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

June 14, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L082 - Mon 14 Jun 1976 / Lun 14 jun 1976

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING ON RAIL POLICY

WELFARE RECIPIENTS

FOREST FIRES

LEAD CONTAMINATION

OPP AT WHITEDOG INDIAN RESERVE

OMBUDSMAN’S REPORT ON PICKERING

CCH CANADIAN LTD.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES’ NEGOTIATIONS

LLBO AND LCBO EMPLOYEES’ WAGE NEGOTIATIONS

FOREST FIRES

PROTECTION FOR RAPE VICTIMS

OLYMPICS DUTIES OF OPP

HOSPITAL BUDGETS

TRAFFIC PROBLEM AT HYDRO SITE

WATER POLLUTION

KIRKLAND LAKE HOSPITAL

PITS AND QUARRIES LICENCES

CONTROL OF TRAIL BIKES

AID TO NORTHERN ONTARIO FARMERS

POLICE BRUTALITY REPORT

FOREST FIRES

ACCESS TO OSHAWA MARSH

CLOSURE OF ARENAS

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

SOUND SYSTEM

MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL SUBSIDIES ADJUSTMENT REPEAL ACT

THIRD READING

TOWNSHIP OF NORTH PLANTAGENET ACT

THIRD READING

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTIES PLAN ACT

SIMCOE DAY ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING ON RAIL POLICY

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as members of this House may or may not be aware, I am scheduled to meet with the federal Minister of Transport, Canada, the Hon. Otto Lang, on June 29. Among the several items on our agenda will be my ministry’s concerns in the area of rail transportation in this province.

Specifically, I am determined to obtain a clear understanding of the federal government’s position vis-à-vis the future of the Windsor to Toronto corridor.

At the same time, I shall advise the minister of the importance Ontario places on rail passenger service as well as the position my officials will be taking at the Canadian Transport Commission’s hearings in Ottawa commencing at the end of this month. The latter, of course, focuses on the rationalization of the CN-CP transcontinental rail passenger services.

I also intend to make Mr. Lang fully aware of the concerns which I’m sure all of the members of this House share regarding rail service to Ontario’s north and northeast where, of course, we are directly involved through the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

I don’t believe I have to elaborate on the question of Ontario’s stance in the matter of the Windsor-to-Toronto corridor.

Last May 20 in this House, I responded to Mr. Lang’s telegram in which he outlined that the first phase of plans to improve the Quebec City to Windsor rail corridor would, initially at least, include only the Quebec City to Montreal segment. At that time I pointed out that the federal government’s decision to leave the Toronto to Windsor corridor until -- and I quote from Mr. Lang’s telegram -- “the near future” ignored the basic fact that the Toronto-Windsor segment serves the most densely populated area in Canada. It was, I reminded him, also the area with the highest economic potential.

I concluded by saying that I was most disappointed and that I would ask for a minister-to-minister meeting at the earliest possible moment. That meeting, Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, is scheduled for June 29.

In the matter of the CTC’s economic rationalization hearing on the CN and CP transcontinental passenger rail services, I shall inform Mr. Lang that Ontario supports, in theory, the principle of such rationalization. This is on the assumption, however, that rationalization does not involve the transfer of financial responsibility for replacement services to the Province of Ontario. Nor will our support imply acceptance should there be a discontinuance of portions of the transcontinental which currently provide an essential service to our northern communities.

I shall insist that, should the CTC rule in favour of discontinuance in such areas, these services must be replaced by local rail or acceptable alternative services, tailored to fit the affected communities’ needs.

Decisions arising from the transcontinental rationalization hearings could possibly have an effect on the operations of the ONR as well. I shall again make the Minister of Transport, Canada, aware of such possibilities. For example, should there be a reconfiguration of the transcontinental rail route through Ontario, it could include the Toronto to North Bay link which ONR operates with CN on a pooled equipment basis. Thus, should this kind of reconfiguration result, I would insist that ONR and CN equipment be compatible.

I shall therefore ask Mr. Lang to make me fully aware of the federal position in this area as soon as possible. I shall stress the fact that the Ontario government reaffirms its previously stated position to improve rail passenger service into the north and northeast areas of the province.

Such services can only be considered in their totality -- from Toronto to Cochrane and beyond; the branch lines to Moosonee, Noranda and Timmins. Yet, and I shall point this out --

Mr. Sargent: You’re always forgetting the Grey-Bruce area.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- emphatically to Mr. Lang, the Toronto to North Bay corridor, as well as other corridors, is the responsibility of the CN and its attendant federal funding. Thus, regardless of our resolution, any action taken to upgrade the ONR’s services must be co-ordinated with the federal government and the CNR.

Addressing this problem has not been easy. Therefore, I shall ask the Minister of Transport, Canada, to state his position clearly on the points I have raised in previous correspondence with him.

First will be the matter of mandatory discontinuance hearings. In this area it would be rather foolish of the province to make large capital investments for new equipment while the federal discontinuance hearing exists. Hence, I shall ask for either a five-year deferral of the passenger service discontinuance hearing on CN corridors to enable us to move ahead or the holding of the necessary hearings immediately.

Second, I will ask for assurances that federal funding be continued on the Toronto-North Bay passenger run.

Third, I shall request that the CTC approve federal subsidies for ONR passenger service deficits on the same basis as those provided the CN portions.

On this subject, Mr. Speaker, while the ONR does not operate under a federal charter there is plenty of room for considering a request for subsidies. The ONR does serve many remote northern Ontario communities and, if I may quote Mr. Lang himself in a directive dated Jan. 29, 1976, “Rail passenger service should not be abandoned in any case where no other commercial service exists.”

That, I shall argue, offers justification for federal funding for the ONR.

As for our commitments to provide the north and northeast with upgraded and improved services. I shall make it abundantly clear that the uncertainties concerning funding, discontinuance hearings, transcontinental rationalization and equipment needs are seriously impairing this government’s ability to reach any real and meaningful decisions in rail transportation to the north and northeastern areas of this province.

Therefore, the time has come for action -- if we are to respond to the genuine desires and needs of people resident in the north and northeast. To this end, it is the firm intention of the government of Ontario to adopt a new equipment

schedule which will allow us to order three late model trains any time before the end of this year.

To accomplish this we shall continue negotiations with Amtrak, requesting that our options to acquire three turbos be extended until the end of 1976. At the same time, we shall follow with more than considerable interest, the kind of new equipment scheduled for delivery for the Quebec City-Montreal project I referred to earlier. Tenders for this new equipment will, I’m told, be opened sometime in December this year.

At the same time, I have instructed the general manager of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, Mr. F. S. Clifford, to begin immediately, short-term improvements to our existing services -- such as improving the quality of service by any means necessary and possible; by reassessing schedules and operational requirements; and upgrading equipment. Mr. Clifford will also meet with CNR officials to discuss actively the rationalization of the operational requirements to meet this objective.

WELFARE RECIPIENTS

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on June 10 I tabled for the information of the House, details of the general welfare assistance caseload. During the dinner recess, my staff discovered arithmetic errors in that portion of my statement dealing with the caseloads of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: It was pointed out to you?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Unfortunately, the wrong column of figures was read from the Metropolitan Toronto statistical fact sheet. The correct figures show a more marked decrease in employables.

Mr. Yakabuski: They don’t like that.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Although the total caseload is up slightly from last year at the same time, it is down by 464 cases or about 7.5 per cent from the previous month of April, 1976.

Although I took the first opportunity to correct the figures during the evening session of the committee of supply, I would like the House to be aware of the correct figures:

With regard to the Metropolitan Toronto general welfare caseload, it was one per cent higher in May, 1976, than it was in May, 1975; that is, 19,531 in May, 1976, compared with 19,365 in May, 1975. However, I would like to point out to the House that the Metro Toronto caseload has been declining over the past five months after peaking in January. In January, the figure was 22,414. By May, it had declined by 12.9 per cent to 19,531.

While the total Metro Toronto caseload was one per cent higher in May this year than in May a year ago, the caseload of employables was lower; that is from 6,196 in May, 1975, compared with 5,740 in May, 1976, or approximately a seven per cent drop.

The misreading of the figures in my earlier statement applied only to the Metropolitan Toronto caseload. All other figures remain the same. I should point out that the figures I provided on June 10 were certainly not intended to mislead the members of the House as the correct figures I have provided today make the case even more emphatically.

[2:15]

Mr. Singer: If that ever came from the Liberal Party we would hear about it for the next six months. Imagine a mistake like that.

Mr. Yakabuski: Oh, you don’t like that.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The decline in the employables category in Metropolitan Toronto is even more startling.

Mr. Singer: Great research!

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Since January of this year there has been a 30.1 per cent decline from 8,211 cases to 5,740. This significant decline in employables caseloads is evidence of the value of my ministry’s efforts to assist and encourage job-ready individuals to re-enter the labour force.

Mr. Singer: Is that within the right column or the wrong column?

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am delighted to be able to report to the House at this time that the forest fire situation has abated substantially in northern Ontario over the weekend. All of the major fires that had been causing difficulties, and at times some anxiety, are now in check and no serious threat faces any community in northern Ontario. The three large fires in the Ignace district, one of which was more than 50,000 acres, are reported under control today.

There is some further activity in the northern region and the eastern portion of the northeastern region where about 40 new fires broke out over the weekend. The long, hot, dry weather situation which prevailed through much of the north for more than five weeks has moderated and some rain has fallen, bringing lower temperatures and higher humidities.

I would like to take this opportunity to express publicly the appreciation of the government of Ontario to the government of Alberta for the 254 fully-equipped firefighters they made available to us last week. Some of those men will be returning home today and all will have left by Friday. Alberta also kindly released two Canso water bombers which were most helpful to us during the peak of the fires in the northwest. They returned to Alberta last week. Our thanks also go to the United States Forestry Service for providing us with 70,000 lb of equipment and food as well as the use of an airborne infrared scanner which has been most useful to our men in detecting fires.

The ban on open fires in northwestern, north central and northern regions expires tomorrow at midnight. I am optimistic that we will not find it necessary to extend the ban. A decision, however, will depend on the weather and any new serious outbreaks which may have occurred. Members may be interested to know that our conservation officers have diligently been enforcing the Forest Fires Prevention Act and have laid some 48 charges of setting open fires in the restricted regions.

I would like to commend the woods operators in the forest fire areas for their excellent co-operation in eliminating or reducing unnecessary travel in the woods last week. Their response was tremendous as was that of the tourist operators and the tourists themselves. We expect operations to return to normal very soon.

