed the minister to stand.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in wrapping up in order that other members may speak.

It is clear to me that people should not have their health and safety threatened by contaminated drinking water or, for that matter, by polluted air or soil. Therefore, the member for Hamilton Mountain has taken a good step forward in addressing the specific problems with his legislation.

We know there are some very fine sections in this bill and, if it comes to a point where the members opposite feel they cannot support the bill on second reading, I hope the Minister of the Environment, particularly since he is represented by his parliamentary assistant, will take sections of this bill and introduce them as amendments to the Ontario Water Resources Act. That could go a long way in addressing some of the very severe and critical problems that have been pointed out by this private member's bill.

The members on this side are quite pleased to support the private member's bill, and we wish the people on the other side of the House would see their way clear to supporting it as well.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I will speak quickly, while my colleagues are still here. Never before have I been made to feel, by a whip of any party, that I should apologize for being in the House during a debate. Only the Conservative whip could make a member feel that way.

I commend the honourable member for introducing this bill. It is an excellent bill, and I felt compelled to speak on it -- particularly as the member asked me to -- for a number of reasons.

First, water is fundamental to good health for people. Second, this bill would put in place a form of preventive medicine across the province. That is something the government should think about. Finally, it really is time, as the former Minister of the Environment, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr), would say, "to make the polluter pay when our drinking water is polluted."

Mr. McClellan: Did he say that?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, the former Minister of the Environment did say that at one time -- shortly before he was bumped to another portfolio.

This bill contains a number of key principles which need to be outlined. One is the whole question of public input and public involvement, not just in monitoring but in the actual setting of standards. It would be something new for the government to involve the public in a meaningful way in the setting of standards, and not to have it done in the way the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), for example, goes through with his sham of public input. This bill really would give the public a say in setting standards.

Second, establishing an advisory council is a good idea. It would make the public feel that it has some say in how we run this province. No less a personage than the Premier (Mr. Davis) promised a council to advise him on environmental assessment, but to this date he has not acted. Why? He promised it; it is in writing. Where is he on that issue? I think most of us would agree that he needs some advice on the subject of environmental assessment.

Third, the bill requires the operator of a public system to monitor the system and to notify its users when there is a problem. It would allow the users to sue for damages when their water supply has been damaged or contaminated. It also authorizes the Ministry of the Environment to do research into water quality. Finally, it establishes that the Ministry of the Environment is responsible for providing an alternative water supply when a regular supply becomes contaminated.

In this bill we are not talking about some bureaucratic mechanism, we are talking about the quality of life in Ontario. We are deceiving ourselves that the quality of life is good as long as there are people in Ontario who either have to carry their water or drink polluted water. That still happens in the riding I represent and, I am sure, in ridings represented by most members.

We should not be paying tribute to the pink flamingos of this world while there are people who do not have good drinking water. We should not be handing out grants to the private sector or purchasing a private jet for the Premier while there are people who have water they cannot drink.

The point I am making is that water tables can be polluted and nobody has to answer for it. I represent an area where much of this occurs. This bill would prevent some of that from happening.

Would Reed Paper have done what they did if this bill had been in place? I think not. Would KVP, now E. B. Eddy Forest Products, have polluted the Spanish River if this bill had been in place? Would Inco continue to pollute the water table and the lakes and rivers the way it did in the past if this bill was in place? The answer is that they would not. They would not be doing what they are doing now --

Mr. Harris: There wouldn't be any private corporations in Ontario if you had all your bills in place.

Mr. Laughren: That is absolute nonsense. The honourable member should know by now that the private corporations in this province will behave in as civilized a way as the jurisdiction requires them to. That is how civilized they will be. If the member sits back and lets them do as they want, then he cannot expect to have water tables that are not polluted in Ontario.

This bill would serve notice to all potential polluters that they will have to pay in the end. Unless it is put in place, why should anybody do anything about it until he is caught? At this point, there is no reason any polluter should be unduly concerned. The bill would set penalties for people who actually did pollute. It would give the public the right to know about the water they are drinking. Is that not a quaint idea? It would require the public to be told when they are drinking contaminated water. They should be told about that; right now there is no requirement that this should occur.

