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

May 27, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L058 - Tue 27 May 1980 / Mar 27 mai 1980

INCO CONTROL ORDER HEARING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ACIDIC PRECIPITATION

LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS

FOREST FIRES

INCO EMISSIONS

ONTARIO POPULATION LOSS

IRON ORE PELLETS

PRECORONARY PROGRAMS

GAS RATE STRUCTURE

SHOP CANADIAN PROGRAM

JUNIOR AGRICULTURALIST PROGRAM

ELDORADO PLANT AT BLIND RIVER

THE TIN DRUM

CIVIL SERVICE SALARY INCREASES

VISITORS

KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ACT

GOTHIC MINES & OILS LIMITED ACT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

BILL 35

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

SUCCESSION DUTY ACT SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS ACT (CONTINUED)

SUCCESSION DUTY ACT SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS ACT

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ACT

TABLING OF DOCUMENT

The House met at 2:01 p.m.

Prayers.

INCO CONTROL ORDER HEARING

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege arising out of a press release that was distributed by the Minister of the Environment on May 22, last Thursday. This press release gave only eight days for interested parties to prepare written briefs with reference to the Inco control order and the hearings to be held in Sudbury. In addition, the press release fixed next Wednesday, June 4, as the evening when the public meeting was to be held in Sudbury.

That Wednesday happens to be the day when the Environment estimates are due to be held here in this Legislature. It is not possible for the Environment critics of the opposition parties to be here until 6 p.m. and then to be in Sudbury at a meeting to begin at 7 p.m. I want to suggest that there is a deliberate infringement of the privileges of this House in excluding the Environment critics of the opposition parties from taking

part in a hearing which, in any case, should not have been undertaken with such a short notice to the interested public.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, there was no conflict intended. As a matter of fact, I think my estimates were scheduled some time earlier and were postponed. Indeed, I have had to rearrange my own schedule, not that I object to that, but surely no one would think I set that date of our estimates. That was set by the House leaders. It has been postponed at least twice; so there can be no deliberate attempt on our part to have a conflict of dates.

Secondly, I am torn between the insistence that we get on with the job and the delaying of a hearing, and I think a hearing is essential. I do not think it would be absolutely essential for the critics to be at the opening session, if they should choose to be at Sudbury, if that is a greater priority. If they choose to be there the next day since it may not conclude on June 4, I am sure the hearing officer is more than prepared to hear all testimony.

Mr. Cassidy: On the question of privilege, since the minister says now it was not a deliberate kind of intention on the part of his ministry, and in view of the fact that people who have waited 10 years to get this hearing now have to prepare briefs within only seven or eight days, would the minister consider postponing the hearings at Sudbury by a couple of weeks so the Environment critics of the opposition parties can take part during all of the hearings, not just part of them, and so the public can adequately participate on this very important matter that affects Sudbury and all of Ontario affected by the acid rain from Sudbury’s emissions?

Mr. Speaker: Your point has been made, and it’s not within the purview of the presiding officer of this House either to orchestrate the calling of business of this House or what goes on outside the House. You have made your point, and if the Minister of the Environment chooses to do anything about it, I’m sure he will notify you in due course.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ACIDIC PRECIPITATION

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today three reports compiled by my ministry which provide factual analyses of acidic precipitation affecting the Muskoka-Haliburton and Sudbury areas of the province.

The first report is labelled Acidic Precipitation in South-Central Ontario: Analysis of Source Regions using Air Parcel Trajectories. The second one is Bulk Deposition in the Sudbury and Muskoka-Haliburton Areas of Ontario during the Shutdown of Inco Limited in Sudbury. The third report is An Analysis of the Impact of Inco Emissions on Precipitation Quality in the Sudbury Area.

The first study, based on actual monitoring of rain and snow from 1976 to 1979, shows that 90 per cent of the acid contributions come from sources south of the Muskoka-Haliburton areas and 10 per cent from north of these areas. I would like to add that south means exactly that: south of Muskoka-Haliburton and not just south of the Ontario border. Northerly sources account for roughly nine per cent of the acid, seven per cent of the sulphate and eight per cent of the nitrates. The sources to the south and southwest contribute 80 per cent of the acid, 75 per cent of the sulphate and 65 per cent of the nitrates.

The second report, the bulk deposition study, compared measurements of all atmospheric fallout, both wet and dry. We were able to record these findings both before and during the prolonged shutdown of Inco’s Sudbury operations. We found that acid loadings to our lakes did not show any marked change in the Sudbury area or in Muskoka-Haliburton during the period of the Inco shutdown in 1978.

The incontestable conclusion is that long-range transport of pollutants from a southerly direction has a major impact on our resort areas. The smelter complex has a major effect on copper and nickel depositions up to 40 kilometres away from Sudbury, a small effect on sulphate deposition close to Sudbury, and a minimal effect on acid loadings near Sudbury. Nevertheless, the acid loadings do have, without doubt, their effects on other parts of Canada and the United States. It is for this reason that our goal is to have Inco emissions at the lowest possible level as determined by the comprehensive studios to be undertaken by the federal-provincial task force.

The impact of Inco emissions study confirms the contribution of Inco’s summer season emissions to the total wet deposition in the Sudbury area, depending on the weather system passing through the area. For acids, sulphur and a number of trace metals, the Inco contribution in this area is about 10 per cent of the total during warm fronts, and twice that amount during cold fronts. About 40 per cent of copper and nickel deposition there can be attributed to Inco regardless of the weather.

2:10 p.m.

Taking the whole picture into consideration, there is no doubt that the emission effects of Inco on the immediate Sudbury area cannot be ignored. The long-range and long-term effects are still a serious concern for this government and we will continue our activities to deal with them.

These studies also underline the need for international abatement to deal with the long- range transport of contaminants. We will be referring these studies, along with our continuing research, to the Ontario-Canada task force which we are establishing to investigate and report on the abatement of emissions from smelting operations in the Sudbury area.

We are continuing our sampling and analysis program to gain additional information. I believe, however, that these reports have this major significance:

First, the results are based on extensive field measurements and meteoroligical analysis which reflect the best technology and methodology. This information is particularly valuable in the light of the preliminary state of computer-simulated models. It will do much to strengthen the accuracy of computer-simulated projections under development by both federal and provincial scientists.

Second, they provide a sound data base to measure the effects of abatement programs now under way and other measures still to come at Sudbury and other areas containing significant sources.

Third, when this information is combined with the initiatives Ontario is taking in pollution abatement, the urgent need for action in the United States and Canada is apparent.

We have shown that Ontario has acted and is prepared to act on pollution control, as I have emphasized so many times before. We believe that both Canadian and US sources must be controlled. With the continued close co-operation and support that exists between the federal and provincial governments on this matter, I feel confident we shall succeed.

Because these reports are technical and highly complex, we arranged for copies to be made available this morning for the opposition leaders and my critics. Ministry staff are available to answer any questions. I would also like to say that on the advice of my colleague the member for Muskoka (Hon. F. S. Miller), I have agreed that ministry personnel at all levels will be more than willing to attend a public meeting in his riding to outline fully all the scientific data available.

LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing a new Limited Partnerships Act to replace the current act.

Ontario has had a Limited Partnerships Act since 1849 and the legislation has been carried forward since that time without substantial change. For most of this century the corporation has been the favoured investment vehicle, while interest in limited partnerships has declined. But recent changes in tax legislation have generated renewed interest in the limited partnership, particularly for investment in mineral, oil and gas exploration and film making.

As evidence of this increased interest, we have noticed a continual rise in the number of limited partnership registrations over the past few years. Last year, for example, 344 limited partnerships were registered with my ministry. The previous year’s total was only 195.

Admittedly, these figures are just a small fraction of the total number of new businesses being created annually in the province. In fact, the 344 limited partnerships formed last year represent less than one per cent of the 50,000 new businesses registered last year. But we expect this new bill will encourage the formation of many more new limited partnerships.

The new act is designed to make it easier for business people to form limited partnerships and to ensure the protection of limited liability even when the composition of the partnership changes. Under existing legislation, a limited partner could lose his limited liability as a result of things over which he has no control, such as the death of one of the partners.

Under the proposed bill, investors would retain their limited liability despite changes in the partnership, as long as they did not take control of the business or sign and register a false declaration that would cause a loss to a third party.

In addition, the paperwork needed to register changes in the partnership will be reduced. Under the present act, every time a change in the membership or financial contribution by members occurs, a new certificate of limited partnership must be filed by all the partners. When you consider that some limited partnerships have 200 members or more, this requirement can be very time-consuming. Under the proposed bill, only the specific changes must be filed.

The proposed bill also clarifies the status of extraprovincial limited partnerships operating in Ontario, by making it mandatory for these businesses to register and appoint an attorney-for-service in our province. This will ensure disclosure of the particulars for persons who deal with the partnership in Ontario.

At the present time it is not clear whether a resident of Ontario who invests in an extra-provincial limited partnership which carries on business in Ontario but is not registered here has limited liabilities. The proposed bill will clarify this by providing that the limited liability of the investor is covered by the laws where the extraprovincial limited partnership is organized.

Limited partnerships formed outside of Ontario but operating in the province will be given 60 days to register after the commencement of the act.

In brief, by updating the act we will not only make the limited partnership a more attractive business vehicle but, because of increased investment, it will also create new jobs and business in the province.

FOREST FIRES

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, before we go on to oral questions, I wonder if the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld), would be able to update us on the fire situation in northern Ontario. Particularly, could he tell us whether the Ontario government has made any request to the federal government for assistance of the armed forces in assisting in firefighting in the north?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the last word I had, just a few moments ago, was that the situation is roughly as it was yesterday. The two ministers involved are keeping a very close eye on it.

I took Friday afternoon to visit Dryden and Red Lake myself to see personally what was happening and to meet some of the people who were being evacuated from Red Lake. When I was there, the Canadian Armed Forces were involved in the evacuation. From the people I discussed it with, I think it was extremely well handled. Obviously the people were not enthused about having to leave their community but because of the organization everybody appeared to be in good spirits and understanding.

In terms of the actual firefighting itself, I cannot tell the honourable member whether requests have gone forward, whether there is a need for additional personnel per se, or whether it is just a question of equipment. If I have any further information on that I shall inform the member. I can only say. from my discussions with the senior people there, they were making every effort to contain the fires where possible. Most important they were dealing with the people who could be affected by the forest fires in a way that the people up there at least seem to feel was going extremely well.