Since the fire season began on April 1, we have had almost 1,200 fires which have burned through nearly 600,000 acres of northern Ontario’s forest land.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

LEAD CONTAMINATION

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question first of the Minister of the Environment? How does the Minister of the Environment respond to the condemnation by the Toronto Board of Health and medical experts of the report of the Environmental Hearing Board on the lead problems in the area of the lead smelters in downtown Toronto and their clear endorsement of the task force report in its place? Is the minister ever going to take any specific initiative to implement recommendations of that task force report?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The newspaper report dealing with the board of health meeting seems to indicate that one or two members of the board of health are taking issue with some of the levels that were recommended in the final report of the hearing board in that there was some difference from the finding of the earlier task force report.

This is something that I would leave to the experts as to whether or not the levels should be 30 micrograms per 100 millilitres or 40 or 50. I understand the hearing board reduced the acceptable level in blood from 40 to 30 and, as I say, certain of these people who are reported in the newspaper

article feel that even 30 is too high.

We received a letter from, I think it was Anne Johnston, an alderman in the city, requesting a meeting with the Ministers of Health, Environment and Labour. Premier Davis, in replying to that, indicated we couldn’t assure that such a meeting would take place before the House rises, or before the meeting that was held over the weekend. But there is no reason such a meeting couldn’t take place between the members of our policy field and the members of the board of health.

I would frankly like to see members of the hearing board --

Mr. Sargent: Tell us about Dow Chemical.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- meet with the people who were on the data analysis task force. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I tabled those two reports at the same time, and therefore the hearing board report didn’t refer to the information in the task force report. I think that those two groups should get together now and decide whether there should be any addendum to the hearing board report, dealing with blood levels particularly.

To answer the second part of the hon. member’s question, we have now received information on what it would cost to remove the soil from about 125 homes around at least three of those lead plants; and we have some idea of how we should go about it. Apparently the recommendation is that the soil should be removed rather than just covered over. We have an idea of what it is going to cost. I have written to the mayor of Toronto and also to the president of the three or four plants involved asking for a meeting to decide how this is going to be undertaken and how it is going to be paid for.

Mr. Lewis: A quick supplementary, if I may, in two parts. Does it not strike the minister as strange that the Environmental Hearing Board, having had the task force report in its hands for several months, did not see the need to incorporate its scientific findings in their report? Does it not seem to the minister that this substantiates much of the criticism of the Environmental Hearing Board? How much will it cost to replace the soil, and why has the minister not made a specific suggestion as to the timing and the financing?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, first of all my information is that the hearing board didn’t have the information from the data analysis task force before their report went to print. My information is they didn’t have that information until it was too late to include it in their report.

Mr. Mancini: I will take a copy.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I can check that further. Secondly, the cost is about $300,000, and really I can’t make any commitments for that amount until I find out how much of that sum, if any, we have to pay and I have talked to my colleague on my left here and his colleagues.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: What is the minister saying -- that for the sake of $300,000 given to help -- particularly the children in the area -- he is now going to engage in a lengthy squabble? Has he suggested any method of apportioning the cost? Surely we should assume some of it, since we allowed the smelters to pollute?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: To go further on that, Mr. Speaker, you might say the city of Toronto allowed the smelters to be established in that area and a lot of homes to be built near it. So, there is certainly some shared responsibility here. As far as I’m concerned, the question or the debate or the discussion regarding cost will not delay the implementation of the removal of that soil.

OPP AT WHITEDOG INDIAN RESERVE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Solicitor General, if I may. Can he report to the House the progress on the urgent request from the band council of the Whitedog Indian reserve, for Ontario Provincial Police policing on the reserve, about which I believe there was a meeting last week?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no further information at this time, except I believe that meeting was held and I will try to have some information by tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Can the minister in the process find out from the OPP why a confusion developed about how the police would get on the reserve -- why the OPP believe they should be based at Minaki, and the band felt that, as in the case of other reserves, they would be on the reserve? Can the minister take into account the band’s brief, which I’ll send across to him, that says there are lives at stake in the decision, that the chiefs and council will have to resign shortly for personal safety as a result of threats of physical violence and that the situation is deteriorating? Can the minister do that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: To whom was that brief addressed, may I ask?

Mr. Lewis: It was addressed to R. J. MacGarva, Staff Superintendent, Indian Policing Services, OPP.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I will take all that into consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Is the Solicitor General aware that a young man brandishing a rifle entered the band office during daylight hours and threatened to kill the chief and councillors and that the OPP arrived 1½ hours after the incident? This is one of the reasons given for having OPP members on the reserve itself.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, that will be included in my report.

OMBUDSMAN’S REPORT ON PICKERING

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, to the Minister of Housing: Can he give us his understanding of exactly the status of the Ombudsman’s report on Pickering? Has he received it? Is he about to make comment on it? Is it true that all the properties or many of the properties will have to fall under the Expropriations Act retroactively? What is the status?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, my knowledge of the status of that is, according to the press release put out by the Ombudsman today, that he will be presenting the report to me one week from today.

Mr. Lewis: So the minister has no knowledge of the contents of the report at all?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of discussions with the Ombudsman as provided for in the legislation and in his Act. I don’t feel I should discuss those conversations; they were in private. I have not received his final report and recommendations and I understand I’ll get them a week from today.

CCH CANADIAN LTD.

Mr. Lewis: A question to the Minister of Labour: What is the status of the CCH dispute?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the CCH dispute has become almost as complicated as an Erle Stanley Gardner novel, as a matter of fact. There are so many plots and sub-plots at the moment. There are court cases, hearings before the Labour Relations Board and counter-hearings before the Labour Relations Board.

At the moment I have appointed a disputes advisory committee. We have two excellent gentlemen making up that committee -- Mr. Terry Meagher and Mr. Lloyd Hemsworth -- and they begin moving today to try to find a solution to this problem.

Mr. Lewis: Am I right that the memorandum of agreement was dated for June 15 and runs out, therefore, tomorrow unless CCH is somehow persuaded to come to its senses, whether in fictional form or not? Does the minister think that will happen within 24 hours?

Hon. B. Stephenson: They have a little longer than 24 hours. They actually have 36 hours at this point to try to resolve the disability.

Mr. Lewis: I am pleased to hear that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is quite possible that the memorandum will run out but with the presence of a disputes advisory committee I think that perhaps both parties are a little more directed toward maintaining a reasonable attitude until we get a report from the disputes advisory committee.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Why does the government permit the continuance of the kind of coercion which is going on in the dispute with the public health nurses? I have in mind particularly a letter from the Halton regional board to the bargaining committee for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in which Mr. Camm, director of personnel, says: “I am instructed by the board to advise you that those members who stop working on June 14, 1976 [as the minister knows, there is a one-week protest strike being proposed] will not have work available to them until a new collective agreement is reached.”

Does the minister not agree that this is in contravention of sections 58(a), 58(

c) and 61 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act inasmuch as selective lockouts are being proposed depending on whether the nurses go on strike at this particular time?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a copy of that letter. When I do see it, I shall most certainly talk to the members of staff because there is, I think, a very strong possibility that it may be in contravention of the Act.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: May I ask the minister what she intends to do about the deplorable state to which affairs have come, in which the nurses are quite willing to go to compulsory binding arbitration yet the health units across the province, with the tacit agreements of the government, are bringing to bear such very strong measures against them and refusing to budge in this regard?

[2:30]

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no tacit agreement on the part of the government. As a matter of fact, the government has been attempting to persuade the health units to move to voluntary arbitration because this would most certainly provide a solution to the problem. There isn’t any doubt in my mind that eventually we will find a resolution to this problem, but it has been extremely difficult because of the peculiar situation in which the public health nurses find themselves vis-à-vis other nurses and vis-à-vis other employees of the health units.

It is not a straightforward and simple problem to solve, and we are still doing our best to try to solve it. We will be meeting again with the Ontario Nurses’ Association executive this week and attempting again to talk to the Association of Boards of Health.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Exactly what does the minister mean by “attempting to talk with the Association of Boards of Health”? Is she going to talk to them or is she not going to talk to them? She can’t be attempting to talk to them. She’s the Minister of Health; if she wants to talk to them, they have to talk to her.

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

Hon. B. Stephenson: Correction, Mr. Speaker. I am not the Minister of Health.

Mr. Deans: The Minister of Labour; I beg your pardon.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It was just as difficult when I was acting Minister of Health to try to persuade the boards of health. We will be attempting to persuade them when we talk to them that there has to be a solution found to this problem, short of the kind of legislation which we think probably should be introduced but which we think probably should not be introduced under the present emergency situation.

If the boards of health had done what the Ministry of Health suggested last year, most of them would not be in the difficulties that they are in right at the moment in terms of matching or establishing a reasonable parity with hospital nurses; but the boards of health did not take it upon themselves to open their agreements, as suggested by the Ministry of Health last year, and as a result they are in a very difficult position, given this year’s restraint programme.

LLBO AND LCBO EMPLOYEES’ WAGE NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Another question to the Minister of Labour on a different topic: Could the minister explain why the government appears to be pushing the LCBO and LLBO workers to an illegal strike by refusing to deal with them? Could the minister explain why the government is refusing to give these workers the 10 per cent award for the second year of their contract which was agreed to by the AIB? Why is this form of coercion being used against these workers?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, this problem is not within my ministry and I think it would be much more appropriately directed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Nixon: We can’t see him very well.

Hon. B. Stephenson: He is there.

Mr. S. Smith: The Minister from Lambton without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson) blocked my view of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Breithaupt: And of three others.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations kindly accept that question as redirected to him?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I heard the word “coercion” being used in connection with the government and its workers, and, of course, I don’t accept that at all. There is no coercion being used whatsoever. Perhaps if the hon. member would expand on his question, I would understand what he is talking about.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member should repeat his question.

Mr. Nixon: The minister doesn’t even know what you are talking about.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister not agree that the refusal on the part of the government to give these workers the 10 per cent wage increase that has already been agreed to by the AIB, and the government’s insistence that the workers give up their right to appeal before they get any of this money, would be a form of coercion in his mind?

Mr. Nixon: Certainly.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: First of all, 10 per cent of what, if I may put a rhetorical question? It is 10 per cent of the amount that was agreed upon for last year, and until that amount is agreed upon there is no way of implementing the second phase of the wage increase. If we can reach agreement on the first year, then we know what the 10.1 per cent applies to; until then we don’t.

