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

November 1, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L097 - Tue 1 Nov 1988 / Mar 1er nov 1988

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EPILEPSY MONTH

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

SMALL BUSINESS

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

RECYCLING

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

PRAYERS IN LEGISLATURE

USE OF CONSTITUENCY OFFICE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

ACID RAIN

SEMINARS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

VISITORS

RESPONSES

ACID RAIN

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

SEMINARS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

ACID RAIN

SEMINARS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

USE OF CONSTITUENCY OFFICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

TORONTO WATERFRONT

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DETENTION CENTRE

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

PETITIONS

NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

USE OF TIME FOR MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED) / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (SUITE)

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

Prayers.

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the memorandum of understanding transferring service responsibilities for the Legislature from the Ministry of Government Services to the Office of the Assembly.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EPILEPSY MONTH

Mr. Laughren: November is Epilepsy Month in Canada. Two per cent of Canadians have epilepsy. I was one of that two per cent, but I am also one of those fortunate ones who are no longer afflicted. Epilepsy is more common than diabetes, cystic fibrosis or multiple sclerosis. Epilepsy is not a disease and it is not contagious . It is a disorder of the brain caused by a temporary generation of excess electrochemical energy inside the brain cells.

There is no single cause of epilepsy. Epilepsy can be caused by a number of events, such as birth trauma or severe head injury, or it can arise without being triggered by any event. Epilepsy is an episodic disability. For most people with the disorder, seizures are brief and infrequent. Between seizures, most people with epilepsy are perfectly normal and healthy. There are different kinds of epilepsy, ranging from convulsive seizures to brief periods where the person loses consciousness and appears to daydream.

For the vast majority of people with epilepsy, medication can control their seizures. Because most people with epilepsy can control their seizures with medication, it is people’s reaction to epilepsy, not epilepsy itself, that causes the real disability. More than any other disorder, epilepsy has been surrounded by misunderstanding, prejudice and fear, attitudes that may block the hopes and aspirations of more than 400,000 Canadians who are afflicted with epilepsy.

November is Epilepsy Month, during which a massive public education campaign will be conducted to combat such a misunderstanding.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Villeneuve: Today’s meeting of the anti-free-trade tag team here at Queen’s Park will likely knock a few more cents off the Canadian dollar, but obviously they like to see the Canadian dollar dropping. It is all part of the Liberal strategy to improve our trade position by undermining our standard of living.

A weaker dollar will be the least of our worries should any government in this country be misguided enough to tear up the free trade agreement with the United States. In my view, those who assume we can tear up this agreement with impunity are whistling their way past the graveyard in which they will have buried the prospects for a more prosperous economic future for Canada.

The Ontario government is acting as the assistant grave-digger in this sorry process. Tear up the free trade agreement, and the next thing to be torn up is the auto pact. Tear up the free trade agreement, and invite a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade challenge to our marketing boards. Tear up the free trade agreement, and let our steelworkers live with the consequences of so-called voluntary restraint agreements. That is the future the Ontario Liberal trade undertakers offer to this province.

What is their response? “Trust us. Everything will be okay.” Any day now I expect the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to break into a chorus of: “Don’t worry. Everything will be okay. And be happy.”

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Legislature the importance of both the small business sector in Ontario and the role of the small business advocacy section. There are currently over 400,000 small businesses in Ontario and these businesses provide the most dynamic source of job creation. In fact, from 1978 to 1985, 71 per cent of net new jobs came from new small businesses. It has also been established that 89 per cent of Ontarians believe the prospects for starting a new business are best in Ontario, as compared to other provinces.

The government, in April 1986, announced the creation of an advocate for small business. This position allows small business a voice in government, giving business owners an open-door policy on issues of concern to them, and acts as a reference point for these issues. Another duty under this position is to act as chair for the committee of parliamentary assistants for small business, to provide a coordinated approach for it to review existing programs, existing legislation and other acts.

As members are probably all aware, the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) was the first advocate for small business. Under his leadership, the committee had many achievements. Two of these: they were the designers of the very successful new ventures program, and initiated and presented the first issue of the annual report on the state of small business.

I would like to acknowledge the major contribution of the member for Guelph. It is a pleasure for me to carry on his work in this area and to work with the small business community in the future.

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am alarmed and dismayed to learn that the Algoma Central Railway has renewed its intention to sever its rail division from the parent firm. This is a plan to abandon a rail line, which threatens the jobs of workers in Sault Ste. Marie and in the communities along the rail line in the Algoma district. Surely this action is not in the best interests of the communities along the rail line or in the interests of the employees.

As a representative of the community of Sault Ste. Marie and the district of Algoma, I and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) have been successfully fighting this ACR application for nearly two years now. Unfortunately, our federal member in the area has not taken any such action. In particular, the Solicitor General, Mr. Kelleher, has not assisted us in the fight against the ACR.

Here in Ontario, I would like to ask that the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) take a close look at this action, and I request their assistance in filing interventions with the national transportation agency. The Minister of Northern Development should be particularly concerned because this rail line has a terminus in his home town of Hearst.

We should be insisting on public hearings in Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa and Hearst so that the best interests of the employees and the communities along that line are upheld in this action.

RECYCLING

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the rest of his colleagues on the government side of this Legislature. Last week, the minister and his government had an ideal opportunity to show leadership in solving Ontario’s growing garbage crisis, but they failed to rise to the challenge. That opportunity to show leadership occurred when the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) introduced Bill 89, which was

an act requiring all municipalities to establish garbage recycling programs.

The member for Mississauga South brought in a thoughtful and practical proposal that would have contributed greatly to the solution of Ontario’s waste management and landfill dilemma. Granted, this was not the ultimate solution to this problem, but it would have gone a long way towards solving our garbage crisis, and it is certainly more than this government has contributed during its term of office. The minister has closed down 100 sites in Ontario and he has not opened one single new one.

I find it interesting that during the last election campaign, both the minister and his parliamentary assistant indicated their support for a mandatory recycling program in Ontario. Then the parliamentary assistant stood up last week to speak against Bill 89 and the minister voted against it.

The minister’s record indicates clearly that there is no leadership coming from this government in solving the garbage crisis and other problems that are confronting the people of Ontario. The minister had a chance to say yes and he decided to say no to mandatory recycling.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. Miller: For the information of the members of the House, I am pleased to report that the national tripartite stabilization committees have recently approved third-quarter 1988 stabilization payments.

Tripartite stabilization, as my honourable colleagues will know, is a voluntary program contributed to weekly by producers and both the federal and provincial governments under a 10-year agreement signed in 1986. A stabilization payment is triggered when the national average market price drops below the support price. The support price provides a floor for producers under the tripartite agreement.

The official payment figures for the third quarter of 1988 include a total of $19 million for the 5,200 Ontario pork producers enrolled in the program. In addition, a total payment of $8 million was paid to the 2,000 Ontario beef producers enrolled in the program. Enrolled Ontario lamb producers will be receiving $6.83 a head. These payments will provide invaluable assistance to livestock producers who are currently experiencing extremely poor market conditions.

In addition, enrolled Ontario apple growers will receive a $5-million payment for the 1987 crop.

PRAYERS IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Since the court ruling on the Lord’s Prayer in the schools has been brought down, I have continually noticed in this House that our own procedures for opening ceremonies are a little dated and perhaps anachronistic.

Speaking on behalf of a minority of people within this House, I wonder if it might not be time for us to review our own opening ceremonies to make them a little more sensitive to the various views of the minorities within this province for whom the Lord’s Prayer has no particular significance or is difficult for them to have to go through every day without some recognition of their own traditions.

Mr. Speaker: The suggestion will be taken into consideration.

USE OF CONSTITUENCY OFFICE

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I bring to your attention an advertisement in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary). I bring a number of items to your attention, and surely, they should all be looked at.

This is advertising by the member for Cornwall to come out and join with him and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) for a reception and dinner at $50 per person. It is a fund-raiser for the Liberal Party and the big phone number at the bottom is the constituency office phone number.

First, it begs the question why a constituency office is being used to raise funds for the Liberal Party. Second, I think perhaps who paid for the advertisement should be looked at, whether that is being paid for by the assembly as well. Third, perhaps in your deliberations direction should be given to senior members of the Liberal Party about the new rookies, some of whom, if they are here for 20 years, will not be able to figure out what you can do and cannot do. Perhaps the Premier (Mr.

Peterson) and the House leader and those senior members ought to be informing members of the Liberal Party, newly elected ones particularly, just exactly what constituency offices are for. I will provide this to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order, I will certainly have a look at it and make certain it is placed on the agenda of the Board of Internal Economy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Hon. Mr. Ward: In the past year, it has been my privilege to visit classes for deaf children. I have been inspired and gratified by these visits, as I have watched the enthusiasm and effort of students and staff in these very special facilities.

To ensure that Ontario continues to meet their needs, I believe it is essential to carefully examine our delivery of deaf education.

Last spring, many members of this assembly took

part in a debate on a private resolution put forward by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), and I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by all members in that discussion.

It will be carried out in two phases. First, an internal review committee composed of educators of the deaf from boards and from our provincial schools will be established immediately. In addition, an external, independent review will be carried out by experts on deaf education and other educators not employed in our jurisdictions.

Our external review team has been selected to ensure a varied background in deaf education and offers a wealth of knowledge and experience. Its members will include: Dr. Gary Bunch, associate professor in the faculty of education at York University; Dr. Robert Davila, vice-president of precollege programs at Gaullaudet University, Washington, DC; Joseph McLaughlin, principal of the Alberta School for the Deaf; Dr. Carol Musselman, associate professor in the department of special education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and Donald Rutledge, recently retired associate director of the Toronto Board of Education.

One or two additional members will be added to the external review team in the near future. The external review will be conducted in April and May 1989. The final report, with recommendations, will be completed next summer.

To assist our external review, we will commission a research project designed to compile and summarize the most recent findings in deaf education.