I cannot give the House any further information than that. This information I have just given was received about half an hour ago. If I have anything further before the end of the question period I will inform the House.

INCO EMISSIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I thank him for sending me copies of the technical studies released today. These studies, in my reading, would appear to have some serious technical flaws which I suspect would he best discussed in estimates. I am sure the minister and I agree that Inco is a major polluter, that the pollution is going somewhere and that a substantial amount of it is going to Muskoka and Haliburton.

However much we may disagree on the numbers, would he explain to the House why he has been unwilling to bring a proper control order in the Inco case, one which would insist that by the end of 1984-85 they have the proper furnaces in place which would bring their emissions below 1,000 tons a day? Granted that would be expensive, but the minister must surely have read the reports indicating that the company can afford that level of cleanup. Why has the minister continued to hope that the lnco emissions are going somewhere else, and to continue to permit Inco to pollute at its present level?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition did not have the time this morning to go and hear the people who he said are making serious technical errors and question them on it. That was the precise purpose of that opportunity which he was not able to avail himself of.

Second, I have a good deal of evidence that suggests we are taking very much the appropriate action. The paper that the Leader of the Opposition put forward yesterday talked about levels of 2,250 tons in two and a half years. Our order is 1,950 tons by that time. He talked about 1,000 tons. I am quoting from the paper he quoted at great length just yesterday. If he will read it, he will understand that the levels are 2,250 in two and a half years. Ours will be much lower than that.

2:20 p.m.

May I repeat, our order is much lower than the paper the honourable member quoted as the definitive study. We are much in advance of what he is proposing. That is on the record, and I do not know how the honourable member can possibly deny that. He is talking about four or five years; we are saying by 1981 we will have the study, we will have the information, we will have the knowledge to come to the lowest possible level.

I think it is about time the honourable member started to live in the realistic world. We are doing a great deal. May I read a letter received this morning from the Action Seminar on Acidic Precipitation? It is addressed to myself:

“Dear Dr. Parrott: The ASAP wishes to commend you for the recent initiative to achieve a reduction in sulphur emissions at Inco” -- and I can go on. It is a very complimentary letter about what we are doing and what we will continue to do. They have the faith in this government to do it; we will continue to deliver the goods.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that whatever compliments the minister has received, he is certainly not going to receive them from me or anyone else knowledgeable on the matter.

Would the minister explain why it is that he has told Inco it can continue to pollute basically at its present level for the next two years, then come down some 20 or 25 per cent to 1,950 tons? Why does he need to produce a study, when there are studies available which should tell the minister, as they tell me and anyone else who cares to read them, that Inco could come down by 60 per cent within four years by putting in new furnaces? It would cost them more than $400 million, but they would save close to $300 million on energy alone.

Why does the minister not have the courage to tell Inco to cut down to the 60 per cent they are capable of cutting down to, instead of delivering the goods, as he says, which is simply delivering the goods to Inco instead of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Let me read the bottom line of this report which the member opposite quotes at such great length. I read it and I will be glad to table it for you, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite just said they have all the studies necessary.

This report is only a preliminary assessment of the reductions in emissions which appear to be feasible. That is a long way from the suggestion that was just put forward.

That is the bottom line in the report that was quoted so extensively yesterday. I have it here; I read all of the figures that are on there. It is on page nine, if the member wants to check it out: Emission requirement, 2,250 tons; startup time, two and a half years.

The member seems to fail to understand that one cannot instantly turn on a switch and have all of these technical things develop in a huge operation the size of Inco; it takes a considerable period of time, and they are starting now to do it. They have been working on this new system of pyrrhotite separation for some considerable period of time. They are committed to go to the system, and even if it does not work, the control order stands. We will bring them down to 1,950, which is below the level they propose.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, how is it that the Minister of the Environment can take such pride in requiring that Inco get down to 1,950 tons in a couple of years, when the control order, which his ministry imposed back 10 years ago, directed that Inco get down to 750 tons?

How is it the minister can stand there in his place and say he is delivering the goods to the people of Ontario when he has almost tripled the amount of allowable emissions from Inco which he decided 10 years ago was not acceptable?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I invite the member to make these kind of statements at his home town on June 4, because he knows and the rest of us know there was no known technology to get to 750 tons. There is not now and there was not then. If he wants 750 tons, I would suggest that the member go home to his riding and talk about a 75 per cent layoff at Inco, where there is not the technology to do it.

I want to emphasize -- I said it in my statement today and I will repeat it a thousand times, if it is necessary to do so -- that the provincial-federal task force will have public representation to go to the lowest possible level. That is the only figure we should honestly be considering. It is a very significant issue, not just to one area of this province. It is a tremendously significant issue to all the people of this province. I understand that.

I and this government will not rest nor will we be satisfied until we come to that point: the lowest possible level of emissions. We have taken the first step in Ontario. Let the others now come forward and offer as much as we have delivered.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of privilege?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has implied that I say one thing in this chamber and another thing back in the Sudbury Basin. That is simply untrue, and I would ask that you direct the minister to withdraw it. Also, I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that Inco itself admitted at one time that the company could get down to 1,500 tons per day and the minister allowed it off the hook on that admission.

Mr. S. Smith: Why does the minister continue that scare tactic, that old bogyman about layoffs at Inco, when he knows very well there will be no 75 per cent layoff at Inco? There will be no layoffs there. There will be increased jobs in the pollution control industry. There will be increased jobs in the fertilizer industry using the sulphuric acid byproduct. Every study in his ministry tells him there will be more jobs when Inco is forced to clean up, not fewer jobs.

Why does the minister use that old chestnut? Why does the minister not have the guts to go to Inco and have a policy about acid rain which consists of more than the present one which seems to be to seed the clouds with Rolaids and hope for the best?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that looking at the clock there is not time enough left this afternoon, if we dealt with no other issue than the number of times the leader of the Liberal Party has gone around this province, not just spreading gloom and doom, but making paranoid statements on so many issues. Then he worries about us making those kind of statements.

The statement was made that to go to 750 tons instantly like this leaves no alternative. I want to come, as I have said, not to 750, but to the lowest possible level on a phased basis using the best technology available. I want to do it as soon as possible, and this government supports me all the way.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain how the public is to comment intelligently on the proposed control order when the ministry is rushing to finish the public hearings on the control order before there is adequate time to assess the documentation that is only now being made available, and when the major study by the Economic Council of Canada on sulphur dioxide emissions by Inco and the cost of regulating or controlling those emissions will not be published until the middle of June?

Why is the government trying to get the control order to protect Inco wrapped up before we know what the facts are and before the public can comment on how much further we could reduce those sulphur dioxide emissions?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go over what that hearing is. It is not, as other meetings have been, an environmental assessment hearing. There will be an open house the previous days. There will be an opportunity for those without large expertise to comment on their position. The leader of the third party and his critic have had light years to prepare their position.

Mr. Martel: So have you.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Indeed we have. All of the members of this House have spent many years, many hours in committees, discussing this order. We have all had a great opportunity to get to know the facts and to question the experts who have testimony before committees. That will continue to go on. I do not want for one second to cut off the public’s participation in this process. It will continue to go on. This is only one step in a continuing role to bring us to that lowest possible emission level that we all seek.

ONTARIO POPULATION LOSS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. The Premier will recall that the figures last year indicated that Ontario was losing population rather rapidly on the basis of a net interprovincial migration. Despite the influx of people from Quebec, we were losing people to the west at quite a rate. I suggested that Ontario had become a place to leave and the Premier, as I recall, went around the bend at the time.

Is the Premier now aware of the latest figures which would indicate that the rate of emigration from Ontario, the rate of net loss of population interprovincially from Ontario, has increased by some 90 per cent in the last few months? Is he aware for instance on a one-year basis --

Mr. Havrot: Maybe it is because of you.

Mr. S. Smith: There are a few over there who should have left, but they might be better to listen for a while.

Mr. Havrot: Why did you leave Quebec?

Mr. S. Smith: The fact is, in the year from January to January, although we had an influx of approximately 17,000 people from Quebec, we lost 27,000 people, mostly to Alberta and British Columbia.

Would the Premier agree that these people are in effect voting and giving their opinion of his government by voting with their feet? Does he have any figures regarding the extent to which the people leaving are educated? How many skilled workers are we losing? Can he provide figures as to the categories of the people we are losing at the moment under his leadership?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, any of those who may be moving to the west for either permanent or short-term occupations obviously are leaving well educated, in spite of any observations by the Leader of the Opposition.

In his usual rhetorical, enlightened, constructive fashion he suggested they are voting with their feet, but at least we on this side of the House do not think with ours; we try to handle decisions intelligently.

I listened to some of his rhetoric the other day and I thought he meant it when he suggested that it was a time to cool the debates between provinces. Then I knew he had reverted; those high moments of a few days ago, when he tried to be a statesman, dissipated when his political ambition became too great for him. Or perhaps McMaster said to him, “You have to be back by the end of the year; so you had better move up or move out.” I understand that.

I would say this province over the years has benefited in terms of people coming from outside Canada. I am not one of those who was particularly delighted when people, say from the maritime provinces, felt they had to move to Ontario for what might have been economic benefit. I do not think that is a healthy thing for the country. I take no great satisfaction that people have moved out of Quebec into this province. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition does, because that would be consistent with his point of view. I am not disturbed at all that some Ontarians are going to other parts of Canada. Surely that is what this country is all about.

When we see other provinces growing in economic terms, where we are then the beneficiaries as well, surely the Leader of the Opposition, if he is going to be the statesman he tried to be a week ago, should be sharing in the understanding that when other parts of Canada experience economic growth we in this province are ultimately the beneficiaries.

I have no concern about people moving. I know of several young people who have gone to Calgary for a short period. They are not going to stay there in perpetuity, but there are certain job opportunities there. Why shouldn’t they go? it is a great experience. They may even persuade some Albertans that in central Canada we aren’t quite as selfish as the people in Alberta on occasion think we are. I have to tell members the people in Alberta aren’t nearly as selfish or as nasty as the Leader of the Opposition construes them to be.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. Listen, I can show the member material on what he has said about the poor government of Alberta that would curl his hair, if it needs any further curling.