My colleague mentioned that water was going to be an issue in the 1980s. He is absolutely right. We are going to make sure that it is, because we believe that if there is one way to measure the quality of life for people, it is the quality of the water they drink.

This bill has particular relevance to many communities in northern Ontario. Many communities in the north simply do not have potable drinking water. In my own area there is a community where the wells have arsenic in them, a natural arsenic from the water, but the Ministry of the Environment has no requirement to provide an alternative water supply, absolutely none.

There are places like Chapleau, Foleyet, Sultan -- and Gogama, of course: I would be remiss if I did not talk about Gogama -- where the water table is so polluted that the former Minister of the Environment built a community tap in the town. But now Gogama is going to get communal water. And why is it going to get community water now? Because we threatened to build a statue around that community tap. The minister was afraid the statue might be in bad taste when it was finished. That is why the ministry now is going to have to provide funding for that community of Gogama. It is a sad commentary at this time.

Look at Massey. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) is here. The town of Massey's water supply source is being threatened by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. doing test drilling at East Bull Lake. AECL is proceeding to do its test drilling for the potential storage of nuclear waste in that community. The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) is shaking his head, but that is absolutely what it is doing: test drilling and research for the storage of nuclear waste. If he does not know that, he had better ask the member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

Mr. Harris: Check the record. That is not what the member said.

Mr. Laughren: That is exactly what it is doing. It will not sign a document that says it will never store nuclear waste where it is doing the testing. It will not do that. The government is asking the people of Massey to trust AECL with the source of its drinking water. It must have a lot more faith in AECL than I do if it puts that much faith in it.

In response to a survey AECL did in the community, more than 88 per cent of the people said, "We do not want that testing to be done where our water supply is going to come from." But that is totally ignored. The Ontario government will not intervene or even ask AECL to be subjected to an environmental assessment. It will not even ask.

If one talks to the people in that community, one finds that they feel as if they have no friends at all, because this government will not intervene. I know it is under federal jurisdiction, but this province will not even ask AECL to be subjected to an environmental assessment.

We have a long way to go before we can be proud of the quality of life in this province, because we cannot provide all its citizens with good, clean drinking water.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Hamilton Mountain for his interest in and efforts on the environmental issues in Ontario which I have seen in my short time here at Queen's Park; and although I am not prepared to support Bill 45, which the member introduced today, none the less I do commend him, not for the drafting of Bill 45 but for what I have seen --

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: If the honourable members will be quiet, I will continue complimenting the member; but if they want to keep on, I can skip this part and get into the other.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I think it is important. I think he has demonstrated obvious concern and has provided the opportunity for debate today on a matter that members on all sides of the House, I believe, are concerned about.

Mr. J. A. Reed: If you believe in it, you should stand up for it.

Mr. Harris: I am standing up right now, and I will tell the members why I do not like this bill, why I have certain reservations when it comes to accepting the bill.

My general criticism is that Bill 45 is narrower in scope than the Ontario Water Resources Act; it deals only with drinking water and lacks the all-encompassing approach that is taken in the Ontario Water Resources Act. The bill before us appears to be patterned after the US Safe Drinking Water Act. Like its counterpart, as my colleague the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) pointed out today, Bill 45 provides only a legal framework for controlling the quality of drinking water; it does not become involved in the most important aspect of ensuring safe drinking water, the control of toxicants.

What the ministry currently accomplishes through policies under the Ontario Water Resources Act Bill 45 proposes to achieve through formal legal procedures. It appears that the intent and purpose of Bill 45 are satisfied by the Ontario Water Resources Act. I will give members several examples in that area which I believe show the redundancy of the bill.

First, Bill 45 requires anyone supplying the public with water to ensure this water meets the standards and requirements of the Ministry of the Environment. The Ontario Water Resources Act requires the same thing, perhaps in a slightly different way. Any person contemplating the establishment of waterworks -- and this includes any municipality -- must apply to the Ministry of the Environment for approval. Ministry personnel, before granting an approval, must ensure that the applicant will provide a proper supply of water. The Environmental Protection Act also requires that all approvals be kept in a record which is available to the public.