Mr. Mancini: A supplementary: Isn’t it a fact that the LCBO and LLBO employees did not take all the increase that they were awarded last year, and if their 10 per cent is cut down if and when the AIB rules on their appeal, there is already enough money in the fund so the government doesn’t have to take the money back from the employees? Isn’t that true?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been asked. There’s no need to debate.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, it is not true. First of all, there has been no appeal to the AIB. I was in touch with the officials of the association as recently as last Friday to ask them if they had in fact appealed to the AIB, and they have not. They have filed action in the Supreme Court of Ontario and obviously while that action is pending, there is no way we can discuss the matter.

Mr. Nixon: Your record in the courts is not very good.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We are quite prepared to deal with it when they file an appeal with the AIB, but in reply to the hon. member’s, “Is it true?” no, it is not.

Mr. Mancini: That’s why I said “if and when.”

FOREST FIRES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to some of the events around the forest fires: Could the minister give some explanation to the House as to the actions of a helicopter pilot who is alleged to have refused requests to fly injured men to hospital? Does he have some information about this and could he expand on what happened?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I believe the reference is to the Savant Lake or the Allan Water area. I am told the helicopter pilot did pick up the two injured men and bring them to Savant Lake -- I believe that was the point -- and they were placed on suitable transportation to be taken to Sioux Lookout General Hospital. The report that they actually refused to pick up the men is not correct. As I will repeat, they were picked up from the accident and put on proper transportation which brought them to the Sioux Lookout General Hospital.

PROTECTION FOR RAPE VICTIMS

Mr. S. Smith: One final question, if I might, to the Minister of Labour regarding rape victims, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister planning to introduce any changes to the Employment Standards Act, or to any other code which might apply, to give some protection to rape victims so that their employers would give them reasonable time off after such an event and not harass them unduly?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, this specific problem has arisen only within the past week as a result of the information provided by a victim at the trial which was being held. It is certainly a problem which I think will have to be looked at very carefully.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not agree that, in line with other matters such as sick benefits and various allowances of this kind, attention should be paid to rape victims so that they do have a certain protection when they return to work?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member means by protection. They most certainly do have the same type of time off as any other individual who has either an illness or has very severe emotional problems. There are many instances in which there are not only maternity leaves and paternity leaves but adoption leaves as well. In most instances I think there would be most definitely some consideration given to an individual who has suffered this kind of attack but we shall look at it very carefully.

OLYMPICS DUTIES OF OPP

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General: Could the minister advise the House how many Ontario Provincial Police officers and personnel will be temporarily transferred to the Kingston area to police the sailing events of the Olympics to be held there this summer? Will any motorized equipment be transferred, such as police cruisers --

Mr. Eakins: What areas will go without?

Mr. G. E. Smith: -- and OPP patrol boats, and will they be transferred from existing detachments to that area?

Mr. Sargent: It is the same number he told you an hour ago.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have all of those figures. I know that for the most part, policing in the Kingston area, some in Toronto where the soccer games are being held, and some in Ottawa as well, is being done by combined municipal forces, the OPP and the RCMP with some help from the armed services as well.

As far as our own organization, the OPP, is concerned, there will be considerable overtime in connection with it. There will be a gathering of OPP forces in the Kingston area particularly from other detachments across the southern part of Ontario. The exact numbers I can’t give you but I can get those figures.

As far as motor equipment is concerned, likewise there will be a transfer from other places in the province of certain motor launches for the two or three weeks involved in the sailing competitions at Kingston. Again, I can’t give you the exact number of motor launches. I know that the OPP does have 68 boats altogether which are put in service in the summertime but I don’t know how many of those will be involved in Kingston. I will get the information.

The rest of the province will be suffering somewhat from lack of that equipment and lack of that personnel during the period of the Olympics.

Mr. G. E. Smith: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that, I believe, there are only one or two boats in the Midland-Georgian Bay-Trent/Severn system, including Lake Simcoe, could the minister check with the Ontario Provincial Police to see that there will be at least a minimal amount of water patrol during the summer months? Perhaps the minister might also give us some indication as to how much this whole effort is going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario.

Mr. Reid: Let’s swear you in.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There will be motor launches available, probably not to do basic patrols but for any emergency work that is required they will be available. As to the cost, there are funds in the Solicitor General’s budget; some of the money is coming from Wintario as well. At this time I might tell the member for Simcoe East that a lot of it has to remain as an estimate, but I will do my best to get the information that he’s asked for on all of the questions.

HOSPITAL BUDGETS

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Is it true that the fees which have been imposed by the Ministry of Health on all hospital capital expenditures will, out of necessity, mean that the $25-million redevelopment of the Hamilton General Hospital will be delayed; that the St. Joseph’s Hospital $10-million redevelopment will be delayed; and that the health care facility in the east end of the city of Hamilton promised to meet the expanding areas to the eastern portion of the city will also be delayed?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I am sure the member is aware that I wouldn’t have that information at my fingertips, but I will make sure that he is given the information when the minister returns.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question: Is this not a policy matter?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: A policy matter? I think the member is speaking of specific hospitals, and that is within the jurisdiction of the minister himself.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary question: If it turns out that it is true, as I suspect it is, can the minister explain to me then what function the health council serves -- having been told that they were given the responsibility for the expenditures of certain sums of money and to plan the future development of the health needs for the area -- if the government is going to intervene in this way and destroy the credibility of the whole operation?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: With all due respect, I would suggest that these are questions that might more rightfully be put to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Mancini: What does the provincial secretary do?

Mr. Deans: What does she do over there?

TRAFFIC PROBLEM AT HYDRO SITE

Mr. Sargent: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I’ve always had a suspicion that Hydro has its fair share of idiots in top spots but having been to Douglas Point last week --

Mr. Speaker: Will you get to the question, please?

Mr. Sargent: The question is, in view of the fact --

Mr. Speaker: Make sure it is a question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Liberal Party has its fair share of idiots.

Mr. Sargent: -- that we have, in Douglas Point, the world’s largest nuclear project, we have also the world’s largest traffic jam. Every day we have chaos there with --

Mr. Yakabuski: Don’t you like prosperity?

Mr. Sargent: -- 3,000 or 5,000 cars converging from --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Now it’s time for the question.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that we have 3,000 to 5,000 cars converging on a single point and we have five accidents a day, will the minister investigate to see why Hydro refuses to co-operate? Further, why did they cancel construction by Lummus of two roads to solve the problem? Will the minister investigate this?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m aware that last week the hon. member, with his very large car and a contingent of press, arrived at the Lummus site, I believe it was on Tuesday, to take

part in a demonstration for the benefit of the press.

Mr. Sargent: Sure, and I got there driving by myself, not by the chauffeur the minister has.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m also aware, it’s an unfortunate thing, that one aspect of the British parliamentary system, namely immunity for members, is so often abused by that member when he makes remarks such as he did about the senior people of Ontario Hydro. There are no finer people working for the people of this province than the senior people of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Kerrio: Answer the question. We’re not here for a lesson.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With regard to the member’s specific question, if he’d bothered to check into this situation he would have found out that in November there was a meeting between representatives of Ontario Hydro, the unions on the site and Lummus. At that time, it was agreed by the union that the situation was tolerable, that it would be impossible to come up with a situation that would be perfect.

Mr. Sargent: The shop steward said that is not true.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member should withdraw that remark. I have never misled this House.

Mr. Sargent: I will not; the shop stewards say that’s not true!

Mr. Speaker: I’m afraid the Speaker did not hear the interjection. I’m not sure if it’s out of order or not. Did the hon. member accuse the minister of telling an untruth? Is that true?

Mr. Singer: No.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: He didn’t call him a liar or anything like that.

[2:45]

Mr. S. Smith: Let the minister withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; could we have less noise. That is not helping.

Mr. Nixon: Send the minister back to Italy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: Is he just back from Europe?

Mr. Speaker: We are wasting valuable time.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, one gets used to the fact that particular member takes such liberties with his rights and privileges as a member of this House.

Mr. Breithaupt: Order, order.

Mr. Nixon: Withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact of the matter is that the meeting was held; it was held in November; and the union, Lummus and Hydro were at the meeting. It was agreed by the union that the situation was tolerable; that it would be impossible to redesign the situation in such a way as to make sure that everybody got on to the highway at the same time. I understand that the traffic jam, if we can call it that, usually means that it takes about 15 minutes for people to get on to the highway and that the member’s figure of five accidents per day, I am told, is not correct.

Mr. Sargent: The minister doesn’t know what he is talking about. Why doesn’t he go up and see it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have been at Bruce several times. I don’t usually arrive with a contingent of reporters and cameras and so forth to try to make a big show on the site, as the hon. member does frequently.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is a change.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment has the answer to a question asked previously.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: No; order please. This is getting to be a debate. The hon. Minister of the Environment. Will the member take his seat?

Mr. Sargent: No supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Not on this one. The hon. Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Sargent: No wonder. The Globe and Mail was right -- all the time.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member wishes to remain in the House he will remain quiet as well.

Mr. Sargent: There he goes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of the Environment has the answer to a question.

WATER POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party asked me a question on June 7 last regarding concentrations of chloroform in treated drinking water in certain Ontario municipalities. My information is that there is no evidence to suggest that the trace levels found in 1975, and confirmed in subsequent monitoring, presented a human health hazard.

The recent reports carried in the Washington Star, linking chloroform to cancer and birth defects in rodents, are purported to be the results of research studies carried out by federal agencies in the US. No new information has been provided on potential carcinogenic effects. Studies are continuing in the US and the results referred to were based upon massive doses of chloroform which were applied to rats and mice over an extended period of time. The Ministry of Health has previously indicated that “there is no evidence that the trace levels of chloroform detected in some of Ontario’s water supplies present any human health hazard.”

The newspaper referring to the

article from the US has mistakenly concluded that studies at the National Institute of Environmental Health Services at Durham, North Carolina, have linked chloroform to birth defects in mice. The study did report that female mice given city tap water from Durham showed a reduction in the rate of reproduction. Birth defects were not identified.

The institute has not been able to determine the cause of the reduced reproductive rate, and although chloroform levels seven times higher than Ontario’s highest recorded levels were present in the water at the time the research was carried out, duplicate studies at similar levels have not verified the earlier findings.

Both the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Health are maintaining close liaison with our counterparts in the US and independent research is being carried out in Ontario on the sources and causes of chloroform production in water supplies and treatment options for reducing chloroform levels.