If the Leader of the Opposition is trying to embarrass this government by saying people are moving from Ontario to seek job opportunities in other parts of Canada at this moment in our history, all I can say is his frustrations are showing. It doesn’t concern me at all, because the realities are still there.

This province, in terms of our technology, in terms of the manufacturing sector and in terms of job opportunities for the majority of people, is the healthiest jurisdiction in Canada. And I have news for the member: it is going to stay that way for a number of years for a multitude of reasons, one of which is that we are still going to be here and his party is still going to be over there.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Since the Premier appears to be continuing his program of beating the bushes over in London, England, to get skilled workers, when he finishes with his personal insults --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. S. Smith: -- could he take a little time to tell us how many of the 27,000 people who have left Ontario this year fall into the category of skilled workers? Could he do that?

Could he also comment on the fact that since things have stabilized in Quebec and since we would have had a net loss of 27,000 had it not been for the influx of people from Quebec, does he anticipate a continued influx from that province? If not, is he at all alarmed about the rate at which we are losing population to other provinces?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think we should look at our net population figures as well, and I am not going to take any personal credit, but I have done more than my share and more than the Leader of the Opposition in terms of perpetuating the numbers game in this province. I am not accusing him of lack of effort. Don’t take that as a personal insult.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t know he was so thin-skinned. What always amazes me is that the Leader of the Opposition can say as many sarcastic things as he likes about my colleagues in the cabinet. I stand up here to have a little fun and he starts taking it personally. I say to him, don’t take it so personally. He is embarrassing all of his colleagues around him. They are sitting there with dumbfounded looks. Look at the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). Look at that distant relative of mine from Kitchener who sits there in embarrassment when his leader says some of these things. How are you, Jamie?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to try and get a breakdown for the member.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I say nice things about the member’s wife. I just wish he would take her judgement a little more often.

I will try again. If we include lawyers as being skilled workers, I know two or three lawyers who have gone to Calgary. I know two or three people in the entertainment business whom I think are very skilled. Are they skilled workers in the Leader of the Opposition’s view?

I will try to get a breakdown for him, but I just have to repeat what I said. If one can get up in this House and talk about Canada, if one can go back to the rhetoric of a week or so ago, surely one has to appreciate that it is in the national interest if we have some mobility of population if other provincial economies are growing.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s your leading export at the moment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I see. So now if you are a Canadian and you move from one province to another, you are an export. I have always thought if you are a Canadian, you are a Canadian in whatever province you might happen to live.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary with respect to the Premier’s point about the free movement of people between provincial borders. A couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister of Labour about the legislation that has been introduced in both Newfoundland and Nova Scotia about preferential hiring in the oil business, and I understand there is now a preferential hiring bill in Nova Scotia pertaining to civil service jobs. Why does the Premier of this province not stand up and take a strong stand against that kind of preferential legislation and why does he not give serious thought to challenging that in the courts?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member was not here for my statement the other day. I will just reread the first part of the statement I made: “The principles that we support in terms of a new constitution ... ”

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, don’t quote that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He doesn’t want me to quote it. Why doesn’t he?

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a waste of time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sure. He would contest everything in the courts. That’s how he brings about harmony within the country. There’s no question that we would have a great influx of lawyers if he ever had his way. We would be in the courts on every single issue.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He might win some.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the Premier just address himself to the supplementary question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have been so impressed by the member for Hamilton West when he speaks that I just want to help him as much as I can.

I have already made my views known. We will never have such legislation in this province. The first principle, and it was put in some order of priority, is that we believe the constitution should contain measures to eliminate barriers to the free flow of people, goods and services across the country so as to enhance the economic ties within Confederation.

Mr. S. Smith: Hawker Siddeley; Babcock and Wilcox.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member want me to go back to

chapter and verse on some of the things his colleagues have raised with respect to preferential purchasing in this province? Never mind. I will debate Hawker Siddeley with him any time.

That’s our answer to it. We want to see it in the constitution that a Canadian is a Canadian, not like the member’s leader says, an export. A Canadian is a Canadian wherever he lives, and legislation should reflect that.

IRON ORE PELLETS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources about a threatened industry in Ontario, the iron ore industry, and about the minister’s statement last Thursday in the House when I was up in northern Ontario.

Since the minister’s statement, which came in response to seven months of questioning by this party, contained absolutely no strategy for the future development of the iron ore industry in northern Ontario, are we to take it that the government intends to abandon the iron ore industry in Ontario, as well as any pretence of an industrial strategy that would link the future of iron ore industry to the steel industry in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, of course not, and I think the honourable member knows that. What I said was the reason for the problems that we currently face was the situation in the steel industry in North America at the present time and the noncompetitive position we have with certain of our ores. I thought I made it quite clear.

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister then say what is the strategy of the government as to developing the iron ore industry to meet the additional demand for some eight million tons of ore a year in this province’s steel industry during the 1980s? Since the government now has put a total of $54.4 million into the acquisition of land for and the development of the Townsend site, what kind of money is the government prepared to put into one-industry towns in northern Ontario which are being forced to close down because of the shutdown of the iron ore industry in those northern single-industry towns?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons our exports of finished steel are holding up is that we have a highly competitive steel industry. Our problem is not in the steel industry; it is in the kind of ore that we are mining in Ontario. I am sure the honourable member is aware that Canada is a major exporter on balance of iron ore. But the ore we have been talking about in northwestern Ontario is simply not competitive.

If the steel companies in Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie were required to use it, I suspect they would be uncompetitive in their own exports, at which they are now doing very well.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, has the minister had any conversations with his counterpart in Ottawa with regard to the whole iron and steel industry in Canada and the exports that go along with it with a view to having a Canada-wide industrial strategy, not just an Ontario strategy in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think I touched on that aspect, not in my statement last week, but in one some time ago. If we were to take any measures which would reduce the imports of US ore coming to Ontario, it seems very likely the United States would take countervailing action against Canadian exports of ore and of finished steel.

I have had discussions with the federal minister in connection with Inco, sea-bed mining and that sort of thing. I have not been specifically discussing iron ore as yet.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I would sure like to know how sea-bed mining, which is for nickel, got into the iron ore industry discussion.

Will the minister table with the House the names of the mining companies in the United States in which the steel industry has equity, the equity position of those steel companies in each of those mining operations, the volume of production of those mines in the United States and the volume that each steel company is obtaining from each mining company in the United States so that we can determine whether the steel companies are obtaining volumes of ore that are in excess of their equity position from the United States rather than Canada?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will study that question and see how much of the information would be available. As far as the ownership of a publicly-owned company is concerned, it changes from day to day as shares are sold. I think it would be very difficult to get a perfectly accurate figure. I will look at that question in print and see what sort of answer I can get and what information we would have available that would be accurate.

Mr. Cassidy: Has the minister sat down with the heads of the three steel companies in the province to determine from them why they are not prepared to use more Ontario iron ore? Are the minister and the government prepared to table for this House what it would cost, if anything, for those steel mills to continue to use iron ore from Ontario rather than buying iron ore from the United States at the expense of thousands of jobs in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I happen to have with me a statement which indicates why our ore is noncompetitive. It is technical. I am not a metallurgist, but I would like to read it -- it won’t take very long -- to indicate what the problem really is:

“Standard steelmaking practice is to produce pig iron containing three to four per cent carbon in the blast furnace. Pig iron is the basic iron used to feed the furnaces that refine that iron to steel. The pig iron is refined in open-hearth furnaces, basic oxygen furnaces and some electric furnaces. A blast furnace” -- one blast furnace -- “will feed several refining furnaces and therefore must not contain alloys.”

I see the member for Sudbury East is smiling. He obviously knows all this, but I don’t. So I will continue to read it.

Mr. Martel: Then you should learn.

Hon. Mr. Auld: “Alloy steels are made in the refining furnace and this is where any alloys are added, such as nickel. A pig iron containing nickel could not be used in most steel-refining furnaces because the vast majority of steel contains no alloys, only carbon. Inco’s iron ore pellet contains 0.2 per cent nickel, which is too high for most steels made. Inco’s iron ore pellet was also high in alkalis, which attack blast furnace refractory lining. To remove the alkalis, you must increase the silica in the slag in the blast furnace.

However, when this is done, less sulphur is removed from the iron than desired and the sulphur removal must be done by more costly methods later in the refining furnace.

2:50 p.m.

“Inco’s iron ore pellets contain about 30 per cent oxygen. This oxygen is removed during melting the pig iron in blast furnaces. Electric furnaces are not designed to reduce oxygen in the ore. It is energy-inefficient compared to a blast furnace and too costly a method to remove oxygen.

“Iron ore pellets can be reduced to sponge iron in gas- and coal-fired kilos, but the process is costly and the final product -- prereduced iron pellets or sponge iron [which we discussed briefly last week] -- must compete with scrap steel. Scrap steel is in good supply and predicted to remain so for some years in North America.”

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have another page?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Just a paragraph, Mr. Speaker.

This, I think, is the key: “Scrap steel would have to sell for over US$130 per long ton before those pellets could compete, and the present-day price of scrap steel is between $40 and $80 per ton.

“Electric furnaces are used to produce steel, especially alloy steel, by utilizing scrap steel. This is very energy-efficient because the steel has already been refined and it requires much less energy to just remelt than to produce steel from iron ore.”

Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the honourable minister for that lesson in metallurgy. I will add two minutes to the question period.

Mr. Martel: How come they refined it up until just now then? With all that nonsense --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PRECORONARY PROGRAMS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Health. Is the Minister of Health aware that the precoronary program of emergency assistance to heart attack victims in the Sault Ste. Marie area, which was provided by paramedics who operated through the ambulance service in that area, has been forced to close down because of an edict from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario? This was despite the fact it had reduced the fatality rate among heart attack victims from 15 per cent of those stricken with heart attacks to five per cent.

Is the minister aware that the program was forced to close down last November 1? And what action will the government take to get the College of Physicians and Surgeons to remove its opposition and get this lifesaving program back on the road?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into the specific details of that program. The College of Physicians and Surgeons co-operated in a number of experiments that have been conducted around the province in the use of those paramedics.

I have to point out that the term “paramedics” means different things to just about every person one deals with. I am afraid we get drawn down the garden path sometimes the way they use the term in the United States, and the fact it means many things to different people.