In addition, I am pleased to announce today the creation of an advisory group comprised of representatives from groups within the deaf community and the deaf education community. This group will be asked to provide ideas to the internal and external review teams. Information gathered by the two reviews will also be shared with the advisory group, which will be kept fully informed throughout the review process.

Through this co-operative effort, we will draw together in partnership a wide spectrum of those involved in the delivery of deaf education.

These are the areas upon which we are asking our reviews to focus: the appropriateness of identification, placement and review procedures for hearing-impaired children, including an assessment of the availability of various types of programs in different parts of the province; the levels of academic competence achieved by students of programs for the hearing-impaired; the training and certification of teachers for the deaf and identification of any existing barriers to the employment of teachers who are deaf; the policy development process for hearing-impaired programs, including the role of advisory committees; the appropriateness of communication systems employed and taught in programs for the hearing-impaired; opportunities and support mechanisms for post-secondary education for the hearing-impaired in Ontario; the provision of preschool and parent and family services; the use of interpreters, and the provision of programs and services for French-language students.

I hope and expect that our review and advisory committees will provide significant and useful analysis and recommendations within all of these critical areas. It is my intention to use the findings for a single, cohesive purpose: to improve deaf education in Ontario and maintain our leadership in providing the best possible facilities and programs for hearing-impaired children.

ACID RAIN

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The province of Ontario is today petitioning the United States Court of Appeals to order the US Environmental Protection Agency to enforce its laws to prevent acid rain.

I have taken this action because the US EPA failed to respond satisfactorily to a petition we filed last April directly requesting that the agency begin legal procedures necessary to force American acid rain polluters to clean up.

We had asked the EPA officially to publish the findings of its former administrator, Douglas Costle, that acid rain generated in the US endangers the health and welfare of Canadians and that the US government has been granted the reciprocal right to require control of acid rain from Canadian sources.

The US Clean Air Act requires the EPA to act on such findings. If the Costle findings are published, the EPA would be forced to act to require additional pollution controls on large coal-fired plants, especially in the midwestern states, which create the acid rain that has proved so destructive in Ontario and Quebec.

Unfortunately, as I told the Legislature two weeks ago, the US EPA has fallen back on its time-worn cliché that more information is needed. In fact, the agency intends to wait for a report expected in 1990 before it will even consider action.

I find this position to be unacceptable. The devastating effects of acid rain have been predicted by sophisticated air pollution modelling and verified by rigorous testing. Our scientists have conclusively demonstrated that sulphur dioxide emissions from smokestacks in the Ohio Valley and adjacent states fall as acid rain upon Ontario’s lakes, forests, streams and cities.

We cannot afford to hold our breath waiting for the US Environmental Protection Agency to wake up and smell the sulphur. In our petition we have stated our position that the EPA’s response, forwarded to us on October 14, is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with American laws. The petition therefore requests that the court order EPA administrator Lee Thomas to institute rulemaking proceedings under

section 115 of the Clean Air Act and take the actions we requested in April.

We have also included an alternative request in the case that the EPA’s response of October 14 is not deemed a final action denying our April petition. The Clean Air Act gives the court the authority to review claims of unreasonably delayed agency action under that act. We therefore have asked the court to issue an order requiring the EPA administrator to respond to our April petition within 60 days.

Certainly both candidates for the US presidency have said that they take acid rain more seriously than President Reagan did in his eight years of inaction. But we cannot be content to take a wait-and-see attitude with the next US administration. I will continue to press our case with the Americans until they finally take action to stop acid rain.

SEMINARS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: It gives me great pleasure to share with my colleagues a special project that the Office for Senior Citizens’ Affairs has undertaken to reach out to Ontario’s seniors.

My office is currently hosting a series of seminars for seniors on seniors’ issues. The theme, “Opportunity is ageless,” was suggested by seniors themselves as the theme for our June 1988 Senior Citizens Month. Its message is clear: keep active, stay involved.

The first in the series of regional seminars was held on October 20 in Sault Ste. Marie. On November 29, a seminar will be held in French in Sudbury for francophone seniors. Next spring, five more regional seminars will be held in London, Belleville, Fort Frances, Toronto and, for seniors in eastern Ontario, in Renfrew county. We have chosen some centres that do not frequently host major events because we are reaching out to the grass roots.

These seminars provide seniors with a forum in which they can come together to learn from one another and in which we can learn from them. As one woman told me in Sault Ste. Marie, “When you listen to us, we know you value us.”

These seminars are an opportunity to listen to the seniors of Ontario. I would invite all of my colleagues to attend at least one of them.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for responses, I would ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation from Jiangsu province, China. There are 10 members of the delegation. The leader of the delegation is the vice-governor of Jiangsu province, Madame Wu Xijun. Please join me in welcoming the delegation.

RESPONSES

ACID RAIN

Mrs. Grier: The action that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has told us about today is, of course, the action he told us two weeks ago he was going to take and that I assume he will tell us next week he has taken. It is very appropriate. How could any of us disagree with it?

We have, as everybody in this House knows, a complete abdication of responsibility by our federal government in dealing with acid rain, and it is appropriate that the provincial government should do it. It is, however, very easy for this government to take strong, decisive action when dealing with another jurisdiction on a matter that is not completely within our own jurisdiction.

What we on this side look forward to hearing from this minister is strong, decisive action to clean up the Great Lakes, which affect both jurisdictions; his municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is long overdue; to stop lakefilling, which is contaminating those lakes; and to revise and strengthen our own air pollution regulations in this province. We have a government here that has refused mandatory recycling and has a waste management crisis on its hands.

It is very easy to be strong in dealing with the US. We wait to see him be really strong in dealing with our own problems.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is a great day for the deaf and hearing-impaired in Ontario. It is a rare thing that I get up and make a statement commending the government for its action without any equivocation.

In a minor fashion it is also a great day for private members. This being my 10th year in the House, this is the first time that a private member’s initiative of mine has been followed up by the government with action. I have had one other great success in having the nuclear-weapons-free zone resolution passed, but as to this date we have not been able to find a meeting ground of the minds to follow that up any further.

The last line of my resolution from May 5 was, “That the Ministry of Education report to the Legislature by November 1, 1988, on these initiatives.” My God, I never imagined it would be on time, let alone come through with this kind of review.

There are many people in the gallery today, however, who are the great victors in what has taken place. Sign language is again being used in the Speaker’s gallery to explain to those representatives from the deaf and hearing-impaired communities what is taking place today.

As members may recall from that May 5 debate, there was a real litany of problems, of contradictions in the standards for the education of the deaf and hearing-impaired in the province, and I am delighted that finally a comprehensive review is taking place.

If there is a second really positive result coming out of the May 5 debate, it would be that various groups within that community out there, with varying interests and perspectives, have now come together and had a meeting of their minds and a real capacity to be the kind of advisory group the minister is hoping will come from this process he has announced today. I think that is a major hope for the province.

I am a little concerned about the separate reviews and will talk to the minister later about how they may come together, but I would just like to end by saying that this is a day in which all members in the House can take some pleasure, knowing that, from time to time, our initiatives do bear fruit. This kind of fruit, one hopes, will be a real improvement for the quality of education for the deaf and hearing-impaired in our province.

SEMINARS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Reville: We cannot let the breathtaking initiative announced by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) go by unnoticed. I think it would be wonderful for the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) to have a chance to meet with seniors in eastern Ontario, perhaps at the Wilno church, where they could have some chicken together. “When you listen to us, we know you value us,” it says in this release. I expect that the seniors of Ontario will have a great deal to tell this government, and I certainly hope that it takes time to listen.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr. B. Rae: On behalf of my party, just want to express my appreciation, since it was offered only grudgingly and not in the written statement by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), to my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), who I think has done an outstanding job in educating the House and, indeed, in educating all of us on the needs of the deaf, and who has been a very effective advocate on their behalf. On behalf of my caucus and, I am sure, many others, I want to express my appreciation to the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Jackson: I welcome the statement by the minister and, as well, commend the member for Scarborough West on the announcement today, which is an important first step in coming to grips with the educational problems experienced by hearing-impaired citizens in Ontario. I say this is a first step because it is my view that there is still much work to be done to ameliorate the current state of affairs as it exists for the deaf as they struggle to further their education under the system that is presently in place for them.

As I stated in this Legislature in May 1988, the plight of the hearing-impaired is something that hits home for me personally because of my growing up with a hearing-impaired uncle, with whom I empathized deeply with respect to his struggle to live as an integrated member of our society.

I think I speak for many members of our hearing-impaired community when I say that they are tired of having their educational needs determined incorrectly by those who do not have adequate training to do so, and they are tired of having their education directed in an incomplete manner by individuals who appear to the deaf as all the more insensitive because they do not share the impediment of hearing loss with them.

Hearing loss is not so much an impediment as it is a challenge that the members of our deaf community face bravely every day. Having said this, I therefore hope that the minister has taken time to listen to the concerns over education expressed time and time again by the hearing-impaired. In examining the current system of education for the deaf, I believe it is imperative that the particular and specific needs of individuals who have suffered hearing loss not be lumped together under one or two categories as we consider new educational paradigms and programs.

I also believe that it is simply not enough to investigate the overall effectiveness of existing educational facilities for the deaf, whether on an integrated or segregated basis, but that it is crucial to emphasize the central role that individual assessment of hearing loss should play in helping determine educational paths and options for the deaf. By “assessment” I mean assessment by competent audiologists rather than less adequately trained school officers.

ACID RAIN

Mrs. Marland: I am sure the United States will take very little notice of the petition from the Ontario government as addressed today in the statement of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). It is really interesting when we look at international issues and the lack of demonstrated commitment by this government. Two years ago the select committee on the environment in our province had a unanimous resolution requesting Ontario Hydro to bring before that committee its path to meet the emission control limits for 1994: how it was going to do it, an absolute, detailed plan.

That proposal was to come back to that same select committee on the environment. However, this minister has not seen fit to re-establish that committee and have hearings ongoing.