We intend, Mr. Speaker, to continue our research, and monitor studies going on in the US, and are prepared to act expeditiously should evidence suggest that there is a potential health hazard. However, we must at the same time be careful not to bring unnecessary and unjustified anxiety to bear on the public by overstatement or overreaction in response to unsubstantiated reporting.

KIRKLAND LAKE HOSPITAL

Mr. Bain: I have a question of the Minister of Government Services. Is the minister aware that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services have undertaken a joint study of the chronic care facilities in the Kirkland Lake area to determine whether or not the old Kirkland Lake hospital should be used for such a purpose? If the minister is aware of this, why then is her ministry undertaking to sell the same hospital before this study has even been completed?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of it.

Mr. Bain: Would the minister please look into it and co-ordinate the efforts of her ministry and the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services? It doesn’t make much sense, does it --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been asked; no editorial comment is necessary.

Mr. Bain: Okay. I’ll ask a simple straightforward question.

Mr. Speaker: You may ask a supplementary.

Mr. Bain: Does it seem appropriate to sell a hospital which is possibly going to be vital to the provision of chronic care facilities once this study determines exactly what the needs are of that community? Will the minister undertake to stop the sale of the hospital until that study is concluded?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I will examine this matter and take appropriate action.

PITS AND QUARRIES LICENCES

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources: In view of the fact that under the Pits and Quarries Control Act the minister can refuse to issue a permit for extractive purposes on the basis of seven factors, I believe, such as traffic density, possible effect on the water table and so on, how many of these factors have to pose a threat before a licence is not issued?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to

section 6 of the Pits and Quarries Control Act. We go over them very carefully. I would have to say that if there is an OMB hearing we look at the OMB recommendations also. The six or seven items to which the member refers are gone over very carefully.

Mr. Gaunt: I take it any one of the seven factors may be used to refuse a licence under these circumstances? In view of that, why has the minister issued conditional licences to TCG and Premier Gravel to operate pits near Erin, in view of the obvious problems they will create?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member I’m sure is aware, there was an OMB hearing on these two applications -- to date, the most intensive and lengthy OMB hearing ever held in this province -- at which both sides were able to give their views. The OMB recommended in the strongest terms, with certain conditions, that both licences be issued.

At that same hearing, it also made recommendations that the municipal zoning be changed to allow these pits to move ahead. I understand that the zoning is being questioned by a group in that particular area. They have appealed to cabinet for a reversal of the OMB recommendation. I have indicated to the companies that we will issue the licences subject to the approval of that zoning recommendation.

Mr. Cunningham: Doesn’t the Minister of Natural Resources think, notwithstanding the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board --

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary question to the original question please.

Mr. Cunningham: Yes. Doesn’t he think that is one of the poorest decisions ever made?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I looked at the report of the OMB and I found it to be one of the most intense hearings ever held under the Pits and Quarries Control Act in this province. I felt that both sides had had ample opportunity to express their views.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary was not really asking for information.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications has the answer to a question asked previously.

CONTROL OF TRAIL BIKES

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the answer to a question raised on June 1 by the hon. member for Downsview. On that date he asked the following question:

“On the control of trail bikes in urban areas, and on the current controversy in North York over trail bike use around areas between Queens Drive and Lawrence Ave. and Don Mills and Leslie ... what kind of action [is the minister] going to take in order to reassure the citizens who have been complaining that the use of trail bikes in these areas has disrupted the peace of their neighbourhoods, and also [will he] consider allowing the municipalities to pass restricting legislation on trail bikes?”

Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware of the problem which exists in the area mentioned by the hon. member through a petition received from members of that community. The problem seems to be two-fold: The immediate problem within the particular community and the long-range one concerning provincial control over the operation of trail bikes in all off-highway settings.

In terms of the former, I am advised that the borough of North York, through its park trespass bylaw No. 10377, amendment 25699 and the noise bylaw No. 24654, can effectively prohibit the use of motorbikes, or trail bikes, in the area mentioned. Further, it is also my understanding that Metropolitan Toronto, which also owns lands in this

section of the city, has regulations regarding the operation of off-road recreational vehicles. Mr. Speaker, it would appear to me that adequate control can be brought to bear at the municipal level to deal with the problem.

In response to the hon. member’s request that consideration be given to allowing municipalities to pass restricting legislation on trail bikes, it is appropriate to note that

section 352, paragraph 58, of the Municipal Act presently provides the authority to prohibit vehicles of any particular kind from various areas within a municipality; including parks, boulevards, sidewalks, etc.

Vehicles such as trail bikes, when operated on a public road, are required to be licensed; as well, the driver must be licensed and their operation is subject to police enforcement like any other motor vehicle.

AID TO NORTHERN ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Angus: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Now that his ministry staff has met with 60-odd representatives of the farm community in Thunder Bay to discuss the severity of the drought situation effects upon the community, could he advise this House how severe the problem is and what steps the ministry will take to support the farmers?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting the other night. I have a report, which I just received today, from my staff in the various areas of Rainy River, Kenora and in those areas of the province where the problem exists. We have had some rain, apparently, in the last few days but a lot of the hay is heading out before it should be heading out and it’s running behind at this point in time.

We’ve looked into the availability of where hay may be purchased. There is some, apparently, in Manitoba that could be purchased for approximately $25 a ton in the field. The transportation costs are fairly high. It has been recommended to me that we should see exactly what happens in the harvest and what we do get before we make a true appraisal of the overall situation.

Mr. Angus: By way of a supplementary, inasmuch as there are some major droughts in the United States and the possibility exists that what hay is available in Manitoba now, may not be available by the time the crop is harvested in Thunder Bay, could the minister not undertake to bring in enough hay at this point to see the group through the summer feeding months and, hopefully, be able to pick up some more hay in the second crop out west?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, there is a good possibility some of the hay could have been cut by now and arrangements might be made to obtain a second cut of hay from some other source. It’s very hard to estimate the total damage until we see what the weather is like from this point in time onwards.

POLICE BRUTALITY REPORT

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. Could he advise us whether or not he has received from Mr. Justice Morand the report of his investigation into alleged police brutality in Metropolitan Toronto? If not, how is it that the press seems to be able to comment, somewhat intelligently, on what the report contains? Can the report, or the essence of it, be made available to the justice committee so that it can be discussed as the Solicitor General’s estimates go on and not have to wait until after the House is over, when the opportunity for discussion will have passed by?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a copy of Mr. Justice Morand’s report. I understood from talking to my deputy this morning that he expected it would be in our hands by July 1. I thought that was a very convenient time to receive it.

Mr. Singer: Yes, oh yes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: However, if some of it has become public I don’t know how. I will make some inquiries and if it is available I will be pleased to supply it to the justice committee.

FOREST FIRES

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources a question. Could he tell me why American military equipment was used to fight fires in northern Ontario as opposed to Canadian equipment, or was that the case?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, there has been a question raised by a number of people as to why we went to the United States for this type of equipment. I would have to admit to the hon. member that on Monday last, a week ago today, my staff did contact the federal authorities with regard to certain types of equipment we required in the peak of our emergency, and we were told on that day that the equipment we required was busy transporting personnel to and from the Olympic site.

I would have to say further that on Thursday last, three days later, the military did contact us and offer us equipment but at that time we had already made arrangements. Through the excellent co-operation of the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa, we were able to get the co-operation of the American Forestry Service, and that is why the equipment came in from Boise, Idaho.

Mr. Foulds: Could the minister give us any kind of an estimate of the cost of the firefighting this year in comparison to last year at this stage?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can get the exact figures for the hon. member. During the height of last week’s emergency we were paying about $100,000 a day for helicopters alone, and the overall cost was about $425,000 per day. But I can get the total figure once the information is all clarified and available.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Would the minister tell me if the co-ordinates for the water bombing are set here in Toronto or --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not supplementary to this question.

Mr. Sargent: I’m talking about firefighting.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member take his seat?

Mr. Sargent: We are talking about firefighting up north.

Mr. Speaker: No, we are not. We are talking about another question completely.

The member for York South has a question.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what you can do about ministers who escape before the question period is over, but I would draw it to your attention. I will turn my time over to the hon. member for Durham East (Mr. Moffatt).

ACCESS TO OSHAWA MARSH

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like to know if the minister met last week with other ministries and with representatives from the city of Oshawa to discuss the future of the Oshawa Second Marsh and the expansion of Darlington Provincial Park?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Moffatt: A supplementary: At that time, did the minister undertake to assure the city of Oshawa that the Beaton farm, instead of being used for expansion of the Darlington Provincial Park, would be zoned so that the Monsanto chemical company could establish a chemical industrial park in that area?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The discussions were along those lines.

CLOSURE OF ARENAS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the Harriston arena and others appear to be in exceptional condition, even though the engineering firm did not confirm this, does her ministry have any thought of amending the procedure in dealing with these problems and would the ministry reconsider the closing of the Harriston arena?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, although the Harriston arena may look to be in excellent condition, if the engineer says it isn’t and it doesn’t meet the National Building Code, we have no option --

Mr. Mancini: Who approved it in the first place?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- unless the local municipality wishes to take the entire responsibility for the safety of the individuals who use that arena. If they wish to do that, I suppose they might find some legal method of doing so --

Mr. Sargent: Give them the option.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- but at the present time it is our responsibility to ensure the safety of the people who use that arena. We have stated very specifically that where the counselling engineer believes that the arena roof can withstand the wind stresses of the summer months, it may remain open until Oct. 15. Those arenas which are repaired or restructured during that period of time, of course, will be able to operate again next winter as long as they come up to the National Building Code.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of privilege with respect to the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services to the Legislature this afternoon. There are two points. First of all, he was caught red-handed with respect to the arithmetic errors, as the Hansard record will verify --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a point of privilege. What is the other point?

Mr. McClellan: Secondly, he continues to provide us with phoney statistical information --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a point of privilege. The member’s privileges have not been transgressed in any respect whatsoever.

Mr. Lewis: The figures are wrong.

Mr. Speaker: I can’t help that.

SOUND SYSTEM

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you may recall that some time ago I was complaining to you about the effectiveness of the PA system in this chamber. It has improved, but it still is terrible. Down at this end of the House we can hardly hear what’s going on. We miss the colloquy that goes on between the Leader of the Opposition and his favourite cabinet ministers. I’m sure it must be worth hearing, but we can’t hear it under this present PA system that we have.

Mr. Lewis: It is. It is a pity.

Mr. Speaker: I agree, but I might say that the matter of the effectiveness of the PA system is not completed yet.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell presented the annual report of the Ontario Energy Board for the year ending March 31, 1976.