I have not had an approach from that ambulance service or the attendants, to my knowledge, but I will be glad to look at that program.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister prepared to consider favourably similar proposals for an emergency assistance program provided by paramedics in the province’s ambulances in the Ottawa area? It is estimated there are more than 100 cases every month there where lives can be saved or where people can be brought into hospital in much better shape if they get assistance at the scene of the heart attack or the accident.

Is the minister or the government prepared to ensure that this kind of paramedic preventive service is put into place and is not blocked by the opposition of physicians in the province, or the College of Physicians and Surgeons, to the use of paramedics at the scene where they are most needed?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can assure the member that no development would be blocked by such opposition, but I want to point out a few things. My understanding is that in the case of cardiac arrest, if within the first four minutes there is no doctor, paramedic -- whatever that means to the member -- or emergency medical care assistant, 93 per cent of whom in this province have cardiopulmonary resuscitation qualifications, then the chances of doing anything for a person suffering cardiac arrest are almost nil. That is the advice I have had consistently.

In Ottawa, let me also point out, there is a cardiac wagon that operates out of the Ottawa Civic Hospital on the initiative of the medical staff of that hospital.

Finally, there are a variety of experiments under way in parts of the province in employing training staff to a higher level than an emergency medical care assistant. These are being evaluated to determine whether we need to go further.

We still have a number of people working in the ambulance services of the province who have not got the full EMCA standards. I would like to see them, in the next few years, brought up to that level, which is recognized as one of the highest minimum levels of qualification for an ambulance service anywhere in North America, including many jurisdictions that supposedly have paramedics. Our standard qualification in Ontario is higher than many jurisdictions that claim to have paramedics.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that the reason the program is no longer an adequate operation in Sault Ste. Marie is that there is not a doctor on duty 24 hours a day in the emergency room of the hospital? Because of that, these paramedics who have the skills in the area, the ambulance operators whom the minister has described as being so highly skilled, are not able to use those skills. Is the minister prepared to provide the kind of funds necessary so that there is a doctor on duty 24 hours a day and so that those skills can be used to help save lives in the Sault Ste. Marie area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the honourable member raised that matter. I am sure he would support the activities of the health council in that area in working with the hospitals to rationalize the services between those two hospitals, which are literally no further apart than the width of this chamber, to improve the services. I think that is something that can result from the rationalization of the services between those two hospitals which I have consistently supported and promoted with the hospitals and with the health council.

GAS RATE STRUCTURE

Mr. Peterson: A question for the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: I want to ask him about the rate structure for gas in this province. How can the minister support a rate structure whereby the owner of a duplex, who occupies one of the units in that duplex. would have to pay a commercial-industrial rate for that gas as opposed to, for example, someone who owned two houses and rented one and only had to pay a residential rate for that? How can the minister support that kind of structure?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member will give me the particulars, I will be glad to get some information from the Ontario Energy Board which has the jurisdiction for making these determinations. If the honourable member has some particulars and will share them with me, I will he glad to send them along to the chairman of the Ontario Energy Board and ask for some explanation with respect to that particular rate.

Mr. Peterson: The particulars consist of the rate card, which I assume the minister would probably know a great deal about and concern himself about. Would the minister not agree that, if he does not already know, he should study it to make sure we have built in the proper incentives for people to convert from other fuels -- as we are trying to do -- to the gas alternative? Would he examine it in that light and recommend to the Ontario Energy Board, his people in charge of the rate structures, that we should not penalize people who have small duplexes and that kind of thing?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I prefer to take the matter up with the board.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise us of his concern about the fact that Union Gas has applied for a rate increase while it is diversifying in other industries? Is the minister allowing, through the Ontario Energy Board, increased rates from the taxpayers of Ontario so they can diversify their capital funds?

3:00 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, that would not be my understanding as to how the Ontario Energy Board would arrive at a determination. I do not know what relationship other activities of the company would have with respect to establishing the rate for the fuel. If the honourable member has any information he wants to share with me, I can assure him I would be glad to pass it on to the members of the board.

SHOP CANADIAN PROGRAM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of the minister’s well-known penchant for supporting Canadian products, as enunciated last week in the House, could the minister advise the House what action he or his colleague the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr.

Grossman) can or will take in view of the misleading practice of Stanley Hardware, as illustrated by this pair of butt hinges, which clearly indicates on the outside of the package that they are made in Canada, and when the purchaser -- myself -- who bought them in Thunder Bay on May 3 opened the package and looked inside they were clearly stamped “Made in the USA"? The purchaser had purchased them in preference to an American product, which was sold next door.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if the member will give me the details of the purchase, we will investigate. I may say that my conversion to Canadian products has been known for some time. I regard that as a very poor practice.

I think I can say this for the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), even though he is not here: there are a number of people today who are increasingly -- and I welcome it -- becoming very label-conscious, particularly with regard to the point of origin. Invariably, when a situation like this occurs these people feel rather bitterly betrayed. One can take it back, I suppose, but they feel that having shopped Canadian they were entitled to an accurate description of the goods.

If the member will give me the details, I will look into it. I am sure the Minister of Industry and Tourism shares my concern in this regard.

Mr. Foulds: Surely the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations would agree publicly that such a practice does undermine the Shop Canadian Program promoted by his government and by his colleagues?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it does more than undermine a program of the government. We can have all the programs in the world, but all the programs can do is motivate people to take a little extra time to compare the labels, the quality and so on. When they find they have been bitterly betrayed after taking that extra effort, it is a betrayal of the public interest, not just a government program.

JUNIOR AGRICULTURALIST PROGRAM

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Feed pertaining to the junior agriculturalist program. As the minister knows, this program is to give nonfarm students agricultural experience and they have an orientation day before attending the farm.

Is the minister aware that some of these students in the past year did not get this orientation day because the day fell on the same day as their exams and the form states that when this happens the exams take priority? Is he aware that the farmers would like these students to have this orientation day so they at least know what a tractor is before attending a farm, for their own safety and for other reasons?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the honourable member, I had the pleasure two Fridays ago to shake the hands of all the graduates at Centralia. Last Friday I shook the hands of all the graduates at Ridgetown. This Friday I will shake the hands of all the graduates at Kemptville. I spoke to all those students. I asked them if they had any recommendations to me, as the minister, and not one of them brought this to my attention. But we will look at it.

Mr. McKessock: Apparently the minister is not aware of what I am talking about. This does not concern agricultural students; it concerns students from high schools throughout Ontario who have had no agricultural experience. This agricultural program of the ministry is to give nonfarm students agricultural experience in Ontario. My question is: Would the minister see they get their orientation day, the one day that gives them some experience on a farm, before they go out onto these farms?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member is asking about our summer student program, I believe, and not about our agricultural school program, which I took it to mean.

I am sure the honourable member must not be aware of the programs that our colleges have with the farmers in surrounding areas orienting our students. I will look at his concern and see whether it can be corrected.

ELDORADO PLANT AT BLIND RIVER

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Could the minister indicate whether his government is willing to change its position and provide funding from the regional priorities budget to assist Blind River in providing the infrastructure for the new Eldorado Nuclear Limited plant, which the federal government has designated for that community?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that the refineries will be built in the Blind River area and this government will do everything possible to assist in whatever is required.

Mr. Wildman: Does that mean the provincial government is prepared to provide the money for which the community has been asking for years to construct the Granary Lake Road between Blind River and Elliot Lake? Is it prepared to provide the extra funding for the sewer extension to enable the community to deal with the expansion that will take place as a result of the industrial expansion there?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Should those matters be presented, they will be considered.

Mr. S. Smith: When the minister says his government is very pleased that this refinery is being built in Blind River, is he speaking for the entire government, including the Premier and the member for Northumberland (Mr. Rowe)?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, when the refinery is built it will create employment. What we are most interested in is employment; so we are very pleased, especially since it is going into an area where there is quite a demand for employment in northern Ontario.

THE TIN DRUM

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked questions of the Attorney General concerning the supposed suppression of a board decision. There was no suppression of any decision by the board. I will be very brief in the chronology, but obviously the Leader of the Opposition acted on erroneous information.

On April 22, a decision on cuts was reached by the board. On April 30, a review was requested by the distributor. Between May 2 and May 5, the film was reviewed. There was no decision reached.

On May 14, one member indicated a wish to have a decision on the review. On the morning of May 15, the board made a decision. All the board members initialled the decision, which was for three cuts involving children.

On May 21, the solicitor asked for a written decision. On May 22, the written decision, which was identical to the phone call, went out. The solicitor informed us today that, unfortunately, he did not receive the letter. The letter of May 22 was delivered by courier to the solicitor today.

There was no suppression of any decision. On April 22, they were informed of the first decision. On May 16, the very day after the second decision, they were informed.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if the minister will take time to read my question of yesterday, which I put to the Attorney General in his absence, I said the allegations of suppression of a decision were in the Globe and Mail.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: On May 14 a member of the board requested a meeting on May 15 so the decision would be made. The decision was made and all seven members of the board initialled the decision to make three cuts. The lawyer’s letter arrived after that decision was made. The decision was made on the review. How many times does the member opposite want to review?

Mr. S. Smith: They might have reconsidered it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The cut that was offered in that letter was not among the cuts at that time, or indeed the one cut that is often mentioned. It was a letter that was redundant by the time it arrived.

Mr. S. Smith: The chairman said it was a personal letter.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I looked today at the letter that was sent to the chairman but, on the basis of a decision having been reached, that letter was no longer of any relevance.

Could I ask the Leader of the Opposition just one thing? If the cracks about the tin god were about me, that is fine. But if the cracks were about the director of the Ontario Board of Censors, I think, in the light of the chronology I have given the honourable member, there is some appropriate action to be taken.

Mr. S. Smith: I do not mind. If no decision in favour of one cut was ever taken informally or formally at the board and the Globe and Mail

article was totally in error, and if the head of the board of censors will tell the Globe and Mail that its

article was totally in error, then I would apologize for any inference otherwise that I may have made.

I continue to believe, however -- and I hope the minister will agree -- that even though a decision had been taken one day earlier, the letter that was sent to the director of the board surely should have been sent to the other members as well and should not have been regarded by him as a personal letter.