The commitment of the Minister of the Environment to the subject of acid rain certainly leaves a lot to be questioned. I feel that since we are being concerned about what is happening in the United States, and he talks about how the US Environmental Protection Agency has to wake up and smell the sulphur, I wonder what he thinks about the residents of Niagara Falls, New York, who wake up and smell the burning garbage that is now being trucked for the fourth year from Halton to Niagara Falls, New York.

While it is okay to be concerned about the acid rain, obviously we are not concerned about burning our garbage in the United States. Without having a plan in hand for Hydro as far as the scrubbers are concerned, this minister does a great deal of talking but very little action in mandating some of the most important programs for our environment today, this very same government which, no less than four days ago, voted against mandatory recycling in the province of Ontario.

SEMINARS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Mrs. Cunningham: I am very pleased to respond to the minister’s statement on information seminars for seniors, and I am wondering who will be sharing the information. I congratulate the minister on taking the lead of the Conservative caucus. My colleagues hold these seminars across the province from time to time.

I think the real issue is whether we will be listening. “When you listen to us, we know You value us.” We are not sure the government has listened to seniors on housing, on the expansion of integrated homemaker services, on the concerns they have about long waiting lists for hospitals and, most recently, on Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.

USE OF CONSTITUENCY OFFICE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, if I might, very briefly on an earlier point of order raised by my friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), I wanted to inform the House that I have just spoken to the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary), who does confirm that, in fact, the ad that the honourable member has drawn to the attention of the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, did appear with the phone number of the constituency office.

The member assures me this was done without his knowledge or information, but he certainly does regret the embarrassment that has caused to the House and certainly wants that to be made very clear at this particular point in time. He has given me the assurance that he will make very clear to his riding association executive that this ought not to happen again in the future, and he will be here very shortly.

Mr. B. Rae: I did not realize that the House leader was a ventriloquist in addition to all his other talents.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. B. Rae: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who I really regret is not able to be with us in question period today, I want to address some questions to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

An hon. member: Here he is.

Mr. B. Rae: My question, in that case, is to the Premier.

I spoke this morning to Ontario Provincial Police officers and York regional officers involved in the investigation of the events in Richmond Hill, and they have informed me that the investigation, in fact, has been ongoing since March 1988 and it is still ongoing; that there are several interviews still to be conducted; that the paperwork is, to use the words of one of the officers, enormous; and that it will be a few months before the inquiry with respect to Richmond Hill is completed, to say nothing of any additional work involved in the Markham allegations.

In addition, I asked him about Vaughan and he said, “Nobody has talked to us about Vaughan yet, but if that is what happens, then it will obviously be that much longer.”

My question to the Premier is this: What happens in the meantime to all those questions that the people of Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Markham have with respect to the administration and integrity of local government and its ability to deal with this development crisis in their region? Do they have to wait for months, and perhaps even years, before the completion of a police investigation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the honourable member was quite right in referring the question to the Attorney General in the first place. I think he is more able to comment on this than I am.

Mr. Speaker: Referred to the Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think the honourable member knows that the examination conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police to decide whether criminal charges should be laid as a result of the municipal incidents at Richmond Hill began, as he said, and has been a very protracted one because of the enormous volume of paper, minutes and statements of witnesses that have to be prepared. This is not an investigation just for fun; this is an investigation to see if a criminal charge can be laid and made to stick, and it is important that the police should do that as carefully as they can, not only because law and order requires it but because the interests of citizens require it.

We have in the ministry spoken to the deputy chief of the Ontario Provincial Police -- I think that is his title -- about the mandate assigned yesterday. We have asked them to do a thorough job and have indicated that, within limits, we will do everything we can to assure that resources, through the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), are made available for that purpose.

We are quite conscious of the importance of this, but when there are allegations that amount to allegations of crime, they should be taken seriously.

Mr. B. Rae: Of course they should be taken seriously. The ponderousness with which the Attorney General expresses the most obvious truism is breathtaking and no doubt adds to his sense of the seriousness of the situation, but really it does not bear a relationship to the broader questions.

I am sorry that the Premier has decided not to respond, because the questions really go well beyond the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. If I may quote from the comments made by Scott Sommerville, who is the chief administrative officer of Vaughan, Canada’s fastest-growing municipality, in today’s Globe and Mail, “There’s not a council that can control this type of development.”

The questions involved here extend well beyond the issue of criminality. I would like to ask the Attorney General, since these questions do extend so far beyond criminality, why the reluctance and, indeed, so far the refusal on his part to launch, parallel to the very separate police investigation with respect to a criminal investigation, a major public inquiry that would deal with the adequacy and the capacity of local governments to deal with the extent and rapidity of development at the same time as it deals with the question of the monopoly on land and the extent to which the smaller developers are being squeezed out?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: These are matters of public policy, not matters of criminality.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable leader’s proposal is that, at the same time as we are conducting a police investigation which may lead to criminal charges and a trial by jury in a criminal court, we should launch an investigation by way of committee or royal commission which will consider substantially the very same facts and which would require, for the most part, the very same witnesses to testify.

My honourable friend knows very well, because we have canvassed the issue in the unfortunate case at Inco in respect to the coroner’s inquest, that in a case where a criminal trial and an inquiry, be it a royal commission or a coroner’s inquest, are launched simultaneously, the witnesses are not obliged to attend the commission of inquiry. This is dictated by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What would happen, of course, is that if we did not dispose of the criminal proceedings first, we would lose, after a royal commission or a commission of inquiry, the opportunity to deal with criminal charges.

I believe that if the serious allegations in the Globe and Mail are made out -- and we have only the unsupported statements mostly of unnamed sources -- these are matters that should be canvassed to see whether the sections of the Criminal Code that deal with municipal corruption have been breached. Then, when that process is complete, we will have the opportunity to see what remains to be done, including the important issues the honourable leader raises.

Mr. B. Rae: I could point out to the Attorney General a couple of examples within the last dozen years -- most notably, perhaps, the example of the Royal Commission on Certain Sectors of the Building Industry, chaired by Judge Waisberg -- which took place. There were certain criminal allegations which were involved in that. We all know that much valuable information with respect to practices in the construction industry in this province became public knowledge. Perhaps they were not politically convenient for certain people, but they became public knowledge as a result of that royal commission.

The Attorney General’s colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has already commenced a so-called administrative review, the only difference being that it does not have to listen to the public -- the public does not have any access to that inquiry -- and it has no subpoena powers, it has no capacity to require people to be interviewed.

I would again repeat my question to the Attorney General: What assurances do we have that a public inquiry will in fact be launched that will deal with these broader questions of public policy and that we will not see these questions buried in an interminable investigation which may never see the light of day, which may never become public and which may well get buried in an array of paperwork that denies the public the capacity to ask questions --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: -- which, I would add again to the Attorney General, do not involve allegations of criminal behaviour?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It remains to be said -- it is not a truism -- that we have nothing to hide in this matter. What has happened is that allegations have been made in the press about the conduct of certain municipal officials in York region. Those are serious allegations. We are taking them seriously in order to see that any relevant material that may support a prosecution will come to the attention of the police and lead to a trial, which is the way, in a society like this, that we dispose of criminal allegations.

If there are other questions, and there may be, I simply remind the member that it was my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs who introduced the legislation that made the disclosure of campaign contributions at the municipal level mandatory and allowed the kind of examination that gave rise to this article. That is a positive feature.

We have nothing to hide about this matter at all, and if at the conclusion of the criminal review there remain questions outstanding, I am sure the honourable leader will ask them. If he does not, I will and so will my colleagues.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. B. Rae: My new question is to the Minister of Housing. The minister should know that as I speak now there is a hostel called the Family Residence, which is a Metro Toronto hostel for single fathers and children, which hostel building can accommodate about 25 or 30 families. It has a policy of not turning away the families that come to its doors, as a result of which it is now renting about 100 motel rooms for families, including children who have nowhere else to go.

That is taking place at the same time as we have the information from the latest version of the public accounts that, in fact, when it comes to the ministry’s social housing budget, appropriations are $305.6 million and actual expenditures are $276.8 million, which means the ministry has not spent some $30 million in its social housing budget. How does the minister feel about that incredible contradiction of people having to shuffle between motel and motel when she has not even managed to spend the budget the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has allocated to her?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have in fact just recently -- last week -- visited once again some of the shelters where people who do not have places to live have to spend their time. I am, with everyone else in this House, very aware of the suffering that leads to. It is for that reason that this government has made its commitments to increase the supply of social housing in this province in an unprecedented way; it is for that reason that we are spending our resources in building more nonprofit housing as permanent housing for people who are homeless in this province and for other people with severe housing needs.

Our new program is going to make an enormous difference, as has the building we have already engaged in. At the moment there are about 20,000 units in process of being built in the province right now, and I think they are going to make a real difference for the people of the province who need help with their housing.

Mr. B. Rae: Waiting lists under this government have gone up astonishingly. They have gone up to the point now where there are at least 20,000 children on the waiting list for social housing in this province. Last year the minister did not spend nearly $52 million, which was revealed by my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) in a set of questions. This year the figure on social housing is $30 million. The total figure for her ministry that she has managed to not spend in the last two years is somewhere in the neighbourhood of some $92 million at the same time as she is going around the province saying how much she is doing in the field of social housing.

There is a contradiction here. How can we have a waiting list that is growing, that grows every day, that grows even now as we sit in this Legislature, and a government and a minister that are so incompetent they fail to spend even the moneys that have been allocated to them by the Treasurer?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like to talk a little bit about this, if I may. The reason we are moving as quickly as we are is that we know the needs are very great. It is also true that in the past year there have been some problems with building the social housing we are committed to build. It is for that reason that we have a land loan guarantee which has allowed a lot of the projects that would otherwise have had difficulty to get their hands on land and to hold it to make the building process work better.

That is also the reason we have made our commitment to using our provincial lands for the purposes of building social housing. We know that one of the big problems is the supply of land. That is the reason we have made the commitment that we have to use our provincial lands for the building of social housing all over this province.

There have also been some regulatory delays in building some of the housing we would like to build. That is the reason we released our land use policy in August, which will be part of the process of building both social housing and other affordable housing all over the province in partnership with all our municipalities.