Mr. Johnson from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:

Ministry of Transportation

and Communications

Ministry administration

programme $26,294,000

Planning, research and develop-

ment programme ..14,711,000

Safety and regulation

programme ..26,953,000

Provincial roads programme 407,358,000

Provincial transit programme ..37,853,000

Air programme ....3,550,000

Municipal roads programme 296,060,000

Municipal transit programme 168,117,000

Communications programme ....3,777,000

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Just so there is no confusion in connection with the order in which legislation will be called today, may I at this point indicate that the order would be as follows, and I’m now referring to orders: 14, 15, 16, 18, 9, 12 and 17. That is the general order in which we hope to proceed today.

MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, 1972.

Mr. Renwick: We have examined the bill and we are not going to oppose the bill on second reading. I do wish the bill would go into committee of the whole House because there is some concern which I have about one of the provisions of the bill and the extent of the amendment which is being made. I refer specifically to the amendment to subsection 4 of

section 1. I do believe the explanation and the discussion of it would best be carried on in committee and therefore we will not oppose second reading of the bill.

Mr. Stong: We do not oppose the second reading of this bill as well. We agree in principle with what it intends to accomplish.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Attorney General have any response?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no response.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the bill has been ordered for committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Norton, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moved second reading of Bill 101,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Mr. Swart: I am wondering if the parliamentary assistant would consider adding to this bill -- and if not we’ll move an amendment in the clause-by-clause discussion -- the same clause which was added to the other regional government bills. This provided that the municipalities within those regional governments -- in this case the district of Muskoka -- would have the authority to amend by bylaw the ward system within the municipalities and whereby the ratepayers of those municipalities would have the right of appeal.

It would seem to me that would be a reasonable thing to do in view of the fact that last week even the members of the government party, after calling a division on this, had decided to support it and did vote in favour of it.

This bill, too, should go to the committee of the whole House. It seems to me we are generally in favour of it with the understanding that that

section would be added to this bill. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would like to move such a

section when we go into committee of the whole House.

However, there are other sections on which we would like to pose some questions and make some comments.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, the amendments in this bill are almost the same and are comparable to the amendments to the Municipal Act in Bill 89, which I don’t believe we have dealt with up to now.

There are, however, a few exceptions which relate only to the district of Muskoka. The usual things, such as the broadening of borrowing powers and the broadening of debenture authority and investment powers, are similar to those amendments contained in Bill 89. The granting and lending powers of the district will be broadened and will be similar to those granted other municipalities which are now enjoyed under

section 248(a). Replacement of an area councillor can now be done in 60 days rather than 30 days.

There are a few things which I think are worth mentioning. One is the district police liaison committee is now required to meet only every three months instead of every month. I wonder if this is an indication that the liaison committee is finding that it has very little, if any, power or authority to influence the police commission?

Perhaps we should use this as another opportunity to look at the whole matter of whether or not police commissions should be made up of the personnel they now have. At present on the police commissions across the province there are very few elected representatives. They do include members of the judiciary. We, in this party, have felt there has been a long-standing need for a change in the composition of police commissions.

This district police liaison committee is now going to be required to meet only every three months. One wonders whether they have had any particular input into the operation of the district police.

Another interesting point is that the district, I believe, took over the collection of garbage and sewage disposal some time last year. This is a district function now, as of 1975. I understand that in some of the regions where the collection of garbage and the collection of sewage as well as the treatment of sewage has been taken over by the region, there has been some dissatisfaction. I believe some of the area governments in the region of Durham would like to have those powers returned from the region to the area municipalities. Maybe the parliamentary assistant could comment on how this is working out in Muskoka.

[3:15]

It is interesting to again see the reference made to the pollution control fund. When this bill was set up in the municipalities, I believe the district could levy a quarter of a mill on all the assessment in the district to raise a control fund to be used by that district. This is now clarified in the bill. And the provincial grant

section of the original bill -- which I believe allotted $150,000 a year for five years to Muskoka for general environmental development purposes, and $50,000 for administration costs -- has now come to an end, and the district must now make it on its own. The deletion of that

section negates those proposals in the bill.

However, we are reminded in the deletion of this

section of the actions of the government in 1971 when they divided $2 million from the consolidated revenue of the province on top of all the statutory requirements of this and other bills, and the $2 million was subsequently divided among the various new regional governments, in which there was a great deal of discontent at that time. I think Niagara region got $1 million of that; York got about three-quarters; and I think Muskoka got about $250,000, or one-quarter of $1 million.

So, although we have the reference to the deletion of these statutory requirements in the bill, there are still the powers under other legislation whereby the province can make specific grants in those areas where it deems it practical and necessary.

But, generally speaking, I suppose the bill brings up to date much of the legislation and is parallel to those amendments effected in Bill 89 of the Municipal Act, so we will support it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does any other member have any comments? The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to emphasize what my colleague, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has said. We consider that we gave a thorough consideration to the substantial provisions of this bill at the time when we dealt with Bill 55, and to an extent when we dealt with the bill amending the regional municipalities Acts, and also Bill 54 dealing with the bill amending the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

It does appear to us that, while there are two or three sections to which the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) referred special to the district municipality of Muskoka, nevertheless any such comment would be best made in committee of the whole House. I do hope that the parliamentary assistant to the minister will be certain to be clear about his intentions with respect to incorporating in this bill an amendment similar to the one which my colleague, the member for Welland-Thorold, introduced when we dealt with Bill 55.

When the government so graciously agreed to support the amendment made by my colleague when the vote was being counted on second reading, it would be somewhat ungracious if the government did not now accede to my colleague’s request to have a similar amendment incorporated in this bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any other comments from any other member? If not, the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Norton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I first could address some remarks to the proposal of the hon. member for Welland-Thorold. Clearly I have, and I am sure the members of the other caucuses have no difficulty accepting the principle which he is advocating and which was incorporated in the other legislation.

But, I would draw to his attention that the district of Muskoka differs from the other municipalities in that at the present time, as I understand it, it is unique in that the boundaries of the wards are defined in the Act as opposed to the manner in which they have been dealt with in the other municipalities. For that reason, members might note that we have not included in this proposed legislation the provision with respect to the OMB appeal from the municipality.

That was done for a specific reason, because we want to initiate discussions with the municipalities in the district of Muskoka with respect to that very point to ensure that whatever formula may be developed is one which is acceptable to them.

Recognizing the unique nature of their municipal setup at the moment and the unique description of their ward boundaries, I would urge the member not to introduce such an amendment at this time, although I can assure him that once we have a formula worked out with those municipalities, the principle which he advocates is clearly one which ought to be included. The municipalities themselves at the moment would have to come to the Legislature in order to have their ward boundaries redefined, so it is a different situation from the other.

I would ask that he allow us an opportunity to complete our consultation with those municipalities before any such action is considered. I realize it is unfortunate that they will be the only municipality that does not have that provision at the present time, but that unfortunately is a consequence of the unique way in which their ward boundaries were set out in the original legislation.

I do, Mr. Speaker, have an amendment which I propose to introduce, and I believe the members opposite now have copies of it, an amendment relating to

section 6 specifically expanding upon the powers of the district municipalities with respect to the expenditure of moneys from the pollution control fund. I will introduce that in committee of the whole House, assuming that is where this bill will go following second reading.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do you wish this bill to go to committee of the whole House?

Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So ordered.

MUNICIPAL SUBSIDIES ADJUSTMENT REPEAL ACT

Mr. Norton, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 102,

an Act to repeal the Municipal Subsidies Adjustment Act.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we have some reservations about the repeal of the Municipal Subsidies Adjustment Act. It is true that the minister, in tabling the Act, stated that there is a very small amount of funds involved at the present time -- and I believe I’m correct in stating that he said it was less than $30,000 -- and that it does provide for some continuance of the payment of the funds even though the Act is repealed.

However, it seems to me that it has broader implications than that and, subject to the answer given by the minister or his parliamentary assistant, we may be forced to oppose this Act. The question is just simply this: What takes place with regard to assistance to municipalities or the sections of municipalities which are left in the case of future annexations or amalgamations? There are always additional costs involved to the sections left, or perhaps to the sections and the municipality which does the amalgamating or the annexing, but if we repeal this Act there will be no provision other than the present formulas to assist that

section of the municipality that is left.

Under this Act they can get some special assistance from MTC for a period of time. They can get some special assistance with regard to unconditional grants but if this is repealed there will be no form of assistance that I know of, at least, which will be available to these municipalities or sections of municipalities.

We are aware, of course, that very few amalgamations and annexations have taken place in recent times. That does not mean that with the end of the formation of regional governments -- or at least a pause in the formations or a change -- annexations and amalgamations will not again appear. If this Act is repealed, the assistance given to those under these special circumstances will not be available. Therefore, I’d like to hear the explanation of the parliamentary assistant as to what the intent of this is and what provision is available in lieu of this

section of the Act if annexations or amalgamations take place.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, six or eight years ago I’m sure we would have had to oppose the repeal of this Municipal Subsidies Adjustment Act. I checked carefully and this is a very important piece of legislation in areas such as Waterloo township, for instance, which saw its best roads and its best assessments being taken over by annexation to the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. I’m sure this occurred in many areas.

The argument put forth here, I presume, is that so much of the province is now under regional government and the division of grants in the merged areas is covered by special legislation dealing with that region, that this particular legislation is no longer needed. The smaller townships and rural communities which saw their land, their best roads, their best buildings and their best assessments being taken over by a municipality had some redress in payment over five years at a standard amount and then five years at a diminishing amount. They benefitted for 10 years under the provisions of this Act.

One wonders what the implications will be with the repeal of this Act in areas such as Sarnia, London and Windsor which are major communities not covered by regional government legislation but where there could be a considerable amount of annexation still going on or about to go on in the future.

The explanation that unconditional grants are now at such a level that this is no longer needed is not all that convincing. When the police grant went up $5 per capita two years ago and police costs went up $8 per capita, that’s not convincing that the provincial grant is all that great. We find that police costs continue to rise but the provincial grant remains static. We’re not all that convinced that the reason given is that substantial.

The number of municipalities affected is perhaps a convincing argument. I’m sure most of the major annexations and amalgamations did take place in areas which are covered by regional government. There are subsidies under the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs amounting to only $17,000 and I believe they cover very few municipalities -- eight municipalities. There are 24 municipalities getting these subsidy adjustments under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the proposal here is to continue the payment to those which now qualify or have the option to pay them off in a lump sum.