CIVIL SERVICE SALARY INCREASES

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, if I may have his attention. Can he explain to the House why he accepted the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission and approved a 12 per cent increase in salaries for the secretaries of cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and parliamentary assistants, when the general increase for most of the employees of the government was between eight and nine per cent, and particularly when the leader of the government is making speeches about holding the line on salaries and government costs?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, when we were dealing with the union on salaries in connection with the secretaries and clerical series, the union made a very strong case for equalizing the rates of pay for those two series. It resulted in us having to give an additional increase of about three and a half per cent in the secretary series in the bargaining unit. It is part of the philosophy, with which some members of the House agree, that there should be equal pay for equal work. So the same percentage was applied to the secretaries of ministers and deputy ministers as was the ease in all the secretaries series within government.

Mr. Nixon: If the explanation is equal pay for work of equal value, I would like that documented and I hope the minister would be prepared to table the information. Is he aware of the report entitled Compensation in Canada: A Study of Public and Private Sectors, put out in April by the Conference Board in Canada, where on page 22 it says as follows: “Provincial governments tend to pay higher rates than the private sector for all positions and, as a result, average between eight and 18 per cent above the private sector”?

If he is aware of that, does he not agree that he is the person, as chairman of management board, who should surely attempt to fulfil at least the indications made by the leader of the government and try to keep some control on these increases?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Since the member has the book in his hand, and I have one also, I would like to refer him to page 55, where there is a little clearer story of what is going on. He will notice that in most classifications we are behind the average percentage increases throughout Canada, except for a couple of classes like OPP constable and nurse 2.

If the member will also turn back in his book to page VI, he will see it explained -- this is what was missing in all articles that I have seen in the press. It says: “The provincial government enterprise sector” -- and I think the member will agree that the enterprise sector is not actually the provincial government; it is the outside agencies -- “and the municipal government sector are the only public sectors in which hourly rates of pay are consistently higher than those for comparable jobs in the private sector.”

Mr. Martel: Would the chairman of management board meet with his colleagues on the Board of Internal Economy to indicate that if they believe in equal pay for work of equal value, they should support my motion? It would have given 12 per cent to the legislative assistants around here because it was based on the 1971 decision that these categories be the same. If the minister’s colleagues won’t get up enough courage to support that, maybe the Liberal representative would; yesterday he opposed it as well.

Mr. Nixon: You are darned right I opposed it, and I would oppose it again.

Mr. Martel: Yes, you’re darned right. You want it both ways.

Mr. Nixon: Well, somebody has to do things right around this place.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I know.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, the members from this side on the Board of Internal Economy have already spoken to me to verify what I just said.

VISITORS

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the earlier comments from members of both sides of this House about the people leaving Ontario or coming to Ontario, I do not want it construed on behalf of any of the members that we are not pleased to have with us 21 visiting students from British Columbia who are guests here in our province.

KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns a drastic change of opinion by his ministry on the Keating Channel dreadging matter.

On February 19 of this year, Mr. Salbach, the assistant director of the ministry’s water resources branch, wrote a memo that recommended the ministry withdraw its approval for the Toronto Harbour Commission’s proposal for the dredging disposal in Toronto harbour. On February 28, the ministry’s officials, including Mr. Salbach, attended an interagency meeting where they not only approved the proposal but also agreed to help pay for it to the tune of $55,000. What changed between February 19 and February 28? What was the blinding revelation that changed their opinion?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would have to review that, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what transpired specifically. No doubt new information came forward. I would be glad to get that to the member.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Since the February 19 memo stated that one of the major reasons for withdrawing approval was the Toronto Harbour Commission’s frequent past violations of water quality guidelines, could the minister say what changed about that between February 19 and February 28? Since another reason given was the high probability of water contamination at the Toronto city intakes if dredging spoils were dumped in 1980, could the minister tell us what changed there between February 19 and February 28 for his ministry to give money to this proposal?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, there were many meetings on this, not only within our own ministry but I am sure also with other ministries. I would have to review that period of time to know what transpired, to look at the dialogue with other ministries and other agencies. I would be glad to do that, but I do not have that information available to me at this minute.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Gaunt reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981: university support program, $942,979,000; college and adult education support program, $487,931,000; and student affairs program. $95,316,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 85,

An Act to revise the Limited Partnership Act.

Motion agreed to.

GOTHIC MINES & OILS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved first reading of Bill Pr12,

An Act to revive Gothic Mines & Oils Limited.

Motion agreed to.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order if there are no other bills. I want your advice on this matter. I put a question on the Order Paper, question 76, which I want to draw to your attention and ask your advice. It was tabled on April 1, 1980. There was an interim answer on April 14, 1980, and then it says, “Approximate date information available, week of May 19, 1980.” As I am sure you are aware, or at least take judicial notice of, Mr. Speaker, it is now May 27. I would like your advice on what remedies I have as a private member of this House to make sure the government does not give misleading information on the Order Paper.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, that answer will be available Thursday or Friday.

Mr. Speaker: That does not comply with the standing order. I think there is a responsibility to bring those forward in the times allocated and specified by the standing order itself, or some reasonable explanation should be given.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I believe it says, “Approximate date information available, week of May 19.” Approximate means give or take a couple of weeks.

Mr. Speaker: It is not very precise.

BILL 35

Mr. Peterson: I have one more point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I want your advice on this. How can I use your good offices to assist me to force the government House leader to drag forward Bill 35,

An Act respecting the Disclosure of Tax Incentive Costs, which had the unanimous consent of this House?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot offer any relief.

Mr. Peterson: You helped me with my last problem, and I am most grateful to you.

Mr. Speaker: I do not order the business of the House, unfortunately.

Mr. Peterson: Would the government House leader take note? Could I ask him when he plans to call Bill 35 forward?

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 150, 156, 160, 162 to 167, 173 and the interim answer to question 171 standing on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Sudbury East stop interfering with the business of the House.

Mr. Martel: I’m not. I’m doing about 14 different jobs.

Mr. Speaker: You’ve been standing in front of the last three ministers I’ve called on.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As honourable members know, Bill 204,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, was passed by this Legislature last December. One of the principal features of that bill was to extend existing regional bargaining rights of construction unions in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry and to make those bargaining rights province-wide in scope.

In addition, after May 1, 1980, the bill required that bargaining rights in that same sector, the ICI sector, be obtained on a province-wide basis. The bill also imposed restrictions on the use of selective strikes and lockouts and imposed a statutory time limit for ratification of memoranda of settlement.

The bill, as introduced, passed with all-party support and came into effect on May 1, 1980. Following the passage of Bill 204, I received representations from certain groups affected by the legislation, claiming that one provision of the bill,

section 131(e), was overly restrictive in that it deprived local trade unions, as opposed to the provincial employee bargaining agencies, of their long-recognized capacity to make applications for certification.

It was further contended that the bill, strictly construed, prevented local unions and local building trades councils from seeking voluntary recognition as they had always been entitled to do in the past.

Finally, it was also argued that the

section precluded the Ontario Labour Relations Board from continuing its longtime, normal practice of granting bargaining rights to a trade union in a certification proceeding for all sectors of the construction industry in the appropriate geographical area.

In view of these highly technical but important contentions, the matters were referred by me to Mr. George Adams for consideration and advice. As special counsel, Mr. Adams consulted with representatives of affected trade unions and employers and issued a report to me suggesting certain changes to Bill 204.

Mr. Adams’s report was circulated to those who made representations to him, to the members of the Construction Industry Review Panel, to all interested persons who requested copies of the report and, I might add, to both opposition parties.

Generally, the reaction to the report has been favourable. It is supported by the Construction Industry Review Panel whose mandate is to advise me on a broad range of matters relating to construction industry bargaining. On the other hand, some groups opposed any amendments, arguing that Bill 204 should be tested before any changes are considered.

I have met with all parties I know of who have expressed an interest in the proposed amendments. While there is not total agreement, I am of the view that in the interest of continuing stability in industrial relations in the construction industry, the amendments proposed by Mr. Adams, which I believe are fair and reasonable, ought to be supported.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill 73 deals only with

section 131(

a) of the Labour Relations Act, the

section dealing with the acquisition of bargaining rights. It does not deal with bargaining itself. The proposed amendments modify that

section in three respects, and again, let me emphasize, without in any way altering the fact that bargaining is to be carried on on a province-wide basis.

The first amendment has to do with voluntary recognition. In addition to the right now accorded to an employee bargaining agency, this amendment enables a local trade union that is an affiliated bargaining agency, as well as a building trades council on behalf of its affiliates, to enter into province-wide recognition agreements. It should be emphasized that while local unions and buildings trades councils may be parties to recognition agreements as a result of the proposed amendments, the bargaining rights so acquired vest in the provincial bargaining agency preserving the principle of province-wide, single-trade bargaining by individual trade bargaining agencies.

3:30 p.m.

The second proposed amendment gives a local trade union, as well as the provincial bargaining agency, the right to apply for certification in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector on behalf of all associated locals in the province. This is an alternative method that may be selected, as Bill 204 already allows the provincial bargaining agency to do that. This recognizes the fact that organizing in the real world is done at the local level, and it supports that principle.

The third feature of this bill melds a basic requirement of the original

section 131(

a) with an accepted and long-standing certification practice of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Prior to Bill 204, certification in the construction industry was granted for a specific geographic region without limiting it as to sector. The resulting certificate therefore applied to all sectors of the construction industry in that particular geographic area.

It has been contended that Bill 204, as enacted, can be construed to deprive an applicant union from obtaining area bargaining rights for non-industrial, commercial and industrial sector work in circumstances where its membership position would have previously entitled it to acquire such rights. Accordingly, the final amendment proposed restores this right in those situations where the union is able to show the requisite employee support in an appropriate geographic area.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, Bill 73 will be supported by the Liberal caucus, but not without considerable discussion and, for that matter, considerable soul-searching. As we see it, essentially what we are going to do is put the stamp of approval on what is already an established practice, which could have been effected if Bill 204, which was passed in December of last year, had been implemented as it should have been on May 1.

Second, the feeling we have is that we will be providing some kind of assistance to the labour portion of our community by keeping the lid on what would appear to be a rather volatile situation in so far as present bargaining is concerned in the construction industry.

The minister has reviewed the history of Bill 22 and Bill 204. I would like to remind the house that when Bill 22 was being discussed across the province, representation from our caucus had its input and stressed, among other things, the inclusion of Ontario Hydro in the provisions for Bill 22. Our caucus still feels the same way, that is, Hydro should have been and should be included in that provision, which was an amendment to the Labour Relations Act.