Mr. Breaugh: Could the minister explain to us why, since this is the second year in a row she has basically wasted approved amounts of money in a desperately needed area, she did not learn the lesson last year? Why did she not turn this money over to the municipalities, for example, many of which have projects under way and could have utilized that money as soon as it became apparent that ministry staff were not able to approve the projects she had selected? Why did she allow, in the last two years, almost $90 million of approved expenditures to be wasted simply because she could not handle in her ministry the approval process that she herself designed?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Our approval process is working very well. There have been difficulties with land, and we have addressed the difficulties with land in a variety of ways. We have created the land loan guarantee to make sure that more nonprofits can get their hands on land that they can use to build on and use it.

We have made our commitment, which we are acting on every day, for the land that we have in the province to be used for housing all over the province. Some municipalities have agreed to do exactly the same thing. The federal government, of course, has not yet done so, and I look forward to a federal government that will.

The other thing that we have done is very clearly to have made it much more possible for affordable housing, both for low- and moderate-income people, to be built in the province through our land use policy. Our land use policy will direct all municipalities to supply the needs of low- and moderate-income people.

I think we have made an enormous difference in this past year. I am not going to pretend that it is all perfect. There is a lot more work that needs to be done. There is a significant commitment on the part of this government to do that work and to solve the problems as they come along, one by one.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: I am going to wait until the applause dies down, Mr. Speaker, if you do not mind.

[Applause]

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Brandt: Is that it?

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister will probably be aware at this point, since we have been discussing this subject for the last week in this House, that with respect to the York regional development issue, on October 28, the Globe and Mail reported that “Several experienced planners...said the regional and provincial authorities who vet municipal development decisions also give these men fast-track treatment.”

Will the minister confirm, as a result of that statement, if in fact it is accurate that his predecessor, now the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), did indeed fast-track the Bayview Hill project in Richmond Hill by having senior officials call the regional council and advise them that an approval was being given rather than the normal exchange of documents that takes place in a matter of this size?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I do not believe that any application is fast-tracked over any other application. I might say that there is a process that must be followed, and it is followed in every case. I can assure the member that there is no particular application that is given special treatment. In this particular case, the application the member is referring to took some 16 months and went through the normal process, so there was no fast-tracking whatsoever.

I might say that I receive calls and indications from people asking where their proposal stands, and as far as I am concerned, fast-tracking is not the thing. Let’s get the proposal approved as quickly as possible, but there are no special privileges given to anyone .

Mr. Brandt: On December 5 the assistant deputy minister of community planning took a rather unusual step with respect to this particular development, the 1,000 acres in York region. Namely, after the approval was in fact committed by cabinet, that assistant deputy minister did in fact make a phone call back to York regional council. Why would the assistant deputy minister take it upon himself to call rather than simply to send the approval in the normal fashion? Why was this unusual step taken with this particular set of circumstances relating to that 1,000-acre development?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I can only say that the individual is simply referring to a call he might have received, or a call for information as to where the proposal stood. But there has been no fast-tracking, there have been no special privileges given to anyone, let me assure the member.

Mr. Brandt: In light of the questions that have been raised relative to the way in which this and other developments have been handled in connection with this northern part of the Metropolitan Toronto area, will the minister agree to do what is proper in this particular instance, recognizing that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has narrowed the focus on this matter in a very specific way by limiting the investigation to the Ontario Provincial Police?

Will the minister do the right thing and table documents relative to developments in that area so that the members of this House can see exactly what steps were taken at what particular times with respect to this whole matter? Will the minister do that?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: There is no secret in regard to this proposal or any other proposal. I want to assure the member that Mr. Ferguson of the Globe and Mail had full access to our files. In fact, he was assisted by our own ministry staff. We would be pleased to make available to the member whatever documents are necessary for his information.

Mr. Brandt: My new question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Yesterday the minister indicated that he did not approve the 1,000-acre development in Richmond Hill. Outside of the House, the minister then went on to say that his ministry did not consider the particular application, because the official plan had already been amended, if I am quoting the minister correctly. This morning we have further information on this matter where officials of his ministry have said that they did consider the plan and it was approved because that particular land was serviced.

Would the minister clear the air on exactly what happened? In the first instance, he said that he denied the approval of the plan, that it went on to cabinet. In the second instance, he said he did not have to review it, because of the matter of the official plan being amended. Then, third, we have a ministry official telling still a third story. Which is the correct story? Could the minister advise the House?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This really had its beginning back in the early 1980s, when the municipality was developing a new official plan. At that time, my ministry did express some concerns about some of the inclusions in that official plan. Then, in 1983, the previous administration gave prior commitment to the official plan, which means, really, that what they were doing was giving a commitment that the plan could be amended to allow for future urban growth in that part of Toronto the member is referring to.

Once that prior commitment is given, then my ministry, with the Food Land Guidelines, cannot supersede any prior commitment that was given to a plan. As I say, a prior commitment was given by the previous administration.

Mr. Brandt: I am well aware of the fact that servicing was made available to that region and servicing was made available to that particular area to be developed. The York trunk, which was developed by the previous government, enlarged the capacity so that area could grow. I am well aware of that.

But the minister’s official said that because one of the main stipulations with respect to this whole approval process -- that the servicing be available for the land -- had been met, that was the reason there was not any necessary approval from his ministry with respect to this whole matter. Can the minister quote from the Food Land Guidelines what

section specifically states that when servicing is available, Food Land Guidelines do not apply? Could he enlighten the House on that?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I cannot quote at this time. I do not have the Food Land Guidelines with me. But again I have to reiterate that prior commitment was given by the previous administration that the official plan could be amended to allow for future urban growth provided that certain conditions were met, one of those conditions being that there be adequate services available. The municipality apparently did establish the fact that the services were available.

My ministry cannot comment further on a previous commitment that was made. It is just as simple as that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: They cannot. The Food Land Guidelines state --

Mr. Sterling: You might as well throw it out the window.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: When a prior commitment is made by a previous administration --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: With respect to the Food Land Guidelines, let me read to the minister from those guidelines. It states in

section 3.12, under “Evaluation of Alternative Uses” on page 11, “Where the municipality consists of predominantly good agricultural land, estate development will need to be restricted in location and amount, or possibly prohibited.”

Under

section 3.14 it states: “Documentation of need for the land use must cover each of four basic issues: the necessity for the land use, the amount of land needed, the reasons for the choice of location and the consideration given to alternative locations on lower-capability” or lower-quality “agricultural land.”

Given that this was prime agricultural land, that it was not to be developed, in spite of what the minister has said with respect to capacity being made available by a previous government, until the year 2000 and that it would be used solely for estate housing in this particular instance, could the minister -- and my question is coming forward now -- tell us why the ministry, in its collective wisdom, approved this project when it is so obviously contrary to its own guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Again I have to come back to the fact that the previous administration granted support to an amendment to the official plan, provided that certain conditions were met. When they granted that, I do not think they suspected in their wildest imagination that the services would be available for some period of time. The services did become available, and it would be absolutely redundant for my ministry to make any comment, because if the matter did go to the Ontario Municipal Board, my ministry would have no grounds to stand on, because the Food Land Guidelines do not supersede prior commitments that are made, and that were made, by the previous administration.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is waiting patiently to ask his question.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. In the statement that was released jointly in August of this year by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) and herself -- which, to remind other members, is the one that, among other things, requested municipalities to take a minimum of 25 per cent of affordable housing -- she outlined a process that both of them laid out for municipalities to comment to the various ministries, on making changes to the planning process itself.

Of course, from the municipalities’ point of view, there were a number of concerns raised about how these projects would be financed, how the ministries would respond to the needs of various municipalities. Essentially, it was to take submissions until February and then, after that, announcements would be made of any changes that would be made.

Could the minister update the House on what plans have been made, since I know there have been submissions to various ministries from the municipalities but we have not seen a public response from any of the ministries as to changes that are under way? Yet we do see, in the allegations that surround all of the York region development, that some developed plans for development do proceed faster than others, whether there is a fast-track process or not.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Breaugh: The ministry itself is now introducing what it calls allocation systems. Can the minister explain those processes to us?

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

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Indeed, last August at the annual meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I released our land use policy guidelines. What we told people then, and what is still true, is that we would be working actively with the municipalities and other concerned people to take their suggestions, on the basis of which we will have a final land use policy statement.

What is going on right now is a series of meetings that have been organized around the province jointly with my and the Minister of Municipal Affairs’ people. The municipalities are coming forward, as are people in the development industry, as are interested and concerned citizens all over the province. We want to hear from them their reactions to our suggestions for the guidelines and also how we can work together to make sure the two major goals are met.

The major goal is to have open communities in which people of mixed income can live together. The ways of reaching those goals in particular are the 25 per cent guideline for affordable housing in the new developments and also intensification in the building of communities and redevelopment of communities that are already there.

Mr. Breaugh: I really am, in a sense, bothered by that kind of response. Very bluntly, the rules on how plans are approved appear to be changing. No one quite knows what the changes are. There are allocation systems being put in place that no one has heard of before. There are some that are being given, it is rumoured, a fast track, but there is no explanation as to what that fast track is. In other words, the ministries appear to have changed the rules by which plans for development are approved, but no one knows what the rule changes have been. Could the minister explain that to us?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: There are no changes in the rules at this point. What we are doing is working to get the official plans, in particular of the municipalities and areas in which the pressure of growth is so great, organized to meet our guidelines. In the spring, there was a series of meetings of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten), the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself with mayors and regional chairs of some of the major regions of the province facing pressures of growth.

What we said at the time, and I think we were very explicit about this, was that we would work with them to smooth the processes and to deal with the problems they are facing in the whole development process. What we are trying to do is speed up the time of approvals of what takes place inside our government and ask them to speed up the time of approvals of what takes place in their level of government, in order to make sure that our affordable housing goals are met.