Second, Bill 45 provides an offence and penalty

section to protect water supplies in Ontario. There are similar offence and penalty sections in the Ontario Water Resources Act. The individual fines, one may argue, are lower in the Ontario Water Resources Act than in Bill 45; but I suggest that the potential for higher fines is perhaps greater in the Ontario Water Resources Act, because the fines are determined on a daily basis.

Third, the water review board established by Bill 45 to hold hearings on proposed standards and regulations is the same kind of tribunal as the Environmental Appeal Board and the Environmental Assessment Board. These boards provide for full public participation in the decision-making process.

Mr. Elston: You never use the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Harris: Then criticize that, but it is there.

Similarly, the water advisory council proposed under Bill 45 to advise the minister on research and health effects could be created under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Section 7 of the act gives the Minister of the Environment the power to conduct the research that is described in Bill 45. The Ontario Water Resources Act also gives the Minister of the Environment the power to make regulations that are similar in scope to those envisioned in Bill 45.

I cannot accept the arguments presented by the member for Bill 45, given the fact that our government has the power under existing legislation to ensure safe drinking water. Regulations regarding the setting of water quality standards, maximum permissible levels of toxicants, testing requirements and monitoring frequency can all be made under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

My colleague has pointed out that we in this province have access to safe drinking water and excellent sanitation facilities. Our healthy population is proof that existing procedures are more than satisfactory in controlling and monitoring our water quality.

I bring to the honourable member's attention the recent report presented to the Canadian International Development Agency by Brian Grover of R. L. Walker and Partners Ltd., consulting engineers and economists, entitled Canadian Prospects for Providing Operational Assistance to Water Supply and Sanitation Systems in Developing Countries.

This report acknowledges Canada's, and particularly Ontario's, expertise in water supply and waste water disposal systems. The report also points out that half of the world's population -- the majority of those who live in the developing countries -- does not have access to a safe supply of drinking water. For them, a safe water supply is still more of a wish than a reality. Clearly, the absence of these essential services causes untold hardship and misery in those undeveloped countries.

The developing countries are attempting to expand their water supply and sanitation services to meet the basic needs of some two billion people by 1990. Since Ontario has already reached the goals for which developing countries are striving, the CIDA report recommends that Canada should commercially exploit its expertise in this area to improve the existing water supply and sanitation systems in developing nations.

At the same time, the benefits to Canada can be enormous in this area. It is estimated that Canada's water supply and waste-water industry could win contracts worth up to $40 million annually. An expanded Canadian role in operational assistance very likely would facilitate a larger Canadian role in establishing trade links with the developing nations. This is what is happening now in Ontario.

In closing, I urge the members to weigh carefully the implications of the honourable member's bill. I see no need to pass more legislation, particularly a bill that is largely redundant at a time in the history of Ontario and Canada when I believe we are already overlegislated. The bill does not provide the necessary controls and guidelines to fully protect and enhance the quality of our drinking water. We have in existence now

an act that is more than satisfactory in ensuring high standards for drinking water in Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to tell the New Democratic Party that we wholeheartedly support the bill. We join them in having been much involved with and concerned about the quality of water.

It is not all that many years ago that we had governments formed federally and provincially here in this great country of ours. Many of them met at Niagara-on-the-Lake to form the first Parliament of Upper Canada on the banks of the Niagara River. I am sure on that day those parliamentarians moved about on the great waterways of the province and took their food from those waterways.

I cannot believe they would have foreseen that in such a few short years the public would have to come hat in hand to ask the government to protect the drinking water of this province. That is basically what is happening here today. One might have called this environmental day, because the minister reacted to the citizens who were going to come today to hear this bill debated and moved in a direction we have been attempting to get him to move for a good long time.

We certainly have taken the initiative to put a bill, in the name of our member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston), which our former leader had put. It was a very responsible bill to protect the water in Ontario and to enable us to go after the polluters.