Further, when Bill 204 was brought on stream late last fall, our caucus felt there was every reason for the minister -- and we asked him in the debate -- to establish an inquiry into subcontracting, as he has the right and privilege to do under existing legislation. We still feel that is a major problem in the construction industry.

When that bill was brought to us last fall there was considerable urgency. It was as though our party, if not both opposition parties, was being forced into quick agreement with something the government felt had to be done before we left for the winter recess. One can only speculate what kind of thinking went into the preparation of that bill, but the process of speeding things through led to further complications.

These complications came to us in the months of February and March with a hurried series of meetings through representation from the Toronto Building Trades Council and representation from the Construction Industry Review Panel. In that instance too it seemed that there was urgency. Everything had to be done almost yesterday.

For those reasons, I suppose some members of the building trades council felt our caucus in particular was being obtuse and was providing nothing more than blockage to their bargaining process. Perhaps it was to that end that some comments were made about me and about our caucus in the Daily Commercial News on Monday, May 12. “Changes to Bill Stalled” is the headline of the article.

Quite frankly, I make no apologies if the bill was stalled. I make no apologies on my own behalf or on behalf of my caucus for trying to insist that legislation that is brought to us gets some kind of thorough discussion and thorough debate. We, as a caucus, were not prepared when we first saw the proposed amendments, keeping in mind -- which some people did not -- that at the time of the printing of this, on May 12, the proposed amendments had not been introduced as proper legislation in the House. All that we had seen was a proposal brought into our caucus. If that is justification for calling our caucus a bunch of stallers, then I take offence.

I do think that there is need for understanding that we, as legislators, have to take the responsibility for examining as carefully and as thoroughly as possible legislation, or proposed legislation for that matter, that is brought in front of us. Albeit the proposal seemed to be simple and albeit the government was willing to provide whatever expertise we were after to get any details explained or clarified, in spite of that, we felt the need to have as thorough a debate as we could. it was not until our caucus meeting this morning that final agreement or approval was given to this bill, Bill 73.

With that by way of background from within the caucus, I think it is important to underline the two concerns we had with Bill 22 and with Bill 204, bringing us up to the present time. What we tried to stress with Bill 22 was the inclusion of Ontario Hydro, and what we tried to stress with Bill 204 was the need for the minister to look into subcontracting.

Let me stop at that point and digress ever so briefly. It may be common knowledge -- if it isn’t, I hope that saying it now will help it to be more common -- that our caucus has had a labour task force visiting about the province in the last few months. In the course of those visits, it was drawn to our attention very clearly, particularly from people in northern Ontario, that when Bill 22 was brought on stream, many labour union people and contractors wanted no part of it.

Beyond that, when Bill 204 was brought to their attention in northern Ontario -- unfortunately brought to their attention after the fact -- they did not want it. I am going to quote a portion of a brief that was presented to our labour task force, a brief that made specific reference to both Bills 22 and 204:

“This legislation never had support of rank-and-file members of building trades unions whose livelihood it was most likely to affect. Grass-roots support, as you called it, was never there. In fact, there was quite a concentrated opposition to the new legislation at the grass-roots level.

“Various briefs and petitions were presented to the legislators and protest meetings were held in opposition to the new legislation. The most vocal of these groups was an ad hoc committee to repeal Bill 22. It presented petitions signed by thousands of construction workers in Ontario, to no avail, as the legislation steamrollered any and all opposition and province-wide bargaining became a fact of life.”

This brief, again from one group of people, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in a community in northern Ontario, is representative of what was presented to us on at least four different occasions in the last two weeks.

3:40 p.m.

I think it is abundantly clear that we have to draw attention to a third factor as far as province-wide bargaining is concerned. That third factor is that there is need for the minister to consider some form of regionalizing in so far as the bargaining process is concerned. Time and time again it came through to us that the bargaining process is one thing in Toronto or in southern Ontario; it’s another thing in northern Ontario.

I notice that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is here. I do not want to miss the opportunity to make her aware of the fact that she was mentioned in this brief. On page three -- I will share this brief with the minister after the fact -- this piece of labour legislation, or “masterpiece” as it is called, ignored British Columbia’s experience and even some of Mr. Frank’s recommendations. I see Mr. Frank is here today.

They speak in medical terms: “It was delivered in Queen’s Park by that famous midwife, Dr. Bette Stephenson, then Minister of Labour.” So they have not forgotten; and their concern, which is reflected here in 1977, is repeated again in 1980.

That third factor is the need to consider a review, if not the undertaking, of some regionalizing in so far as collective bargaining is concerned. It is almost a contradiction in terms, I know, but the point these people are trying to make to us is, and they say it very clearly: “Our local was chartered in 1951, and until 1978 we always negotiated our own agreements. Sometimes they were good and sometimes not, but they were our agreements and we were happy to live with them.” That’s how they feel.

The concern then is about a situation in which the Toronto Building Trades Council is the tail that wags the dog, Ontario.

Finally, the most recent concern that has been brought to us about Bill 22, Bill 204 and Bill 73, was one that was brought to us just today. I would hope the minister would check into this concern. I heard that a problem with this type of legislation is reflected in a happening such as we have had in the last day or so and will likely continue for another day or so. Apparently, mechanical contractors have signed an agreement with the pipe trades council, and this was done on Sunday last.

Apparently, this agreement was one in which the chairman of the pipe trades council assured management that they would be back to work by Tuesday; that is, today. However, the understanding given to me this morning was that in Sudbury and Oshawa-Peterborough the workers determined they were not ready to go back.

The question then becomes, how does one get them back on the job? If one has to go so far as a cease-and-desist order, must he get one on each and every job in the Sudbury area or the Oshawa-Peterborough area?

If that is a legitimate concern -- and certainly it made sense when it was called in to me this morning, from what I know of the law -- then one has to ask the question, is there something else that we will be amending in another month or another three or four months?

The point is that in the last two instances, Bill 73 and Bill 204, we have gone through a rather hurried exercise. It is not our role as a political party, or my role as a critic in this area of responsibility, to held up the process. But it is my role to examine it as thoroughly and as carefully as I and my resources can do, and then to pass my findings on to my caucus members and get some consensus to bring to this House. It has been a difficult exercise for some of the reasons I have brought forward today.

In

summary, let me say that we are going to support this, but it has been difficult. Again I would ask the minister to take a look at subcontracting, and I would say to him to take a look as openly and as quickly as he can. I do not think it would suffice for the minister or for cabinet to hire a private law firm or a single individual to take a quick look into the legal ramifications. I think it would be much better if the minister had an open inquiry into the whole process of subcontracting.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, Bill 73 simply clarifies the situation with regard to Bill 204 and the facts of everyday life in organizing in the construction industry.

The local union or council of trade unions have to have the right to move quickly on the job site or there would be little organizing and little security for the workers involved. The amendments have the support not only of the Toronto Building Trades Council but also of the provincial Building Trades Council of the construction industry. The fact that the amendments do give the right to councils of trade unions to sign voluntary recognition agreements or allow a local union to sign a voluntary recognition agreement is essential to the wellbeing of the construction industry. A local now can file an application for certification, provided it has the required number of workers in the province.

The error, if any, may have been that we did move a little too quickly, without looking at all the ramifications of Bill 204. However, our caucus has no hesitation whatsoever in supporting these amendments. They make sense, and they should be passed quickly. They underline the facts of life in terms of organizing on construction sites.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there any other member wishing to participate in the debate? If not, the honourable minister.

Mr. Van Horne: Excuse me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has already spoken.

Mr. Van Horne: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker -- there cannot be any other point -- I would ask you to rule on it.

I did receive a sheet, and I guess the privilege would be that I am not given to understand the bill properly, if in fact the two amendments suggested in the sheet I got this morning were not properly introduced.

Was that the intention of the Minister of Labour, or has that happened?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There certainly have not been any amendments. They come before a committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the critics of the opposition parties for their remarks. I am particularly sensitive to the fact that the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) is sincere in his comments. I appreciate them. I have to say that because my cousin supports him and works for the member for London North in his riding. If I did not support him, I would have troubles in my family.

I was interested in many of the remarks the member for London North made. He talked about my review of Bill 22 and Bill 204. Actually, I referred only to Bill 204. I hope in his review of Bill 22 and Bill 204, as he travelled through the province as Labour critic, he also took note of the fact that there is no one in the construction industry who understands it thoroughly who would not agree that bargaining in the construction industry has been improved considerably as a result of Bill 22.

I frankly do not have any sense that there is anybody who has considered it carefully who would object to that statement or who would not support it. I suppose one can say the jury is still out on Bill 204. But we are now in a position where all the trades but four have settled already. That is pretty good time, I think. We are now into mid-May and, as I recall, it was well into June or July before things had been resolved two years ago.

In accepting the advice of the joint management-labour Construction Industry Review Panel, we have acted in accordance with proper direction. That does not mean that everybody on that panel from management represents all management’s views, or that everybody from labour on that panel represents all labour’s views.

They are trying to bring a consensus to the industry to produce an industry that functions effectively and to the benefit of public interest. Thoughtful people would agree that is what they were doing, and trying to do, when they made those recommendations. Bill 22 has achieved that to some degree. Although the jury may still be out to some degree on Bill 204, I think the initial evidence, the prima facie case, is very supportive with regard to that bill as well.

The member raised the question of the Electrical Power Systems Construction Association before, and he will recall at that time that really we were talking about the Ellis report. Ellis did investigate that whole questions and made certain recommendations. I advised him at that time there had been certain restructuring on a voluntary basis in EPSCA, and that Ellis was to play some role in that restructured EPSCA.

3:50 p.m.

Subsequent information given to me indicates that voluntary restructuring is proceeding and proceeding very satisfactorily. I do not know how the member feels, but I feel that if things are taking place in the community voluntarily because parties agree upon it, one should leave it alone. One achieves nothing by interfering when they are working things out themselves. That is the information I have.

I am pleased to keep the member informed of progress about EPSCA and the voluntary arrangements that are taking place from time to time. If he has any suggestions as a result of slowing of progress or some halting of progress, I would be glad to discuss that with him. That is not a difficult problem for me, and I suggest it probably is not for him either, because he and I agree that if people can work it out themselves it should be done.

The issue of an industrial inquiry into subcontracting was raised when we debated Bill 204. I think the member should know that the issue of subcontracting is squarely before the Ontario Labour Relations Board now in a case involving bricklayers 1 and bricklayers 2. I have no idea when the judgement will come down on that, but an issue is there four square.