We are working with them in partnership. This is an ongoing process. I believe it is a very important one, because what it will do is make sure that the goals of affordable housing across this province are met and that we speed up the process for meeting those goals, because the needs, as everyone in this House acknowledges, are very great. People should not have to wait as long as they have been. One of the ways we will make this happen is by working actively --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: -- with the municipalities to make the changes required.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome is one of the most serious issues facing our society today. It is absolutely imperative that this government take a leadership role in combatting this deadly epidemic, but because of its lack of leadership, doctors in this province are now having to take matters into their own hands and make decisions to distribute syringes to drug users.

This is a decision, quite frankly, that the Minister of Health should have taken. This is not a decision which belongs to individual physicians and it is not a decision which belongs to the chief of police of Metropolitan Toronto. With all due respect to the minister and her ministry, it is a responsibility that the Minister of Health should adopt. While AIDS is spreading, through intravenous drug use, at an alarming rate, the minister appears to be doing nothing. She is vacillating about this very important decision. When is she going to make a decision and when is she going to take a leadership role in this issue?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, I am very proud of the leadership position that the Ministry of Health in Ontario has taken in this country. In fact, we have been significant in bringing people together to address the many important issues about AIDS and human immunodeficiency virus infection.

As the member would know, I journeyed to Sweden to the AIDS conference in Stockholm this June, where we were at that time informed of events in other jurisdictions.

I am pleased to hear that the member is offering his advice on needle exchange programs. This is one thing which is presently under review by the ministry. We are hoping to discuss this issue and are in the process of discussing it now with the Addiction Research Foundation, with pharmacy, which has a key role to play.

We acknowledge that in Ontario we have a different milieu from other jurisdictions where it is perfectly legal for pharmacists to sell syringes without prescription. In Ontario, however, there are some legal implications and pharmacy itself has some concerns about the way pharmacists control the sale of the syringes.

At the present time, I believe it is very appropriate for physicians to dispense to their patients. I would not want to interfere in a physician-patient relationship. This issue is currently under review, and I thank the member for his advice.

Mr. Eves: Those are all very nice platitudes that the minister is telling us here in the House today. Metro Police Chief Marks has changed his opinion and asks why about this particular issue.

In many western countries, street-level needle clinics are already dispensing clean syringes -- I think the minister knows that -- and the results of those are as follows. The spread of AIDS has either stabilized or decreased in those countries, there has been no increase in the number of people who use needles and many people have come forward for treatment for the very first time.

The minister and her ministry already know what the Addiction Research Foundation thinks about this very important matter. She knows that 75 per cent of needle users in Canada repeat and use the same needle or use needles that other people have used. The Addiction Research Foundation provided the minister with those statistics many, many months ago. She knows that this year that same foundation will tell her that there are over 17,000 high school students in Ontario who will use needles.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: She knows all those facts. She and her deputy minister were over there in June. She has been sitting on the sidelines. When is she going to make some decisions and act on this information?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would describe the spread of AIDS and HIV infection as probably the public health challenge of our generation. Our goal is to prevent the spread of AIDS and of HIV infection and to make sure that people have the advice and the information that they need to protect themselves against this deadly disease.

At the beginning of December, the Ministry of Health will be hosting a working conference to address many of these important issues. We are bringing people together to discuss them and to help us as we determine the next step in the challenge in Ontario.

At the present point in time, we are spending more than $20 million in the combat of this deadly disease. I am pleased to have the member’s advice, because I can share with him the concern I have that when we give this information and assistance to intravenous drug users, one of our goals must be to help them get off the drugs that they are on and ensure that there is public safety when we talk about the kinds of programs that will stop the spread of AIDS.

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Last week, the Toronto Star reported the minister’s concern that the federal government is using political criteria to shut Ontario out of a series of multimillion-dollar defence and aerospace contracts. From what the minister is saying, there is a distinct bias towards Quebec companies.

May I ask, first of all, whether the minister can give this House some details about this matter; and second, what initiatives he and his ministry are taking to protect the legitimate interests of Ontario aerospace industries?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for his question. He has brought up a very, very serious matter. We know that 52 per cent of the aerospace industry is located in Ontario, with 40 cent in Quebec. Notwithstanding that, since 1985, 88.2 per cent of all government funding under the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the defence industry productivity program has gone to Quebec and only about eight per cent to Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We have a situation where there is a definite tilting to the disadvantage of Ontario-based companies in order for them to get defence business.

Mr. Daigeler: I am very concerned about the potential for serious friction, especially between Ontario and Quebec. I, as a member of this House, do not feel this is in the best interests of Canadians.

I would like to ask the minister whether he has any proposals on how to avoid these kinds of problems which the federal Tories got us into, and how we might place contract awarding on the basis of economic merit rather than political calculation.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If members are interested in this subject, and they should be, I can tell them -- because many of them represent areas in this province that have a very significant aerospace component and if they would only be listening to their constituents, they would have an idea of the problem --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: -- we have no problem with our Quebec or any other provincial counterparts. Our dispute is with the federal government which has taken this particular position.

We have a situation where ministers meet on a regular basis, dealing with government procurement, dealing with such areas as interprovincial trade barriers, and we are resolving those. What is happening is that we have a federal government that has taken a political decision to fragment the Ontario industry and divert it to Quebec.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TORONTO WATERFRONT

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Premier. It concerns a proposal that was released by his office a couple of weeks ago called Bold Concept II, a massive redevelopment of the Toronto waterfront.

Just a year ago, in the speech from the throne, the Premier called for coordinated planning of the Toronto waterfront and set up an intergovernmental waterfront committee. We also have the Crombie commission looking at the Toronto waterfront, and just a month or so ago, the city of Toronto passed a central waterfront plan.

Can the Premier explain to the House how this proposal, Bold Concept II, commissioned by his office and paid for by his office, contributes to coordinated planning of the waterfront?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was desperately hoping that the member would ask me a question I could refer to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). Unfortunately, I cannot, and I am very happy to respond to the honourable member.

As the honourable member will be aware, a year or so ago, perhaps a year and a half ago, in response to some of the concerns that I and others have had about the development of the waterfront in Toronto, we put together an ad hoc group comprising a federal representative, Mr. Crombie at the time, who was then a federal minister, the Metro chairman and the mayor of Toronto to make sure we were harnessing the resources that we had most effectively to provide a vision for the waterfront over a long period of time.

Frankly, there were a number of outstanding questions -- even the size of the planning area, whether it was just downtown Toronto or whether it extended out into Etobicoke and other areas -- because everyone has his own view of the situation. My honourable friend will be aware there is just a myriad of agencies that have influence some way or other.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, your honourable friends are making a lot of noise over there and may not have the same keen intellectual interest that you do in the subject.

So we put together an ad hoc group. Subsequent to that, the federal government decided to create a royal commission, headed by Mr. Crombie, who is now devoting full-time to that. I turned over the chairmanship of this ad hoc group to Mr. Crombie, because he is putting in full-time on it, and I can say that we are working in a very co-ordinated way.

I know there is lots of discussion about this, particularly during the municipal election and at other times, but it is our view and it is my view that we have to make sure we use every single resource that we have to develop a vision for the waterfront over the next 40 and 50 years. There is a wide variety of individual ideas that have been presented. The mayor of Etobicoke is very keen on waterfront development. As the member knows, he has some very specific ideas, as do various other mayors.

Mrs. Grier: Almost as bad as yours.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know my honourable friend probably thinks she has the only good ideas on this, and there are other destructive elements that do not want to do anything. There is an awful lot of turf in this, as she knows. I can tell my honourable friend that there is no specific plan that is going forward at the moment. A lot of dialogue will go on, a lot of discussion and a lot of rationalization of the existing jurisdictions that are --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs. Grier: I am very familiar with the activities of the intergovernmental waterfront committee and this Premier has just outlined them.

My question was, how does the unilateral initiative of his office in commissioning, for $35,000, a rehash of a plan that was current 20 years ago and that only succeeded in producing the Leslie Street Spit, an environmental problem ever since, contribute to coordinated planning? Does the Premier want to emulate Premier Vander Zalm, who has Fantasy Gardens, and have a Harbourfront Haven or something?

Who is doing the planning, the intergovernmental committee that is established or Duncan Allan in the Premier’s office? Where does the responsibility lie? That is my question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I honestly do seek out and search out the best advice I can possibly find in all areas of my endeavour. I can tell her we are not looking to create another Fantasy Gardens on the water here.

There are no universal, impositioned plans from anyone. I want my honourable friend to be very clear about that. There are a number of committees going on, as she knows, that are discussing the matter. Public hearings will be held in the not-too-distant future with respect to ideas n the waterfront, and then the difficulty will be to bring all the various jurisdictions into play on the matter.

I think we have to be fair about this. There are some wonderful things along that waterfront, but I think a lot of people looking at it say some planning mistakes were made as well. You can now see the assertion of turf by certain people over this particular matter. What we have to do, in my view, is to build a vision that everyone can buy in, and use our strengths collectively. Really, that is what we are hoping to do, and the federal government is working on it --

Mr. B. Rae: Everyone can buy in. That’s it; that’s the Liberal vision. Buy into our dream. Put up your money.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, my honourable friend is against everything, but I say that I think we can develop a vision that will be supported by the federal government, by Metro, by the city and by the various other cities that will be very constructive along the way.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. On the first day of this fall session, the minister told us his ministry would commit $5 million to ensure that 5,000 apprentices who really want to take training in their chosen trade field would receive that training.

Many of these apprentices in fact were already participating in programs that were postponed, and since June these people have been left in limbo, unable to complete their programs, while employers look to other provinces and south of the border for skilled labour. A call to the ministry just this morning still did not reveal when these programs will be reinstated. Surely the minister understands how important it is to quickly reinstate them.

When will the 5,000 apprentices and 3,000 employers throughout the province know what is happening to these deferred programs? What programs will the minister be supporting and how soon will he make his announcement?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If members recall, just recently I stood in the House and made a statement about committing $5 million to the apprenticeship shortfall that was done by the federal government. I had hoped that all honourable members were listening, and I am quite sure the honourable member was listening at the time.