[3:30]

I think the whole matter must resolve itself to how many annexations are about to be had, how many are contemplating it, how many are before the OMB now and how many have been completed. We have the figures here on how many have been completed and would be eligible for this subsidy.

I am sure the bill served a very useful purpose at the time. Are we, in fact, being given to understand that annexation is a dying art and that it is no longer going to be necessary? I wish he would refer specifically to some of our larger communities in southern Ontario that are not covered by regional governments where this legislation might still be of considerable relevance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does any other member wish to comment on this bill? If not, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Norton: The statements in the material which the members opposite have received with respect to unconditional grants are not intended to be taken, as they seemed to be interpreted by, I think, the hon. member for Welland-Thorold, that the standard formula grants would be all that would be applied in this situation in the future. What is contemplated is that where payments would normally be made and would be made in the future in cases of annexations or amalgamations, those would now be dealt with under the provisions of

section 8 of the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act in providing for special payments for periods of up to five years in order to provide the same kind of assistance, but under the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, as has been done with regional municipalities.

As has been indicated as well and I think you are aware, since 1974 of the some eight municipalities that were eligible under the provisions of the Municipal Subsidies Adjustment Act, none had applied for the assistance, partly I suppose because of the very small quantity involved. I think that is why the reference was included in the material to the fact that the increase in unconditional grants over the last few years appears to be a factor in that these municipalities have not bothered to even make application.

I have a list here of what some municipalities would have been eligible for in 1976; one grant is for $27 and another for $29. The largest is $1,755. The amounts are less significant to municipalities compared with the increase in unconditional grants. But I don’t want you to confuse that statement with the implication that that is all that would be available in terms of assistance under these circumstances of amalgamation and annexation in the future. It is contemplated there would be continuing assistance where necessary, but under the provisions of the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 102,

An Act to repeal the Municipal Subsidies Adjustment Act.

TOWNSHIP OF NORTH PLANTAGENET ACT

Mr. Norton, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moved second reading of Bill 105,

An Act respecting the Township of North Plantagenet.

Mr. Renwick: I assume that had this bill come forward in the ordinary course as a private bill to the private bills’ committee, it would have been given the same kind of consideration and dealt with in the same way as we have dealt with many bills of this kind over the years. In this particular session we have dealt with, amongst others, Bill Pr25, respecting the township of Bosanquet. This bill is identical with that bill, and therefore we would vote in favour of second reading of the bill. We see no reason why the bill need go through a committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any other comment on this bill?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 105,

An Act respecting the Township of North Plantagenet.

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTIES PLAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved second reading of Bill 94,

An Act to provide certain Protections for Purchasers of New Homes.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I felt perhaps we could save some time if I elaborated a little bit on the statement I made on the introduction for first reading.

I would like to explain to hon. members how the warranty and compensation plan will be administered and the reasons why we have chosen this alternative. When I introduced the legislation at the end of May, I said that under the Act we would designate a non-profit corporation responsible for administering the plan and enforcing its requirements. I would just like to elaborate briefly on that.

A non-profit corporation has been set up in this province under the aegis of HUDAC -- the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, Ontario Council. And we worked very closely with the council in the development of the plan to protect purchasers of new homes in Ontario.

I should point out that the corporation’s bylaws provide that, in addition to the HUDAC members there will be representation from -- and I list them in this order -- any association of consumers; any association of home manufacturers; any mortgage lender or any association of mortgage lenders, including an association of loan and trust companies; any mortgage insurance company, or any association of mortgage insurance companies; the Ontario government; municipal government in the form of any association of mayors or reeves; and any other association or group of persons as may be determined by the board.

HUDAC has indicated and demonstrated to our satisfaction that it has the confidence and ability to run a home warranty programme. In Alberta, for example, judging by the experience gathered over a period of more than a year, a home warranty programme administered by HUDAC seems to be working relatively well without any supporting legislation.

In Ontario, HUDAC has indicated by and large that its members are aware of consumer interest. The fact is that in our ministry the majority of complaints against home builders are against non-HUDAC builders.

There is one other major benefit from choosing this alternative. Because HUDAC provides the expertise based on experience, there is no need to set up any government machinery to administer the programme. As a result, buyers of new homes receive significant protection without the input of any public funds. To repeat briefly how the programme works, Mr. Speaker, so all hon. members have it fresh in their minds, I would just like to outline very briefly the coverage:

The unsatisfied home purchaser will be able to call upon the services of the designated corporation for conciliation. All builders, whether they are members of HUDAC or not will be required to meet certain standards and to register with the corporation in order to operate in Ontario. Builders failing to meet the standards which are set out in the Act will be deregistered.

The warranty package will be funded by participating builders at a fixed rate for each new house which is placed on the market. During the first year, the builder is liable for any repairs resulting from defects in workmanship or material. During the next four years, the corporation will repair major structural defects. If the builder defaults, the corporation will assume responsibility for repairs at its own expense. The controls are built into the legislation. A builder who is refused registration by the corporation has the right to appeal to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal. Similarly, if a dispute arises between the corporation and the new homeowner CRAT will mediate.

No other province in Canada, including those immediately to the west of us, has come out with a plan which is as uniform in application and as comprehensive in the protection and coverage provided. We feel that if we expect industry to behave responsibly and with maturity we in government must give them the opportunity to do so. In this case, we have every confidence that we will not be disappointed in the self-regulation provided for in this Act.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, we in this party intend to support the bill which is before the House and hope it will go to committee for substantial amendments. Despite the minister’s closing comment that this legislation is beyond parallel and leads the rest of Canada -- particularly provinces to the west -- I really don’t understand that particular comment. I don’t understand why the minister continually insists on using comparisons with other jurisdictions as a rationalization for bad legislation, no matter what form it takes, in this particular province.

There are some eminently good points to this bill. We congratulate the minister for bringing it in but we do not intend, by our congratulatory remarks, to tell the minister that everything in the bill is correct. I hope that during the next few minutes I will be able to point out some of the areas where we would like to see substantial changes made. I hope the minister will comply with those requests.

First of all, I think one of the things which should be pointed out is that the undue haste with which we probably will deal with this bill is a disservice to us.

We have waited five years or more for this particular bill. It was promised last session and in this session and then we find it introduced as the session is drawing to a close. That will obviously lead to some hasty and -- I hope not, but it’s quite likely -- badly considered legislation. We are going to attempt to scrutinize it as carefully as possible. I hope the minister will accept the scrutiny in the tone and spirit in which it is intended. I do suggest that the minister and his ministry should be criticized for bringing it in at such a late date and trying to proceed with such undue haste on such an important problem.

The reason the bill is before us, I might point out, is because of the number of complaints which have surfaced over the past six months. Over the past six or 10 years or so there have been significant difficulties in the purchase of new homes. People have been faced with a raft of problems not of their own making but in most cases as a result of shoddy workmanship, poor craftsmanship and lack of attention.

The unfortunate thing that happens, as always happens in this kind of situation, is that a number of reputable and craftsman-like builders and contractors are lumped into the tank with the rest of the people and they have mud splattered on them along with the ones who deserve to have the mud splattering.

It has not been a general trend. It has been a specific number of complaints from a variety of communities because builders have become very mobile. In seeking work they moved from community to community and a few have spoiled the reputation of an entire industry. That’s extremely unfortunate and the minister should have acted earlier in order to prevent a further erosion of public confidence in the construction industry.

The point which I think also needs to be made is that part of the problem we are facing now, with so many emergency situations in subdivisions from one end of the province to another, is of the government’s own making. Last year it was deemed advisable to elect or re-elect the Davis government as quickly as possible and one of the ways that could be achieved, apparently most efficiently, was to give away money to people who would sign on the dotted line and agree to purchase new homes. Of course, the more people you give money to the more people you would have voting for the present government.

[3:45]

That is one of the major contributing factors to the crisis in this province as far as new home buyers are concerned right now. They were forced to get occupancy of those units last year before the bill ran out. They moved in when the houses were not properly completed. Had they not been trying to compete for this handout from the government, they would have had far fewer problems because they would not have accepted those houses, unless the gun of having the home buyer grant withdrawn had been held at their heads. A lot of people moved into houses that under normal circumstances they would not have accepted.

I hope we are finished with that whole business and that we will not get into those short-term, short-sighted programmes in the future. I think this will perhaps prevent that kind of thing from happening because, as soon as we attempt to use housing as a gimmick to reject a certain government, HUDAC hopefully will be able to say that is inadvisable and it will not honour those particular commitments. I think that kind of political short-sightedness will come to an end. I certainly hope so.

I said there were problems in dealing with the bill. I hope one of the things that will happen is that we will be able to put a sensible period of warranty on the particular houses under consideration. This bill attempts to deal in a one-year fashion with the warranty situation. The only other place where there is this kind of programme where that has been done is in the State of Victoria in Australia. They have a one-year programme there. In Great Britain the programme is much longer and in other jurisdictions the programme is much longer.

This legislation is a result of consultation with and recommendations by the Ontario Law Reform Commission, the National Home Builders Registration Council in Great Britain and the Victoria, Australia programme. A great deal of input has come from the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, Ontario Council. We are in agreement with using that particular group as the carrier.

We would like the minister to be very cognizant of the fact that at some point such an organization must become in some way answerable to his ministry and through his ministry to this particular Legislature. It is not enough to create another institution, another quasi-judicial body, though I understand that’s a contradiction in terms -- it’s either judicial or not judicial -- that functions somewhere outside of government and deals with the public. Eventually such organizations have to be responsible to this Legislature. I would urge the minister to consider that sort of alteration at this point.

The recommendation of the Law Reform Commission was that the programme continue so that a house would be under warranty for six years. In this bill it’s one year. In Great Britain it is longer than that. I believe it is two years. What we would recommend, and hope to move amendments to, is that the registration will take place and then under the home warranty protection the house will go through a period of thaw and freeze and thaw again, because through that cycle of events in this province that is the most appropriate time to look for major structural defects which may show up. I’d just like to read the Law Reform Commission recommendations:

“In the light of the fact that evidence of many important defects in construction may not appear for several years after the house is first occupied and in order that rights given under the statute will not be out of line with similar rights which may arise out of a contract, the limitation period applicable to the cause of action based on a breach of the duty set out in the statute should be six years. This period should run from the date on which the initial purchaser takes possession of the house.”

That’s obviously going to be an important point as far as we are concerned.