I think the member would agree in the presence of such a situation it would be inappropriate at this time to intervene when the matter may be resolved to some person’s satisfaction by such an inquiry. Certainly that is the appropriate body to deal with it. If it is before them, then we will know what they think about it. That is their job.

Mr. Van Horne: The question is to intervene if it is not resolved.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I always like to see what is going to come from a process before making any decisions beforehand.

I do not think the member for London North really meant it to be as critical as it may have sounded to some when he suggested there was considerable urgency and that we were forced into a quick passage. If he were to consult with his leader, he would know that early last October, his leader attended the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario in London. He was on the panel at that time. When asked by members from the floor what his feelings would be with regard to province-wide extension of bargaining rights, he made it very clear that if he had the opportunity to see the words in the bill beforehand, he would support that principle.

I would like to suggest that is what we did do. We did give the member the words beforehand. As I understand it, the Construction Industry Review Panel met with him and discussed it beforehand. I would suggest, in all fairness, that process his leader suggested in that forum was carried out.

Mr. Van Horne: From the end of October to the middle of December is six weeks.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let me finish, please, I will say the Construction Industry Review Panel may well have not brought in the suggestion as early as one might have wished it could, but that was the fact of life I had to face, the member had to face and we all had to face. I think he will agree there was a free and open exchange of information in the process. If he feels there was some urgency, I hope he is not suggesting there was some lack of information and data provided for the process.

Again, I cannot agree with the member when he suggests there is some urgency about Bill 73. Certainly, there is a degree of urgency because negotiations are now taking place. As of May 1, certification of voluntary recognition and acquisition of other sectoral bargaining rights are at issue whenever anybody wants to organize. To that degree, the member is right; there is a certain degree of urgency.

Although there may be some desire to have this settled so that it does not disrupt anything we deem to be reasonable in the construction industry, there was time for a thorough and thoughtful review by someone who, I happen to think, is a very well-informed individual, Chairman Adams. There was time for him to review the whole problem and to consult with the parties and anybody who was interested and time for the member to be provided with a report and with the small supplementary report for review.

Once again, although he may say the period of time of a month and a half, two months or whatever it was, was short and brief. I hop he will not suggest the information provided, including discussions with members of my staff about the meaning of the bill, would indicate there is any lack of material in the process. I have a great deal of sympathy with the comments the member made about an

article that appeared in one of the newspapers. I had not seen it until he showed it to me. I do not think it needs to be elaborated upon, except to say it was unfortunate. I may say publicly I have not experienced any obstruction, or any attempted obstruction, from either party in discussion or negotiations about this bill. I would agree that the comments made in the

article were not appropriate.

The member then referred to his caucus’s tour throughout Ontario, mentioning they encountered many unions and contractors who did not want Bill 22 or Bill 204. I do not doubt there are some unions and contractors who did not want Bill 22 or Bill 204. but I would like to emphasize once again that those who examine the facts cannot help but agree that Bill 22 has done what it was intended to do. I submit that Bill 204 is also on the way to confirming what we felt it would do in terms of the construction industry negotiation process and construction industry relations.

I find it very difficult to accept the member’s allegation that things were steamrollered through in 1976 with the intimation that perhaps the same was true with Bill 204. I have outlined the reasons why I cannot accept that. I find it pretty hard to accept in a minority government position when the members could have stopped that process at any time, I do not think it is a fair criticism, and I think the member is in a bit of a sticky wicket when he makes that claim, if he will pardon the Blue Jays’ phrase.

He suggested there was a need for regionalizing of bargaining. Careful, Or I will get Mr. Davidson at his wicket too, and I am not sure his wicket could take it.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, is that parliamentary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I make note of the fact that the member suggested there was a need for regionalizing of bargaining. With the greatest of respect, I suspect that recommendation came from those who did not want Bill 22 or Bill 204, because the purpose of those bills was to do just the reverse: to get rid of regional bargaining, which was causing confusion for the industry, for employees, employers and the general public, with walkouts, strikes, failure to get agreements and all sorts of problems.

Those were the very things that led us to introduce Bill 22 and Bill 204, and if the member is asking if I am prepared to consider going backwards, I do not think there is evidence to support such a move.

In Bill 73, we are at least recognizing some structural regional matters which need to be preserved and I am pleased he is going to support those structural regional and procedural matters that deserve to be preserved.

In passing, I cannot help but remark on the comment someone made that we had ignored the BC experience. I would suspect so, because it is multisector trade bargaining and not single-trade bargaining as we have here in the province. I think the BC experience was examined and I suspect the older man sitting beside the Cheshire cat down there took that into consideration when he recommended that there be single-trade bargaining.

The member for London North commented on some problem with mechanical contractors. I presume he is referring to the fact that on Sunday there was a memorandum of agreement signed which has yet to be ratified, and there may be some work stoppages. If that is so, I would submit if it is illegal then there is a remedy for it. It is certainly not a matter to be dealt with in this bill. I would be pleased to look into it for him if he would like further information, because I’m sure if there is any illegal work stoppage, he would be interested in knowing about it.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

4:00 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elgie moves that subsection 1 of

section 1.31(

a) of the act as set out in

section 1 of the bill he amended by inserting after the word “one” in line 11, the word “appropriate”; and he further moves that the said subsection of

section 131(

a) of the act be amended by striking out “a” on line 12 and inserting in lieu thereof the word “such.”

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I raised this matter with the staff and as a result of those discussions have proposed this amendment. Subsection 1 allows the applicant to select which geographic area or areas it will include in its application for certification. This freedom of selection is necessary because of the diverse circumstances which pertain to any particular application.

At the same time, however, this freedom could be abused if rights are sought for geographic areas in which, for example, no employees are employed or if areas are selected for purely technical reasons and bear no affinity to the bulk of employees for whom bargaining rights are being requested.

Accordingly, the Ontario Labour Relations Board is given clear authority to prevent abuses of this somewhat complex procedure and to do so in the light of basic labour relations principles. The board has a general mandate to deal with appropriate bargaining units and the amendment makes clear that this authority also applies to the selection of geographic areas under the subsection.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill 73, as amended, reported.

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 46, which contains several amendments to the Municipal Act. I would like to comment briefly on these amendments and then ask the House to pass the bill for second reading.

Section 1 of the bill deals with the concern raised by several municipalities. It has been a long-standing practice for members of municipal councils to serve as volunteer firefighters. The concern is that volunteer firefighters might be considered to be employees of the municipality, in which case they would be prohibited from holding office under

section 36(1) of the Municipal Act. The government wants to ensure that members of council are able to serve as volunteer firefighters. This amendment will clear up any possibility that they might be disqualified and will ensure that they are able to serve as volunteer firefighters.

Section 2(1) and

section 5 of the bill are as a result of a request from the council of the city of Toronto. They are complementary provisions to the provisions passed in 1978 which allow a municipal council to provide liability insurance and to pay damages sustained by councillors or employees in proceedings resulting from the performance of their duties. The proposed amendments will permit council to pay the costs and damages of persons who are no longer councillors or employees at the time the judgement is rendered. Of course, they would have been councillors or employees at the time of the action which resulted in the lawsuit.

Section 2(2) is consistent with the government’s policy of giving municipalities more flexibility in determining the composition of their various boards, committees and commissions. The proposed amendment will permit council to determine the number on a parks board of management and will delete the requirement now in the act for a minimum of two councillors on the board. We had similar amendments to the Municipal Act for boards of management other than parks boards last session, members will recall.

Section 3 of the bill proposes a considerable number of important changes to the business improvement area provisions of

section 361, as a result of requests from many municipalities and boards of management of business improvement areas. These amendments will provide greater flexibility for both councils and boards and will ensure that financial control rests firmly with the members of council. I would stress that these amendments are permissive and not mandatory on various councils.

In

summary, the amendments are as follows: to allow a council to exempt entire properties or portions of properties from an improvement area; to require Ontario Municipal Board approval of a bylaw designating or altering an improvement area only when objection has been received to the bylaw (up until now OMB approval was mandatory in all cases); to remove the requirement that a council must wait two years before again attempting to establish an improvement area after one has been previously blocked by petition; to remove the requirement that all members appointed to board of management be qualified to be electors in a municipality, but a person so appointed must be assessed, or must be the nominee of a person assessed.

That is, a corporation who is assessed can appoint or suggest a nominee to the board of management.

The bill will also allow a board to plan projects covering two or more years by authorizing, but only with the approval of council, to incur debts extending beyond the current year.

Finally, this bill will allow a council to set maximum and minimum yearly charges for affected persons within the improvement area and to set different charges for persons who, in council’s opinion, derive different levels of benefit from the establishment of the area.

This bill had first reading more than a month ago and it has been circulated to all the municipalities in Ontario. The subject matter of the bill had been discussed previously with many of the municipal councils, the Municipal Liaison Committee and so on. However, we have received an objection from the city of Ottawa and from their business improvement areas indicating they are not happy with a number of provisions of the bill.

I do not agree with the objections the city of Ottawa has raised. It has been before their planning board this morning and will go to their council a week from now. They have asked, in effect, for the chance to speak to the Legislature about their objections to the bill. Having said I do not agree with their objections, I feel we should facilitate the city of Ottawa if possible. Therefore, after second reading of the bill, I will recommend the bill go to the standing committee on general government for the possibility of Ottawa making representation, and it is to be hoped the bill will be back in June so it can be passed at this spring session.

With those comments, I commend the bill to the House and ask the members for their support.

Mr. Epp: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should indicate that we will obviously support this bill. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) indicated only a few weeks ago during estimates that he had three major goals he wanted to achieve with respect to legislation. One was to remove archaic provisions in various municipal acts. The second was to eliminate redundant provisions. The third was to modernize the language.

4:10 p.m.

I suppose, particularly with respect to the first two, this bill fits the criteria and the goals the minister established for himself and his ministry. A few minutes ago, the parliamentary assistant to the minister indicated that when dealing with the amendment that pertains to voluntary firefighting a member of council now would also be able to serve as a firefighter. I suppose the converse would also be true, that a firefighter would also be able to serve as a councillor.

Mr. Rotenberg: Voluntary.

Mr. Epp: A voluntary firefighter would be able to serve as a councillor. This is very important, simply because a voluntary firefighter would ordinarily not be paid and there is no reason why he should not be able to serve on council and as a firefighter at the same time. This was overlooked when the legislation was originally drawn up, and I am sure it has been violated many times by people who are both firefighters and councillors. I would think a councillor would have a real interest in the community and would want to serve as a firefighter.