I just want to bring members up to date about what caused this. It is the federal government that did not come through with its portion of the money. This government decided it would not stand by and see those apprentices not getting their training. We came through with $5 million. I hope, with the strong co-operation of our colleagues across the floor, to get the federal government committed to apprenticeship programs again and to put more money there so we can train all people in Ontario.

Mrs. Cunningham: That was such a simple question: When is the minister going to spend his $5 million he so valiantly put forth for the apprenticeship programs? The minister has an opportunity to answer it in the next question. He can answer that one or he can answer this one, my supplementary question. He has a choice, one or two.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. it is very important that the minister hear the question.

Mrs. Cunningham: We would like to offer some suggestions here if the minister is having trouble spending his $5 million. Another way of dealing with this is to involve our secondary schools.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There seems to be some unnecessary noise. I remind the member for London North that I asked for a supplementary question.

Mrs. Cunningham: I would love to ask the supplementary question if I could have the floor.

Mr. Speaker: Are you going to ask a question?

Mrs. Cunningham: Yes.

It is common knowledge that there is a growing mismatch between the number of unfilled job vacancies and those seeking work, due to a lack of training, and we should be using our secondary schools to implement these programs. What steps is the minister actively pursuing to integrate apprenticeship training and co-operative education programs in our secondary schools?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I must thank the honourable member again for asking the question nine minutes before question period is over because it will take me about that time, Mr. Speaker. I have all the time to answer that, as you said,

She said I have two options here. Let me state again that I stood and made a statement in the House about the shortfall the federal government made in regard to apprenticeship programs. I am telling all the community colleges that offer apprenticeship programs to go right ahead and tell those students who were waiting for that federal government money to come that we have put forward our $5 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the duty of the chair to make certain that every member has the right to speak and the right to be heard.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me take a shot at the second part of the question. I want to tell the member, and she knows it, that the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward), the Minister of Education, is working co-operatively with the Minister of Skills Development to get co-op programs going. If there is any concern at all that we are not spreading the message of training, it is being spread within the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and also the Ministry of Skills Development. I am telling my colleague that we are right on target in developing apprenticeship programs and training within Ontario.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Health. This province provides free prescription drugs for seniors and welfare recipients in order to ensure they have the medication that is necessary for their health. I understand that when at all possible, the pharmacists fill their prescriptions by way of the less expensive, generic drugs. Sometimes the physician -- I understand almost always when at the insistence of the patient -- will prescribe the brand-name drugs at considerably greater expense to the taxpayer. Obviously, the generic drugs are satisfactory or they would not be available to be filled.

Can the minister consider paying for only the generic medication, leaving the extra costs of a brand name to be borne by any consumer who wishes to have the brand name?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is important for the member and all members in the House to know that physicians are required by legislation to provide the lowest-price drug in a group of interchangeable drugs. The Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee in fact determines which drugs will be determined as interchangeable, based on research and analysis. A pharmacist will dispense a brand-name drug where the prescribing physician has clearly written “no substitution” on the prescription.

Mr. Owen: Doctors tell me that as high as 90 per cent of the time that they prescribe brand-name drugs they do so at the insistence of the particular patient. This amounts to a sizeable difference in how much the taxpayers are out for generic drugs as opposed to the brand-name drugs. Can the minister give us any facts and figures to show how much the taxpayer is out, how much her budget is out as to generic drugs as opposed to when we have had to provide and pay for the brand-name drugs?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: For the information of the member, it is a medical decision to determine which drug will be prescribed for a patient. At the present time, “no substitution” prescriptions account for about one per cent of the Ontario drug benefit plan. I think this is an issue, and I would be pleased to refer the member’s question to Dr. Lowy and the Lowy drug inquiry, which is reviewing all aspects of the government’s role in the design of the program and the prescription drug marketplace.

I share his concern because I think all of us want to see the very best possible therapeutic results for the people in this province who receive their drugs from the Ontario drug benefit program.

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DETENTION CENTRE

Mr. Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Correctional Services. Two hundred and forty-six workers, as many inmates and about 60 young offenders inhabit and work in a sick Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre that is making them sick. The matter has been studied in the past somewhat. There have been a couple of air quality control studies that have yielded quite inconclusive results, yet the human symptoms persist.

I have talked with various persons on that staff , some of whom do not want to be identified, but they all agree with reception officer Russ Selkirk, maintenance mechanic Paul Gibson and guard Frank Preston, that widespread in the building are the symptoms of sore eyes, sore throats, burning lungs, headaches, cramps, rashes, and in individual cases sometimes more severe symptoms than those.

Inasmuch as the studies to date have not yielded results with regard to this problem, what is the minister prepared to do to get to the bottom of this persistent problem at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am quite glad to respond to the member for Hamilton West. The member is right that previous tests by the Ministry of Labour have shown that there is really no factor that can be pinpointed as to why the conditions are as they are. As the member knows, yesterday we hired an outside consulting firm, Acres International, to carry on a new set of tests. Also, part of that contract with the consultant is that the consultant meet with the workers, committee in the detention centre in order to set out the parameters of that test.

We will be awaiting quite anxiously the results of that test and we will proceed from there.

Mr. Allen: I thank the minister. I appreciate the response to date. It is obviously a move in the right direction, but notwithstanding, the tests of the same kind having been inconclusive, one is not necessarily hopeful.

The minister may well know that the whole question of sick-building syndrome is a very complicated one. The science that attacks it is relatively primitive. The government to date has not responded, for example, to the sensitivity studies done by Judge Thomson in the past, and the issue remains very much one at the beginning levels of an issue.

Will the minister take a further step and appoint an independent inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act that would include the specialists who would have to be involved, not only specialists in air quality but also industrial hygiene specialists, clinical ecologists and allergists, climate control specialists and building design specialists, in order to get to the bottom of this issue and hopefully to tackle the more widespread problem facing us in many of our urban centres, in particular with sealed-building sickness?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would say to the member I think that step right now would be premature. I think it would be fair to take this one step at a time and I hope the member would agree with me that we should take a look and see what the results of this testing are.

We have a company with up-to-date and very modern equipment that is supposed to be some of the best in the world. We think we might find something with this set of testing. Let’s take it one step at a time. I would like to assure the member that I will make sure resources are dedicated to resolving the situation if we can find out what the problem is.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. Harris: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing a question concerning John Sewell. Mr. Sewell had five major objectives he worked on with the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority: repairs and maintenance, and actually hiring superintendents was one of them; new steps in financial management was a second one; improvements in tenant relations was a third; improvements in security within the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority was a fourth, and an undertaking to expand and build new units was a fifth.

I wonder if the Minister of Housing could tell us which ones of those five she disagrees with. I think she would agree that covers the major reforms Mr. Sewell put forward. If she does not disagree with any of those five, could she give us one good reason why she fired John Sewell?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am glad to reiterate the agenda for reform that the Ontario Housing Corp. and the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority share. What we want to do is improve the lives of the tenants in our buildings in every way possible. For that reason, we are committed to improving the maintenance in those buildings, to working on security issues in relation with our tenants and to working on the whole question of eligibility.

One of the things I am very proud of, in fact, is that we have extended eligibility to Ontario Housing Corp. to all the people in the province who have housing needs. Among the things we have been working on in tenant relations are race relations, and also extending eligibility to battered women.

The other thing I think we have done is to extend fairer access to the working poor at the Ontario Housing Corp. I believe our commitment to improving the quality of tenant life in the housing is very genuine, the kind of work we are doing. Our new chairman, who will be coming on board on November 24, will extend and build on that agenda for reform, and I am very pleased about that.

PETITIONS

NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY

Mr. Sterling: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“On the issue of the location of the federal space agency:

“We condemn the present Liberal government for doing so little to convince the federal government to locate the national federal space agency in Ottawa-Carleton while Quebec pursued this matter with vigour; and

“Further, we oppose the stand of John Turner, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, to locate the space agency in Montreal, Quebec; and

“Further, we believe that the space agency should be located in Ottawa-Carleton and not in Montreal as Mr. Turner has suggested.”

That is signed by three other members of this party and myself.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Kozyra: This petition is on behalf of the Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group. It contains 364 signatures and reads as follows:

“We care about injured workers. We protest the Minister of Labour’s proposal to change the law that would take away injured workers’ rights to permanent disability pensions when they are permanently disabled; that would do almost nothing about the miserable compensation of existing injured workers and their widows and that would leave the injured workers of the future worse off. Workers who are killed or injured in their work deserve much better treatment than this.”

USE OF TIME FOR MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under standing orders 27(a), 28(a), and 29(g): Earlier today during members’ statements the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) rose to make a member’s statement on the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s tripartite stabilization program. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to carefully review the statement of the member Norfolk with standing orders 27(

a) and 29(

g) in mind. After you have reviewed the statement, I would ask you, sir, to determine whether this matter should be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for further review and recommendation.

Specifically, when you review the member’s statement, I would ask you to keep in mind that the member for Norfolk is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). I believe the member’s statement today fits the following definition, and I am quoting standing order 28(a), “A short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed.”

This is the definition of a ministerial statement as defined in the standing orders, and that is what I believe the parliamentary assistant for Agriculture and Food read during members’ statements -- a ministerial statement.

My concern is that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food is abusing backbench members’ time to make ministerial announcements. Members’ statements are intended for the use of backbench private members. During the negotiations for the current standing orders, we agreed party leaders and ministers of the crown would not be permitted to use members’ statements, because they had the forum of ministerial statements and response was available to them.

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is a standing order, 29(g), which does not permit a parliamentary assistant to ask questions during question period of his or her own minister. The reasons for this are obvious, and I would suggest the same logic applies for members’ statements. If the minister had made this agricultural announcement during ministerial statements, we would have been given the opportunity to respond. As the parliamentary assistant has made this announcement during members’ statements, not only has time been taken away from private members, but it has robbed us of an opportunity to respond to what I believe is clearly a ministerial statement.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to review the Hansard of the statement from the member for Norfolk and, if you agree with me that this statement clearly falls into the definition of standing order 28(a), then you should refer the entire question of the use and abuse of members’ statements to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly listened to the point of order very carefully. I will look at all the relevant matters suggested by the member, because I am fully aware that members’ statements may be made by all members other than leaders of parties or ministers. But I will look at it.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 87,

An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved second reading of Bill 180,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am delighted to lead off this debate on second reading of Bill 180. As I mentioned when I introduced this bill, the workplace hazardous materials information system, the system Bill 180 puts into place, will play a major role in preventing workplace illness and injury.