The insurance against major structural defects then is only for four more years, giving a total warranty period of five years. I really urge the minister to consider amending this himself. It would be much easier if we were to go for a 10-year period on that. If the house will not stand up to a warranty programme which runs for 10 years, then surely there is something wrong. There obviously needs to be that kind of assurance to people that that length of warranty will be in keeping with the kind of money we’re expecting people to spend on houses.

I am concerned with the inspection procedure in this particular legislation. Recently in my riding a number of people have had grave difficulties with a builder and came to me for assistance. We went to the local building inspector. We arranged an inspection of all the agencies concerned -- plumbing, electrical, gas and so on. When we got to the site and all those people were there at the same time, the building inspector from the city of Oshawa pointed out to me that the builder was building to the absolute minimum. He was using the Ontario Building Code as though it were a set of blueprints and he would go only to those limits that he absolutely had to.

The result was that in these particular houses that I visited, the people were grossly dissatisfied with the action. They blamed everybody. They blamed the building inspector. They assumed he had not inspected. The building inspector had inspected, but he had only two people on his staff in the city of Oshawa due to budget constraints. With the amount of building in that area, they could not keep up and make the kind of inspections which were necessary.

I am really concerned that in this case we will not have adequate inspection in order to protect people from these particular defects that will be of two kinds -- the structural defects and what are referred to as cosmetic defects. If paint is splattered on a window and the window has to be replaced, that’s a cosmetic defect. That sort of thing isn’t covered in the building code.

An interior door in a home may not be made of wood. I have in my car, a sample of a part of a door from a new house constructed in Oshawa. Do you know what it’s made of, Mr. Speaker? It’s made of one-eighth-inch Masonite on each side, and the core of it is a strip -- not even solid, but a strip -- of corrugated cardboard. I can show you that, Mr. Speaker, if you would like to see it some time. That, I think, is an incredible thing, because it is not covered in the building code. Nobody really cares about what the interior of the house is like. As long as the building code specifies certain things, then we are not going to worry about some very important items in the house.

It seems to me that one of the things that needs to happen is that there are amendments necessary in the building code. Maybe the HUDAC people will be able to inform the minister of some of those amendments or regulations which should be amended -- changes that really need to come into being. If they get faced with the problems of enforcing all of this legislation, it may well be that there won’t be just two or three members of the Legislature writing to the minister every day asking him to do something. It may well be that an even more powerful group of people will begin to impress upon him the need for some amendments to those particular regulations.

Mr. Warner: Who are they?

Mr. Moffatt: I am not sure who they are but we will draw our own conclusions from that. In Great Britain the National Home Builders Registration Council has a 12-step inspection programme. No house is complete until it has had those 12 inspections. That’s not because the inspections are necessary. It is simply because over a period of time they have found that to be a very important part of such a programme. There has to be some kind of minimal inspection tied into this particular bill and I ask the minister to consider that very carefully.

In regard to

section 23 of this particular bill, I gather that when the bill was first printed and brought out, the people at HUDAC were entirely amazed that they had been given all the powers to regulate and to run the entire programme. They had expected to be the carriers, but I don’t think, with respect, that they really thought they would have as much power as has been given in this particular bill. I am assured that the person who is right now running the registration procedure is an extremely able person at HUDAC, but I gather, too, that he’s close to retirement and we may not always have such an able person. I think that maybe that particular

section of the bill, when we get to committee, will be tightened up to some extent.

As I said before, this particular party intends to support the bill because we know it has been long overdue, but we have substantial amendments which we trust the minister will accept as we go through debate clause by clause.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party intends to support this legislation. We welcome it. It is long overdue, in our view. It has been part of our policy for a number of years to recommend such a warranty programme and as well, we have noted with interest that the Ontario Law Reform Commission, and I think the hon. member for --

Mr. Moffatt: Durham East.

Mr. Cunningham: -- Durham East, pointed out correctly too, that it was the intention of the Ontario Law Reform Commission to have such a warranty programme, some time ago I would add. I think it was 1966 that their original recommendation came through and, just as an aside, I hope it doesn’t take us this long in the future to take into consideration some of the recommendations that are made, quite appropriately, by that body, because I think that they do tend to serve the interests of Ontario very well.

I too would look forward to some definition as to what you mean by wear and tear, and possibly we might look at a more clear and distinct definition of wear and tear here in this legislation. While I am supportive personally, and I know my party is, of this legislation, I am not sure if we would adhere to the idea that we should have it for a period of 10 years. My fear, at least on a personal basis, would be the consumer ultimately is going to pay for this, and I think that the builders, especially in these first few years of the warranty programme, will attempt to build in to the cost of housing the cost of maintaining a home for 10 years.

We all know that homes deteriorate; certainly it could relate to a faulty run of raw material or occasionally to some shoddy workmanship, and often a combination of both. But to some degree, I would hope that we continue to have some emphasis on the old doctrine of caveat emptor and that the consumers, most of whom are over 21, will go in and they will look at things like the member for Durham East mentioned, faulty doors. I am sure the doors were there when they bought the house --

Mr. Deans: The house wasn’t there, that is the trouble.

Mr. Cunningham: I’m sorry?

Mr. Deans: That is where you are wrong, they are not there. That is what everybody assumes. That is the problem with it.

Mr. Cunningham: That may be an area that we will have to look at as far as an amendment goes. I think with most houses that are built, the consumers go in and they take a look and they spend a great deal of time looking over their home.

Mr. McClellan: Especially when they are not built.

Mr. Cunningham: As far as complaints are concerned, I think the minister would probably agree, and I am sure some of my friends to the right of me would, that on so many occasions the people who are at fault are the people who get into this business on an overnight basis and, as a result of their shoddy workmanship, are usually out of business on an overnight basis. To this end, I would suggest that these people are not usually members of HUDAC but are people who are just as shoddy in their approach to business as some people who go door to door, or some auto mechanics that we have.

It is just a very simple and fundamental fact of life that some people will try to take advantage of the situation as it comes up simply for profit.

I am not familiar with the plan in Great Britain, although I have had some criticism addressed to me; one of my constituents wrote me a note dated June 4 and he said:

“I am sure that you do not have to be made aware of the fact that a programme of this nature is just going to cost the poor old consumer more money and was, of course, the result of what I describe as a deplorable tendency to convince the Canadian consumer that he is hard done by. As far as housing is concerned, Canadians are the best housed people in the world and the contractor who did not look after his deficiencies soon ceases to remain in business.”

Notwithstanding the warranty programme I think this kind of situation is going to continue to exist.

I hope we are setting a minimum type of situation by this legislation, and that the general demand by the people of Ontario will continue to be a demand for excellence, a demand for the better, and to that end I hope the competitive process that exists in Canada -- and I hope it continues to exist in this province in the future -- will remain and that the people of Ontario will have that option to go out through their communities and seek out the best form of housing available to them, to query the builders and to examine the various subdivisions that exist and to make their individual choice.

I think that is very fundamental and integral to the thought within our party. To this end, I would commend the government for bringing in this programme. I don’t think any of us are of the view that this time of the year has any adverse effect on us as far as our ability to decide whether it’s a good programme or a bad programme. The harsh facts of reality are it’s a programme that is long overdue and one that we in the Liberal Party will support.

[4:00]

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have probably been with this longer than anybody else in terms of trying to get a programme. First of all, let’s talk about the concept of long overdue. The “long overdue” rests upon the shoulders of a gentleman by the name of Basford and then a gentleman by the name of Danson.

Mr. Cunningham: Here we go.

Mr. Drea: No, here we don’t go, my friend, because this time we can look, I had to go to those things --

Mr. Cunningham: Pass the buck every time.

Mr. Edighoffer: Keep going, Sid; keep going.

Mr. Drea: I’m not going to be provocative, but I’m not going to take that kind of insult from some twerp.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Scarborough Centre address the Chair and ignore the interjections?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to 1974, when a gentleman by the name of --

Mr. Swart: Back is a natural direction for you people.

Mr. Drea: That is when we began the housing warranty programme in Ontario. That’s when the first discussions took place.

Mr. Good: What do you mean “we”?

Mr. Swart: When?

Mr. Drea: In the summer of 1974.

Mr. Deans: I have been involved in this since 1967.

Mr. Drea: I’m sure you have --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Wentworth doesn’t have the floor, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre does, and I’ll hope he’ll address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 1974 there was a concerted effort by the house-building industry across this country -- not only in this province -- to take advantage of what was a promise, a commitment and a very solemn pledge by the then federal housing minister, Mr. Basford, that what was needed in the area of new home construction concerning warranties was a national plan. There was the gravest of reservations that a number of provincial plans would merely impede the orderly development of new housing construction in Canada.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no reference to a national programme or plan in this bill.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it evolved out of an interprovincial bill where every one of the provinces would have the exact same warranty bill. I just want to go into the “long overdue” business, and I think that’s germane. I’m not going to go into it for very long, and I’m not going to blame more than two people.

Mr. Good: Long overdue.

Mr. Kerrio: Sidney Handleman. Who else?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this government committed itself to a housing warranty programme, almost identical to what is being debated today, very late in the summer of 1974. We held back for two reasons. First of all, the federal government -- and by that time the minister was Mr. Danson -- asked us to hold back on a provincial warranty programme because they hoped to get a national programme or, if they could not do that, at least an interprovincial warranty programme under the general auspices of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. We held back at that time.

Mr. Shore: You are not divulging any secret information, are you?

Mr. Drea: No, I’ve said this before.

Mr. Shore: I thought this was some government information.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if you want me to speak to you --

An hon. member: Contain yourself.

Mr. Drea: -- Mr. Speaker, following that there were a number of meetings in conjunction with either the federal government or on an interprovincial basis, dealing with the entire programme of housing warranties. They continued until the early summer of 1975. At that time it became apparent that the federal government, despite its commitments, despite its pledges and despite its press releases, really had no intention of carrying on with a national home warranty programme. At that particular time --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I really must interrupt the hon. member. If he’ll read the bill, it is entitled, “An Act to provide certain Protection for Purchasers of New Homes,” and it says, “The bill establishes the Ontario new home warranties plan.” There’s no federal reference at all, and I think he should confine his remarks to the principle of this bill.

Mr. Drea: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will.

At that time it became apparent that the province would have to do it on its own. I brought in the background, Mr. Speaker, because there was a question about it being long overdue. First of all, there is no type of warranty that is more needed than a new home warranty in this province. It probably has been needed for 25 years. It has been the most extremely difficult type of warranty to produce.

Mr. Breithaupt: You have been in power since 1935.

Mr. Drea: The reason is it is not a combination of a single manufacturer or a distributor or a retailer. It is a product which has evolved to the point where it is subcontracted almost from beginning to end with the exception of the first piece of machinery which comes upon the scene.