I am sure that has happened in many cases in Ontario, yet to my knowledge this piece of legislation has not been tested in the courts. Therefore, it has not been corrected in this House until the first reading of the bill about a month ago.

There are two other amendments I want to speak to briefly. One is the amendment which allows the municipalities to exempt properties from a business improvement area. I think it was in 1970 that the bill introducing business improvement areas in Ontario was passed. I have before me some material Mr. Brown, the director of the community renewal branch, sent me some months ago when I requested it. It is a fairly complete set of material which deals with the introduction of the business improvement area, the legislation itself, the landscaping and beautification, the organization and the marketing of these areas.

I have grown up in and was involved in a municipality which had a business improvement area. During the time I was mayor we decided to make some changes in the business improvement area. I looked at this act, which was introduced in 1970, as one of the best pieces of legislation this government has ever produced. I have no hesitancy in saying that even if I do sit across the House from the government. I have recommended it to other municipalities and suggested names in my own municipality that they might contact who are very familiar with this piece of legislation.

What it does is facilitate the various businesses in a community getting together and having a certain amount on their tax bills used to beautify the area in front of their stores, improve curbs, sidewalks, lighting or to put trees in -- whatever they are going to do to improve the area. This in turn would attract more pedestrian traffic, it’s hoped, and improve their business ventures.

Some saw a shortcoming with the legislation. At the time we expanded the area which the improvement district in the city of Waterloo covered, there was a member on council -- a very able and distinguished lawyer -- who was very much opposed to the legislation. He felt that as a lawyer within this business improvement area he would not derive any benefit by having this area designated. Even if he was going to pay an extra $50, $100 or $200 a year through his taxes, he was not going to benefit simply because he did not think he would be getting any of this walk-in traffic.

He was making his appointments, but people would not be coming to his law firm in this case because he happened to be located in this business improvement area. I am sure that other people. doctors and those who did not have this walk-in traffic, felt as he did and were probably looking for an amendment to the act whereby the council in its wisdom, if it saw fit, could exempt these various businesses. The amendment we have before us will obviously facilitate that.

I agree that this bill should be referred to the standing committee on general government. I understand that representatives of the city of Ottawa, as the parliamentary assistant to the minister has indicated, will be coming before the committee to make representations not to make this amendment. I would like to draw to their attention that by putting this amendment in and by having it included in this bill, it does facilitate more local autonomy for municipalities. I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions for more local autonomy. I would hope the city of Ottawa would reconsider its position and not argue against more local autonomy for the city of Ottawa.

Surely to goodness, the city of Ottawa, with all due respect to that council and its leadership, which I am sure is very able, would be one of the municipalities in the province which would be most fervently in favour of having more local autonomy, particularly since it has the tremendous presence of the federal government there. Obviously, their decisions and actions must often be overshadowed by what happens in the federal capital and what the federal government does. This

section of the bill will give more autonomy to local municipalities. Ottawa would obviously be one of those.

I want to address the third item very briefly. It removes the requirement that members of boards of management in business improvement areas would qualify as members of council. I am not sure what has led up to this particular amendment. Maybe the parliamentary assistant could clarify this. I think it is a step in the right direction.

There are people below the voting age who might have businesses or play certain parts in businesses, or there may be people who do not qualify because of residency requirements to be members of council, but could have quite an investment in a community and may be excellent members of a board of management in a business improvement area. Therefore, they should not be exempted by the shortcomings of legislation.

Keeping this in mind, I reiterate that we will support this bill and the amendments included in it, and we encourage the government to bring forth other amendments which, in turn, would give greater autonomy to local municipalities.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and participate in debating a bill dealing with very minor matters that are of concern to our municipalities. While these matters are very minor, nevertheless they are of great concern to the municipalities affected. By making my comments. I do not intend to belittle the importance of them, but I want to suggest strongly it is incredible to me that we are dealing with the problems that face our municipalities in this manner by bringing in a bill which contains four separate provisions on matters which are not of world-shattering importance.

Our municipalities are facing very serious problems that are not getting the attention they should. Even if we set aside for one moment the matter of the financial problems municipal governments are facing, we also have before us the resolutions passed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario at its convention last summer, the overwhelming majority of which have been totally ignored by the government. We have a great deal of paper put out by AMO, by the MLC, by the municipalities themselves and by the other municipal organizations that come to us month after month, and much of that relates to very serious problems.

4:20 p.m.

Yet we have a bill before us which is dealing with some problems that, while significant, are very small in terms of the total concept of problems facing municipal government. That is not to say we should not be dealing with these, but I suggest very strongly to the parliamentary assistant, and I would suggest to the minister if he were here, that it is about time we looked very seriously at putting in place a charter for municipalities as I suggested to the minister during the debate last week on his estimates. It was not exactly a debate.

It was a kind of one-sided conversation, because I did not get any response from the minister as to what he thought of the approach. But if we put in place a charter for municipalities that defined the broad area within which municipal government could operate, then we would not need this kind of bill at all.

On the specific principles of the bill, we are prepared to accept the concept that volunteer firefighters can continue to be members of council and that members of council can be volunteer firefighters. In fact, we welcome that provision, because it was the intent of the Legislature in its previous dealings with this matter that volunteer firefighters not be excluded from being members of municipal council. If there is uncertainty in people’s minds, then it should be cleaned up, and this

section cleans it up.

I want to suggest, however, to the parliamentary assistant that it does still leave the problem of conflict of interest. Given that we have not dealt in this House with the matter of conflict of interest, I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that we could get into some very awkward problems, not only when municipal councils are dealing with the indemnity for volunteer firefighters, but also when municipal councils are dealing with the buying of fire equipment, the building of new fire stations, et cetera. Unless we get around to dealing with the very serious problem of conflict of interest, then this particular

section may not deal properly with the problem that is raised and which it attempts to deal with.

On the second matter contained in this bill, the extension of the provision of indemnity for municipal councillors and for employees, we continue to express the concern we have expressed in the past, that we do not believe the approach the government has taken is the right approach.

We reiterate that we believe the approach suggested by the liaison committee of the Professional Associations of Municipalities of Ontario, generally known as PAMO, is the approach that would have been more appropriate. In other words, rather than enabling the municipality to pay very substantial legal costs and to pay whatever judgements are finally made, if indeed a judgement is made in a particular case, we would have preferred that there be some clear and specific exclusion from liability for certain elected officials and certain appointed officials for some of the functions they perform during the course of their duties.

The PAMO approach was rejected by the government last year when this matter was dealt with. Indeed, it was in 1978 that it first came before us, and therefore we have to look at this particular

section in the context of what we have in place now. We have come to the conclusion, given that municipalities have the power now for all their elected officials and for all their appointed officials, both to purchase insurance and to pay the legal costs and judgements if they so wish, that it is probably reasonable that this power be extended to those elected and appointed officials who are referred to in the section; in other words, to cover those errors or omissions that occurred subsequent to June 20, 1978.

It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, as I know you are aware, in some of these circumstances to make a judgement as to whether to permit a particular extension of a power when one is in general not supportive of the power itself. But in this particular circumstance, and given that it is a relatively minor extension of power, we are prepared to support this particular section.

With regard to the matter of the freeing up of parks board membership, that concept in general is one that is consistent with the idea of a charter for municipal government about which we have spoken before. A local council, an elected body, should be able to appoint those bodies that it sees as being necessary for the conduct of the municipal business, and there should not necessarily be constraints in the legislation.

I want to mention one point, however, with regard to this section. As I read it, it would enable the municipality to appoint, as a board of parks management, a board of one person. That is surely not what is intended in anybody’s mind by the idea of a board of parks management, particularly if that one person happened to be a full-time employee of the municipality. It is legislation that enables the municipal council and any accountable body to divest itself of responsibility for parks management. While we are prepared to accept the

section the way it is worded, I sincerely hope that no municipal council would decide to appoint one person as a board of parks management.

The major component of this bill relates to the changes to the concept of business improvement area. Indeed, the bill is a very major re-enactment of the concepts relating to business improvement areas.

I find the bill to be terribly protective. It provides so many checks and balances that it becomes almost impossible for a local council to exercise any of the discretion it might see as appropriate in a particular circumstance. For that reason, I am sure we are going to see municipal councils continue to come back to us seeking private bills or changes to the legislation which enable them to do the little things they need to do in order to make a business improvement area work in their particular circumstance.

It relates again to the matter of trust that we place in municipal councils. If the government is saying that it is not prepared to trust a municipal council to be responsive to its electorate and its taxpayers, I suppose it’s necessary that the protections that are contained in this be built in, in the detail that is contained in this bill. But I find it strange that these great protections are built into the legislation to make sure that anybody who objects is always entitled to a full OMB hearing, that the council can balance things however it wants and yet still be subject to a vote of the people who are affected.

There is an inadequate definition of the purpose of a business improvement area. There is a difficulty in terms of the business improvement area gaining access to additional sources of funds which would enable them to balance the money they raise from the local levy with grants that come from this government or from some other source. Indeed, there are still problems with the downtown revitalization program that continue to be problems for municipalities in getting money to assist with this kind of work.

It is rather strange that we build this incredibly complex business improvement area system but do nut give it any initiative, any prod, to get under way except the prod that is brought about by the businessmen themselves.

There are matters in their relating to OMB hearings and the like which are going to slow down the entire process, and that is necessary if we recognize the right of individuals to object as they see fit. Nevertheless, the fundamental issue of accountability of the local council for its actions is lacking in many of the provisions of this

section of the bill.

4:30 p.m.

In addition, I want to suggest to the parliamentary assistant that the whole matter of what to do when a business improvement area is wound up is still not being properly addressed. I would refer the parliamentary assistant to

section 7 of Bill Pr14 which deals with business improvement areas. Given that, there is currently private legislation before us, I have to ask why he did not take that concept and incorporate it into this bill as well, instead of looking at more private legislation to deal with these problems. That is just an example of what I mean when I say the whole thing is so restricted that municipalities have to keep coming back for minor amendments or for private legislation in order to go about the business they see as being important.

Those are my general comments. We understand the reason why this is going to go to committee. We continue to suggest that there is still not the proper consultation. For the parliamentary assistant to come her