The WHMIS concept is built on three elements: a label to alert workers as to the hazards of the material and the precautions to be taken; a material safety data sheet to provide more details of the hazards and the precautions, and education and training to ensure that workers understand and can use the information being provided to work safely with the material.

The WHMIS project was started in 1982 because there was a general recognition by provincial and federal governments and by industry and labour that a problem existed across Canada in terms of health and safety information available on hazardous materials used in the workplace.

Specifically, the information available varied in quantity and in quality. There were no uniform requirements on the suppliers of hazardous materials used in the workplace that specified how much and what kind of information they had to provide to their customers about their products.

Employers have always had an obligation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to provide information to their workers about hazards relating to the handling of hazardous materials in the workplace, but employers often had difficulty in obtaining health and safety information about these materials. Even if they did get the information, it was not clear how much information should be passed on to workers. What WHMIS will provide is information to users in a more consistent and uniform manner.

There must be a label on the containers of hazardous materials under WHMIS. The label is intended as the first warning. The label from the supplier must be within a distinctive border so that workers will know immediately that this is a hazardous material and will know to act accordingly. The supplier label will also have hazard symbols which will alert workers to the hazards presented by the material. The label will contain a short statement of the risk and the precautions that a worker will take, as well as first aid information.

The label will indicate that a material safety data sheet is available, and workers will use the product name, which must be the same on the label and the material safety data sheet, so they can find the right data sheet for the product.

The material safety data sheet will have to contain a minimum of information no matter who produces it. The categories of information to be provided are as follows: product identification and use; a list of all hazardous ingredients; physical data such as the boiling and melting point; fire and explosion data; reactive data -- for example, conditions under which the material is unstable; toxicological properties -- that is, health hazards; preventive measures, which include the personal protective equipment required to handle the material safely; first aid measures, and last, the name and telephone number of whoever prepared the data sheet and the date the information was prepared.

The information provided is expected to be comprehensive and should include all that can reasonably be expected to be known about the material and its hazardous properties.

Finally, data sheets have to be updated every three years or sooner if new information on the hazardous material becomes available.

These two elements, the label and the material safety data sheet, together make up the information requirements of WHMIS.

The third element of the WHMIS triad is education and training of workers using materials meeting the WHMIS criteria of hazardous in the workplace. The responsibility for ensuring that workers are trained to understand the WHMIS system, the information being provided and the procedures to be used at that workplace to protect workers’ health and safety falls upon the employer. The workplace education program required under the WHMIS regulation has to be developed and implemented in consultation with the joint health and safety committee, if one exists, and be related to any existing training programs currently being undertaken in the workplace.

The worker training has to include the following:

First, what information is required on the label and material safety data sheet and the purpose and significance of that information to the worker, that is, what does it mean to workers if the data sheet says the material is carcinogenic, and what has to be done to ensure that the worker is protected.

Second, the training must include procedures used in that workplace for the safe use, storage, handling and disposal of the material. This means the employer must have control procedures in place for each material to ensure proper worker protection.

Next, although employers have always had a duty to train workers about hazardous materials in the workplace and the proper precautions to be taken, we are aware that not all employers have complied with this duty. To assist employers, and especially the smaller employers, the WHMIS partners, that is government, industry and labour, felt a responsibility to ensure that Ontario workers and employers have access to a comprehensive training program which could be adapted to any workplace.

As a result, the employer safety associations and the Workers’ Health and Safety Centre of the Ontario Federation of Labour have jointly developed a high-quality, low-cost training program through the co-ordinating efforts of the Occupational Health and Safety Education Authority.

The Ministry of Labour has funded the development of these materials, as well as the training of some 400 trainers who will deliver the program across the province. In addition to conducting in-plant courses, these trainers will run community training sessions for those workers whose place of employment is too small for a full-scale training session. This training package has been used by many large employers in Ontario, as well as by small and medium-sized employers. In addition, it is being used by employers outside of Ontario, such as BC Hydro and Power Authority.

One aspect of WHMIS that was not intended but which can be anticipated is that if workers are provided with information about hazards of chemicals they encounter and are trained in the proper precautions to be taken, those workers will take this knowledge outside of the workplace to their homes or their hobby areas and apply their knowledge to the use of similar materials at home and elsewhere. As legislators, I believe we may therefore face increased pressure from the public for more and better information on hazardous materials used in the house, in the hobby room or in the garage.

I would like to emphasize that the WHMIS project represents a unique co-operative approach to problem solving and to the development of legislation in which all the major stakeholders were involved from the very beginning. Needless to say, achieving a consensus among industry, labour and the government can take a long time. In fact, it took almost three years of tripartite consultation before an agreement was reached on how WHMIS should work.

The model for how WHMIS is to work was developed by a tripartite steering committee which was put together in 1982 to develop a nationally consistent system for communicating information about hazardous materials used in workplaces to the users of those materials.

The steering committee consisted of three federal regulators, Labour, Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Health and Welfare Canada; three industrial representatives, one each from a major chemical producer, from a major chemical product user and from a manufacturers’ association; and three labour representatives chosen by the Canadian Labour Congress.

Additional ex officio members of the committee included the chairpersons of the various working groups, representatives from provincial and territorial occupational health and safety agencies, other interested industries or labour organizations and other interested federal departments. Membership on the committee totalled approximately 36 persons over the three-year period required to accomplish the mission.

The steering committee presented its report to the ministers across Canada with responsibility for occupational health and safety in July 1988. It is interesting to note that of the 87 recommendations in the report, 84 were consensus recommendations, despite the differing interests of the groups represented.

The consensus achieved was carried through in development of the legislation as well, both the federal legislation and the provincial legislation, so that we could implement the recommendations of the steering committee. Industry and labour were full participants with the federal and provincial regulators.

The impact of this consensus approach is truly remarkable, I believe, and has led to a greater awareness of this important initiative because it is being advocated not only by government but by industry and labour groups as well.

As an occupational health and safety initiative, the workplace hazardous materials information system has achieved a greater acceptance than any other occupational health and safety program in our history. The WHMIS hotline, established at the ministry, is receiving some 700 calls a week. It is hoped that we can build on this consensus and use it in other areas of occupational health and safety to match this truly unique and remarkable exercise.

WHMIS will strengthen the internal responsibility system on which Ontario’s occupational health and safety system is based. It will provide workers and management with the information about chemicals and hazards in the workplace that they need. It will ensure that workers are trained to understand that information and apply it in their everyday working situations. By providing information and training, it should ensure greater and more effective participation by workers in decisions that affect their own occupational health and safety.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Are there any questions and comments on the minister’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate?

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill 180. The amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act are amendments that labour welcomes, generally speaking, and seem to be ones that they basically agreed with, really to allow the introduction and enforcement of the WHMIS legislation and its national legislation coast to coast. They are amendments that meet many of the commitments made to labour and the national requirements.

However, there is, as the minister knows, at least one serious problem that most workers had hoped would be dealt with. It is a problem that makes one of the amendments -- and it is a key one -- pretty well meaningless. The act is to be amended in subsection 22g(2) to require worker training to be developed and implemented in consultation with the joint committee of health and safety representatives, if any, for the workplace.

The word “implemented” was welcomed and an improvement as far as most of the worker reps were concerned because it ensures their involvement in both the development and delivery of implementation as directed by the national agreement in their model occupational safety and health regulations. The operative word here, however, is “consultation.” Despite several attempts at interpreting this word, the bottom line remains that the Occupational Health and Safety Act does not compel the involvement of workers and their representatives in the delivery of training.

No amount of rhetoric suggesting that agreement between the workplace parties or workers training workers has merit alters the basic problem that consultation essentially means an employer can do exactly what the employer wants to do and the ministry cannot force the involvement of workers in the agreement.

The concern over this, as I think the minister well knows, is that it makes a bit of a mockery of the internal responsibility system. It is something that we in this party have argued about for a long time, where workers are supposed to share in the responsibility; and I might say questions the minister’s own rhetoric stating that stakeholders must be totally involved and that a true consultative and co-operative process is evolving in Ontario among government, labour and management. We have a little way to go on some of that as yet.

Sandra Glasbeek from the ministry has stated that it is the word “consultation” that represents the problem, and she is dead On. Clearly, the act must be amended to compel the involvement of workers. Fortunately, the word “consultation” was agreed to in the national model OSH. We understand what is going in across this country but, certainly on our part, we did not expect, and hoped we would not have, this limited

interpretation. Either the ministry must undertake to produce the

interpretation that compels the employer to involve worker members on joint committees to reach agreement over the development and implementation of the worker training or it must amend the act to provide for such involvement and agreement.

It is our hope and our understanding that the minister at least is willing to take a look, and I know he has been talked to on this particular matter by officials of the Ontario Federation of Labour and other groups that were involved in this safety and health legislation to take a look at amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that might deal with this particular problem in the future.

We understand that we are dealing with a national bill they want in across the country, and this is the wording that is going in in most of the provinces. It does not mean, however, that this minister could not deal with what is a very serious shortcoming in the bill.

The amendments also provide that the employer can have his or her material safety data sheets available on computer. We have raised the problem, and I believe this has also been raised with the minister -- I am not totally sure what his response was -- that computers cannot always be available in the workplace, if you know a little bit about them, because of the dust and dirt there which can foul up computers very quickly.

We have to be assured of access on any shift, not just on a day shift, where it might be available in the manager’s office. We need hard copies of the information available out on the work floor in many of the plants in Ontario and not just in a computer location, which, as I said before, is not necessarily secure, because we tend to have problems with computers in dusty or dirty workplaces.