4:30 p.m.

The minister's assistant is telling us that now we are so sophisticated we can measure not only in parts per thousand but in parts per million and parts per trillion. We have to be able to measure down to those very small measurements simply because the toxics are getting so potent that enough dioxin on a pinhead will kill any number of people.

We do not have a choice about getting that sophisticated. We have to be in order to measure the toxicants in the water. The simplest test of all is still there to be seen. The government wants to drag in all kinds of heavy research, involve infinite numbers of people and spend all kinds of money. There is a very simple way to know what this government has allowed to happen to Ontario's waterways, wells and water supplies. Fish cannot live in them any more. That tells us something.

It is said that people are living longer because we have good water. That is not true at all. They are living longer because of advances in medical treatment in some of the things that used to kill people off in the past. This government has done little or nothing to protect the waterways in this province.

What a shame that, after having all kinds of high-priced help over there, the citizens have to band together to protect their drinking water. It is happening in every jurisdiction. When the ministry tries to defend its position to the people in Stouffville it is wasting its time and the time of this Legislature.

It should decide whether it is going to get behind meaningful legislation, and whether it is going to take some comments from this side of the House where we are trying to be constructive and tell the government it is just about time to keep the promise.

Some very able members of the Legislature and some very able people outside, people who have been very much involved in the bill before us today, such as Toby Vigod of Canadian Environmental Law Association and Anne Wordsworth of Pollution Probe, have taken this responsibility and carried it forward.

This government did not represent the people of Ontario at the hearings held when tremendous volumes were going to be dumped into the lower Niagara River. The minister went as a private individual because this government did not have a commitment to send someone over there to say, "We are the province of Ontario, and that is an international waterway which knows no bounds. Those pollutants are going to come right across here to us."

It did not have the kind of fortitude it takes to go over and tell our American friends that we will not put up with that, that we will join together with the federal government and do what we have to do to turn this thing around.

The people with wells in the area of dump sites know full well that when one continues to put contaminant on top of contaminant, hydrostatic pressure pushes those contaminants out. They know York Sanitation did not put the contaminants there, but they also know if one continues to pile on top of those contaminants they are pushed out and pushed into the wells, and that is what they are concerned about.

They have every right to be concerned, because they cannot trust this government to share with them honestly all the tests that have been made. On many occasions I have asked this government to identify the dangerous sites where the leaching might get into the wells and drill the kinds of test facilities around those to know when those contaminants are on the move. It is not good enough to have a committee or a group testing the water after the fact. After the contaminants have moved into the water supply it is too late.

That is the kind of initiative we want to see the government take. That is why we join with the NDP today to suggest this government has had plenty of time to do it. It has failed to do it. Now comes a time for us to start pushing. The public is going to start pushing.

We saw how the minister reacted today the minute he found out we were going to debate this bill and there might be people in the gallery who are very upset about the inactivity on the part of the government.

Mr. Wildman: Where is the minister?

Ms. Copps: He doesn't even show up.

Mr. Kerrio: He has his parliamentary assistant here to tell him how the people reacted to this bit of reaction the minister had today because of the pressure that was coming to bear.

Here is a little background as it relates to the fact that our former leader introduced a bill, which was re-introduced today by our member. We feel that bill should be considered as well.

The contamination of drinking water supplies, both public and private, is becoming a matter which we read about more and more. Just as acid rain became a buzzword, toxics-on-tap and a deadly drink might become media buzzwords in the future unless this government takes some kind of action.

A review of legislation demonstrates that although legislation has been enacted to control water pollution at the source, this legislation has not been effective in preventing the continued degradation of the waterways.

Ontario may use the Ontario Water Resources Act or the Environmental Protection Act as legislation to protect drinking water; however, the provincial government has not taken advantage of its powers under these acts to control pollution effectively. Enforcement has been sporadic and uneven.

Furthermore, even where existing legislation provides a framework for establishing regulations, the government has not used these provisions to enact standards. This means that with respect to drinking water there is no legislation regulating contaminants at the point of consumption, that is at the tap.