The difficulty is that each and every one of the workmen in the various trade levels -- whether it is building the foundations; putting in a solid floor; laying the concrete block; or putting the drain in the cellar -- is a tradesman or should be a tradesman, in his own right. Secondly, they use materials which have differing qualities, usually dependent upon price.

Until very recently, it was extremely difficult even to measure the quality of those materials in Canada because the quality of the materials was determined in another jurisdiction and the climate was not the same as ours.

There have been the gravest of difficulties, Mr. Speaker, begging your indulgence to go back a number of years. The most tumultuous labour scenes in this province were in the house building field, not in commercial construction. I think the difference is very germane to the bill we have here today because the people were not being paid by the hour; they were paid on piece rates. In other words, a tradesman had a certain amount of money to put in five rooms. It didn’t matter whether it rained or snowed or the material wasn’t there or it took him 25 days when theoretically it should have taken three, he still received the same price.

On the one hand, the argument has always been that the consumer received the best of the bargain compared to commercial or industrial construction where -- and I suppose it’s a legitimate argument of sorts for those who really like the free enterprise system -- the customer had to pay for the difference.

Over the years, it has become abundantly apparent that the main inspection force -- which was supposed to protect the home buyer -- and which is Central Mortgage and Housing or the NHA inspector -- really wasn’t working on behalf of the home buyer. The inspector’s prime responsibility was to ensure that the mortgage lending corporation had received enough value and it really had a viable entity in case anything went wrong.

Of course, that was very important to him as a federal government employee because if there was not a viable entity and anything went wrong, the dweller would move out, the mortgage company would have difficulty selling and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. would have to pick up the guarantee on the mortgage. That didn’t work out very well for the consumer.

Secondly, a number of municipalities entered the field and they would really start looking at the building permits, the building materials, the quality of workmanship and so forth. This broke down in several ways.

First of all, the municipalities simply did not have the stuff to check the quality of the work going into a residential unit. On the other hand they were charged with the responsibilities for high-rise apartments, industrial complexes, commercial work and that kind of thing. Again, in fairness to the municipalities -- I don’t want to pass the buck -- when you’re talking about looking into the actual construction of a high-rise apartment which will take care of 200 to 300 families, the priorities obviously are there vis-à-vis the residential home.

Over the years a very intriguing situation has developed. More and more consumer protection has been coming along the line in every other area than the purchase of the biggest single consumer item a family enters into -- that of a dwelling. It’s not only the biggest single one, but the most permanent. After all, if the car is a lemon, it’s a lemon for two, three, four or maybe five years. If a house is a lemon, it is a lemon for a lifetime.

Again, the bankruptcy laws of Canada -- not of this province -- facilitated easy entree to and easy exit from the industry. I don’t think there is anyone who has purchased a home in the last 20 years who hasn’t had the experience of trying to find the builder -- and where do you find the builder?

If you bought the dwelling early on in the subdivision, he is still around. If you bought it rather late, he is long gone, and you try to find him. At that moment in history comes the very great dispute and here begins all the hassles.

The builder says, “Okay I will send someone.” And if you shout loud enough and long enough he will. And I don’t think that that really is the responsibility of the buyer in view of the price that has been paid for the house. I have always found this a very difficult area. If you didn’t have every dollar right on the barrelhead on the day that you were supposed to take possession, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you didn’t take possession. But, somehow there is a double standard out there for the builder; it is always raining, or he has to work on something else, etc.

There is also the second problem. When people are buying a house it’s their largest single investment, and they tend to want to save a little bit of money at the end. I know we have had some references in here today to comparison shopping, and the hint that maybe those who look for a cheaper price deserve what they get. I don’t believe that at all. When a person goes out and puts a down payment on a house, it is often clearly explained to them that if they are dealing with the builder, and not with a real estate firm, that they can save a bit of money because the commission is not involved. Mr.

Speaker, that is the kind of thing that industry and big business and all kinds of people do every day of the week. And I say that is how they make their money; they eliminate the middleman.

All right, but the ordinary man goes in there and he puts down his money, and the house isn’t completed. Then he finds out to his utter dismay that he really is cornered. His deposit is gone. It was not protected under the legislation of this province, because it was not done through a real estate broker. It has not gone into a trust fund; rather it has gone into the general revenues of the contracting company. And what the buyer finds out is that he virtually has to start all over again. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is very difficult for the ordinary young man and woman, or middle-aged man and woman, to duplicate a down payment simply because somebody has defaulted.

The worst thing is that the ABC Building Co., that has just defaulted on its obligations, has moved across the street into a neighbouring subdivision as the CBA Co., with the same guy in charge. He says, “Sorry, but the feds cracked down on me and I went into bankruptcy court. I would like to help you, but I can’t. See my lawyer.” Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you it is very difficult to explain to ordinary people, and I am one of them, that there --

Mr. Cunningham: Sure you are; extremely ordinary.

Mr. Drea: -- isn’t something terribly, terribly wrong and the time has really come to do something about it.

In terms of this legislation, we are going to meet a great number of problems -- and let me go through them.

First of all, there is the problem of the builder’s retention of the deposits and his forfeiture or his default of the business. If he does go out of business before the house is completed and before you take possession, then a bonding company or someone else will make sure that the house is completed. That’s step No. 1.

Secondly, in terms of the builder there is the quality of work. Not being an engineer, I am somewhat limited in this field, but the word I am going to use is cosmetic. I don’t want to say that the defects that are found in new houses are simply a matter of putting a sander across some floor or adding a bit of paint. What I want to say is that these are not substantial faults -- they are not enough to cave the house in or to have it condemned.

One of the gravest of difficulties for new home buyers is when they walk into the dwelling and they find out it is not exactly their dream palace. There are cracks here, there are cracks there, the windows won’t open. Okay, all of these are relatively minor things, but why, Mr. Speaker, do we see so many items in the press and view so many items on TV about the misfortunes of new home owners? All of these things are relatively little items.

It is the simple fact that people have been burned for so long and for so often in this province that if the slightest thing is the matter with a new dwelling they immediately cry “wolf,” because in their previous experience, or that of their friends, this is the only way they received any action.

[4:15]

Under this legislation that type of thing will be remedied. If the builder departs and cannot be found, it will still be remedied. No longer will there be the hue and cry or the great apprehension that you have saved your money, you have finally bought it, you have done this and now you have to put a lasso around the builder’s neck to make sure he will be there to fix even something as small as a window that doesn’t open. That’s taken care of.

This hasn’t been the case too often in this province, although it has been elsewhere, but it is still there. What happens if something inadvertently was put in wrong? What happens if the I-beam was put in wrong or the drains were put in upside down or something turns up three or four years later which really means an extensive renovation job that is beyond the means of the people who are in the house? They are left with the position of having a home that is going to be condemned by the municipality as unfit to live in, and rightfully so.

On the other hand, the cost of bringing it up to a standard of safety is beyond their ability, and once again the builder is long gone or any type of warranty outside of legislation is gone. Again, in this bill that is going to be taken care of.

On the other side, no longer are the two or three per cent of the building industry, the very ones who had such ease in getting NHA approvals and that kind of thing, going to be able to scoff at the public; no longer are they going to be able to go into convenient bankruptcies; no longer are they going to be able to say they’d love to fix it but they don’t work in that municipality any more, to say, “See us next year.” On each and every one of the dwellings they are going to build in the future, they are going to have to go out and purchase warranty and insurance protection.

If their track record is bad, then I suggest they simply will not get that kind of protection, which means that they will not be able to build a dwelling in Ontario.

I hate to think of anybody going out of business, but I can think of no people who deserve it more. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, to the first one of them who complains to the Legislature I would just love to go out and say “Buddy, you deserve it. Here is what you really did over the years. Let me give out your home address so they can all knock on your door and give you a little bit of congratulation.” That’s what this bill is going to do.

I realize there is some concern that the government should be more actively involved in the actual pursuit of these people. I suggest, notwithstanding all of the remarks that I have made, that the house-building industry in this province is something that we can in general be very proud of. Better than 95 per cent, and maybe even as high as 98 per cent or 99 per cent of the builders, are people, Mr. Speaker, that you and I would like to do business with. A house is not only the biggest consumer investment, it is also a business investment. It requires a lot of skills and a lot of trades and a lot of work and a lot of co-ordination. You have weather problems, the whole bit.

By and large, they have more than met the standards that the public expect and over the years there has been no more long-suffering body, because they have received black eye after black eye from the people who have left town or the people who have conveniently gone bankrupt or the people who scooped the deposit or from people who used the cheapest of materials and then would do nothing about it. This has happened to everyone. They have received a tremendous amount of adverse publicity.

Notwithstanding that, in the two years that I have worked in this field, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you there is no more responsible industry than the building industry. I say that on two grounds: They recognize all of the problems, because they are out there; they recognize all of the bandits, because those bandits and their reputation have been inflicted upon them.

This legislation meets the needs of the house-buying public. There was a suggestion that perhaps they shouldn’t have to pay. Well, to pay less than $100 on a $60,000 house for the type of protection you’re getting, I find it impossible to believe you could duplicate it anywhere.

There is the question as to whether an industry can really compel the type of inspection that is needed to keep the insurance and warranty system viable in terms of the cost to the consumer. It seems to me that we don’t need any more inspections; we just need some co-ordination of inspections. We have all kinds of inspectors out there now. We have the mortgage company inspector if it’s a conventional mortgage; we have the NHA inspector if it is a CMHC-approved mortgage; we have the local building inspector -- we have a tremendous number of inspectors out there.

What is really needed for the first time is not to protect the mortgage holder, be it a trust company, a bank or the federal government; not to protect the municipality; not merely to protect the workmen in terms of the safety operation -- but a concerted type of inspection that will take into account not only all of those factors, which are very necessary, but also the final product.

There is no other province that has brought in legislation in this field. It is quite true, there is a voluntary plan working elsewhere, but this is the first province that has brought it in. On the other hand, the consumer is being protected; on the other hand, the disreputable builder, the unfit builder, the one who really shouldn’t be there, is going to be gone. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if this was being done by private industry, it would be unacceptable because who would the consumer or the builder appeal to if they both felt they had not been dealt with fairly?

In this legislation they can appeal to an impartial body; they can appeal to a body that can handle the case expeditiously and at the lowest possible cost, with the least amount of bureaucracy.

It seems to me that in this bill we have achieved what the consumers want; we have achieved what the reputable building industry wants