The ministry is proposing to provide a regulation under subsection 22c(6) which would require the employer to furnish an inventory -- I think they are still working on the regulations to prescribe what would be in the inventory -- and up-to-date material safety data sheets to the medical officer of health, the fire department and the director in the ministry no later than October 31, 1990.

In the meantime, the wording of subsection 22c(6) provides for all of these authorities to request such information and to provide it for a community right to know. That is a regulation I know they are still working on. Both environmentalists and I know the city of Toronto are willing to accept “upon request,” but they feel a time limit should be required -- say, 30 days -- for the employer to forward the requested information.

Also, many medical officers of health and fire departments do not ever want all of this information automatically forwarded, since by October 31, 1990, they would have no way, really, of processing it.

I am not going to go into the notes I have on the meaning of consultation. I know there has been a considerable amount of work on that, but it is certainly the question that has to be resolved to make this legislation effective. I want to alert the minister to concerns that are already there. They back once again, I guess, on the concerns over whether “consultation” means serious involvement of the workers in the training programs and the other aspects of this right-to-know legislation on hazardous materials.

“Don Fraser, the field representative for the Hamilton Workers Health Centre, says the basic component of the legislation -- worker training -- is ill-defined.

“‘The legislation doesn’t set out the length or quality of the worker training, so there’s no doubt you’re going to have uneven levels of training in the country.’

“The national program requires hazardous materials to be labelled and accompanied by material safety data sheets (MSDS) with more detailed information. Mr. Fraser says there are specific guidelines for the sheets and labels, but not for the length of worker training.

“The workplace hazardous materials information system was initiated by the federal government, and the provinces will enforce it. Critics fear there will be difficulty with enforcement of worker training.”

We are going to have to see what happens with this, but I can tell members it is a very genuine concern.

“‘There are 200,000 workplaces, they’re not going to be able to check every one. Nothing will be done unless the worker complains to the Ministry of Labour and they come in to check it out.’

“Bob DeMatteo, health and safety officer of the union representing the provincial inspectors, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, agrees.

“‘The inspectors will come in and review the education activity and, since there are no hard-and-fast guidelines...the inspector will be asking himself, “Should I write an order?”‘“

I know the minister says the inspectors are trained in WHMIS and this is not going to be a problem. If he will forgive me for being a bit of a cynic, it is because of the problems we have had in terms of enforcement in the whole field of health and safety, something the minister knows very well. We are entering a new field here.

“The federal bill, passed in June 1987, governs suppliers and importers of hazardous chemicals. Complementary provincial amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act spell out the employers’ responsibilities.

“Linda Jolley, director of health and safety for the Ontario Federation of Labour, is confident more employers will make an effort to comply with the program because they had input.” I think she may be right on that.

“But she says the program is only a first step in the greater quest for information about long-term effects of chemical exposure.

“‘We want to know what these chemicals are doing to people in the long run. What good is the right to know when there’s nothing to know?’

“If there isn’t information about the long-term effects of a chemical, the supplier isn’t required to test it to find out.

“‘There will be a lot of material safety data sheets with blanks where the information isn’t available,’ said Mr. Fraser...” when he was commenting on this.

“Don Hall, the WHMIS coordinator for the Ontario government, says testing was just one of the concessions made when the program was being planned.

“‘Look, you’re going to put everybody out of business if you’re going to require every one of those substances to be tested. Some of these are going to be long-term tests. It’s not something we can put into a machine and read out.’”

That is an easy answer. It is a general answer that we have had on so many things. Most of us feel very strongly that testing should be done on the large number of new chemicals that will be hitting the workplace in advance of their entrance into the workplace.

These are concerns that I am well aware have been articulated with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) on this particular issue and that the labour people are certainly looking to for quick, not slow, action on some of the amendments that will be needed to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that will correct some of the shortcomings in the national legislation. In particular, I cannot overemphasize that the consultation process in setting up the training programs is what is required.

There is one other comment that I want to make about this particular bill because I think it is important. I will not go into it all, because it is a sideline, I guess, but it deals directly with the WHMIS legislation. It is my concern over the wire that we raised in this House that was sent from Washington to American embassies in this country where, in effect, they were complaining about the WHMIS legislation that we were proceeding with in this country.

I know the minister has said here provincially that it is not a concern, because -- I am not sure what his comments were -- it is not going to stop us from proceeding. I am convinced that the federal government could not have backed off at this stage either in this legislation, given the eight or nine years that we have been involved in putting it together. I think it is a clear indication of what is going to happen, particularly in future, when we decide we want to take an initiative that is not necessarily exactly what business welcomes with open arms.

There are, I think, a few paragraphs out of this particular wire that was sent to American embassies in Ottawa, Brussels and Geneva:

“Subject: Implementation of Canadian labelling regulations known as WHMIS.... Call for technical consultations.

“1. Action requested:

If that is not bad enough, they go on to say:

“B....Please bring contents of this message to the attention of...Garvey and Von Osvath...Del Bino, and note that European countries exporting to Canada will face the same problems as US companies.

“C. London: Transmit to health and safety executive Don Rolt, and note that British companies exporting to Canada will face the same problems as US companies.

“D. Other posts: Deliver a copy of these comments to the appropriate host government or international officials dealing with exports to Canada.

“E. Please report back to...Fuller, USTR, Washington, the date the message was delivered and to whom (name, organization, address and telephone/telex numbers).

There are a number of other paragraphs, all of which are very interesting, that I will not cover, but I think probably one or two more would be useful to put on the record.

“3. A Canadian MSDS must be created when the product exhibits one or more of the hazard characteristics and/or contains any of the more than 1,700 specific and nonspecific controlled (listed) products. The specific identity of the chemicals and their concentrations would also have to appear on the MSDS. This presents a special concern with regard to the trade secret provisions of WHMIS, since prior substantiation of trade secrets is required even if no challenge is made to the claim or if no outside request is made for the information.

“The potential here is for the burden of proof to substantiate trade secret claims on hundreds of thousands of products to fall on manufacturers of products being exported to Canada as well as on Canadian manufacturers. These claims would have to be resubstantiated every three years. The internal costs associated with developing the materials necessary to meet the unique criteria established under WHMIS could be prohibitive for many speciality mixtures produced in small volume.

“There is also a proposal to impose a fee structure for the government’s review and processing of the original and any reassertion of each trade secret claim, plus a significant additional fee to appeal an unfavourable decision or defend against any third-party appeal, no matter how frivolous it may be. We understand that figures currently being discussed are in the range of a $1,000 base, plus $100 per additional ingredient or MSDS and $2,000 per appeal. Many industries, such as the flavour and fragrance industries, rely heavily on their abilities to maintain secrecy of formulas.

They routinely have several hundred ingredients in a formulation, some of which they may have obtained from outside vendors themselves. The costs of pulling together the necessary documentation and filing a single claim will be significant. Multiply this by the hundreds of thousands of compounds formulated annually, and the cost could be...a...nightmare for the Canadian government.

“H. The WHMIS labelling requirements are very precise and rigid in their detail and contain some unique symbols. All symbols, including those that resemble existing UN or EC agreed symbols are required to be enclosed in a circle. This requirement is unique to WHMIS and would require the relabelling of all containers. The standards (i.e., what is flammable, reactive, carcinogenic, irritating, etc. and what specific test methods are required) for defining hazardous products are not always consistent with current US and EC standards.”

I will leave the next couple of paragraphs. I think this is the last one that is of some importance in this particular wire:

“‘...Loss of international competitiveness and a loss of jobs.’ If US exporters do not meet the new WHMIS requirements this forecast could become reality in Canada. Some US manufacturers have already indicated that they may choose to eliminate exports to Canada rather than risk divulging trade secret information or investing significant funds in substantiating trade secret claims or developing new MSDSs.”

I think this one is key:

“Chapter 6 of the proposed Canadian-United States free trade agreement (FTA) extols each party ‘to the greatest extent possible...[to] make compatible its standards, related measures and procedures....’ The ‘standstill’ provisions of that agreement commit us both to exercise discretion in the period prior to entry into force so as not to jeopardize the approval process or undermine the general spirit and mutual benefits of the FTA. The pending implementation of WHMIS will unfortunately not be consistent with the standstill provision of the spirit of FTA.”

Now, I am not sure that that is factual. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is a problem, because of when it started under the standstill provisions.

The point I am making in all of this is that if we had not reached the stage where it is passed, where it is now being put in effect as of yesterday in every province in Canada, that kind of pressure exerted a little earlier might have given us real problems; and it is a clear indication of what we can expect from the US under the terms of the FTA, not only the pressure from the United States but efforts to clearly line up governments and other nations to put the pressure on us so that we do not bring in basic legislation that protects the workers’ right to know what kind of hazardous materials they are working with, something we have been eight years in working on in this particular country.

I raise that wire only to alert all members of this House. If they had not already realized what some of the consequences of the FTA are, I think you get a classic example in that wire, which was shot out just a couple of weeks ago to US embassies all over the world.

Once again, Linda Jolley of the Ontario Federation of Labour tells me that she thinks she has an assurance from the minister about the problem I referred to, and that is the fact that sometimes the computers do not work too well in a dusty or dirty workplace, and hard information sheets are going to have to be available, not just locked into the office of the general foreman, who may work only certain days of the week or certain hours. I believe that commitment has been given. It is necessary in order to give any meaning to this legislation, and I trust that is going to be the procedure the minister will follow and that he can assure us of.

The other thing is the point I made in some detail at the beginning. We are going to have to have additional amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that take care of some of the concerns, particularly just what is involved in worker training and the consultation process, which are not clearly defined now. Even his own ministry people say that that is a bit of a problem at this point in time. I hope we will see that legislation and see it in this House very, very quickly.

With those kinds of understandings, we recognize the long fight for this and the necessity of this kind of labelling information, and we are pleased to support this particular bill.

M. Pope: Monsieur le Président, cela me fait plaisir de faire des commentaires au sujet du projet de loi 180. En tant que membre du caucus du Parti progressiste-conservateur, cela me fait plaisir d’indiquer au ministre du Travail (M. Sor