Within ministerial regulation powers under the Ontario Water Resources Act, the minister may make regulations specifying standards, not just guidelines of quality, for water supplies.

The minister knows that has not been done. I say that we should all support this bill and get on with the very important aspects of this. They are important to the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: I was going to point out to the member for Beaches-Woodbine that she would probably have about one minute, because the time for this will expire at 4:39 p.m. As a result, would you like to give your minute to the honourable member who introduced the bill?

Ms. Bryden: I will defer to the member.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to respond in three minutes to all of the things that have been said, but I would like to pick a couple of them.

Both of the members on the government side -- the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) -- keyed on the fact that in their opinion and in the opinion of the government all of these things are already covered in legislation.

During February of this year, I listened to over 50 citizens' groups from across this province who have been fighting battles specifically related to water in their communities. They have found there is no easy legal access in the existing legislation to deal with the problems we are trying to deal with in this bill. That is the first item. I would like those two members to think carefully about that and I would like the member for Durham-York to carry that message back to the minister.

The second point is that the member for Nipissing made the point that the minister already has the power under the Ontario Water Resources Act to do the research I am suggesting he should do. There is a substantial difference between a power for the minister to do research at his discretion and an obligation that is set down in this bill for the minister to do that research instead of sitting on his hands having the power and not doing it.

In wrapping up, I want to say to the government members that this bill was developed in large part by the input of citizens and citizens' groups from across this province, not by some political plot of the left in this caucus. This is the kind of legislation the people in this province feel they need to deal with the concerns they have about water.

We sat for several days listening to group after group telling us this is the kind of thing they need. If there are specific things in the bill that upset the government, they can be dealt with in committee outside of the House, where we can have further public hearings and hear from more groups from across the province. The principle of the bill is what we should be dealing with here today; it incorporates the concerns that have been expressed by citizens from across this province.

I encourage members to support the bill.

4:40 p.m.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 47,

An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Before you start, would you like to reserve some time at the end?

Mr. Riddell: No, Mr. Speaker, I am going to go right through. Twenty minutes does not give me sufficient time to say all that needs to be said about the unfair trading practices in the food industry.

If I can convince members on both sides of the House in the time allotted that the formation of large buying groups by the major chain stores to exact more discounts and allowances from their suppliers is destroying competition, which is the essence of free enterprise, then I am sure my bill to prohibit such practices will receive unanimous support. Ultimately, it will be a major step to protect consumers from unjustifiably high food prices.

If one were told that supermarkets are able to make large profits while farmers are facing financial crisis, would one not find a certain irony in that scenario? Furthermore, would one not be suspicious of supermarket practices if one were told that one food chain raised the price of a certain food product 13 per cent almost overnight followed by a similar unjustifiable hike in price by two other chain stores within a week?

When a director of sales and marketing for an independent supplier of this product was contacted, he said no price hikes were justified for this product. When a consumer complained and the matter was investigated, the chain store which originally hiked the price said that an error was made when prices were readjusted after the long winter price war in Ontario.

Is it not rather odd that the other two chain stores made the same error? After the customer complained, all three chain stores dropped the price of that one product to the same level.

It raises the question as to how extensively this practice is carried on and what that says for competition. I submit we are losing competition in the food industry. As an indication of this, another buyer was recently taken out of the market when Dominion and Steinberg merged their buying power into one of the nation's most powerful buying groups known as Volume One.

Ken Gadd of Peterborough, who runs the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers, which represents family owned and operated supermarkets, said the creation of Volume One means, "It is going to be tough for the independents to survive." But he predicted the larger concern lies among food processors because Volume One is "just a means of extracting more discount from the manufacturer."

Herein lies the irony. Supermarkets engage in practices which continue to make them larger profits at the expense of not only the food producers but the independent processors and manufacturers as well, all part of the food chain; yet the food producers are trying to make themselves heard in their protest to governments over high interest rates, another player in the country's food system, while the five major grocery chains receive scant attention on the effect they have on producer prices.

Recent