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

November 19, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L066 - Wed 19 Nov 1986 / Mer 19 nov 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PESTICIDES

ADULT EDUCATION

POLICE SERVICE

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

MICROELECTRONICS CENTRE

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

ORAL QUESTIONS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY

GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ON SOUTH AFRICA

PENSION FUNDS

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY

DETROIT INCINERATOR

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

EMISSION DISCHARGES

PROPANE EXPLOSION

RETIREMENT OF CLERK

CORPORATE TAXATION

SHORELINE PROTECTION

LOW-INCOME WORKERS

SCHOOL FUNDING

PETITIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS LEGISLATION

EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

SUCCESSION LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT ACT

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

TIME AMENDMENT ACT

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

HOMEMAKERS AND NURSES SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have talked many times about the lack of the ability of this government to have representation in the House. I see two ministers here and I do not recognize a quorum.

Mr. Speaker: No quorum is present -- I am sorry; a quorum is present.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PESTICIDES

Mr. Bernier: On Friday, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) spoke to the people of northwestern Ontario via CBQ radio in Thunder Bay about next year's forest spraying program. What he said was entirely incorrect. He said:

"We came back to the Legislature and we were given a sort of threat by the opposition party that if we did not agree just to spray with Bt there would not be a spraying program at all; so the fact of the matter is that in a minority situation we had to accept the will of the Legislature."

I would like to respond to that utterly false statement and to point out that the minister made no contact with either myself, as critic, or our party on this subject. In August, we emphatically wrote to the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce that the official opposition "has never adopted a position of universal opposition to the limited use of approved chemical pesticides. The decision not to use chemical pesticides was not decided by the will of this Legislature."

The decision to use bacillus thuringiensis to the exclusion of any other type of chemical agent was a decision made solely by the minister himself without staff consultation. This type of policy decision is an administrative responsibility, and the minister does not seem to be able to shoulder that. Our party, the official opposition, has offered to participate in a special inquiry, an all-party committee or even a royal commission to assist in developing an objective policy in Ontario relating to pesticides and herbicides.

It is a sad day for Ontario when a minister of the crown blames the legislative process for his own lack of leadership.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr. Allen: Adult continuing education in Ontario, having suffered two body blows in 1983 and 1984 at the hands of the then Minister of Education, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), is in growing danger of suffering a major traumatic experience when the tax assessment transfers under Bill 30 take place on January I so that Bill 30 may become fully operative.

It is absolutely critical that the minister at this time issue some clear direction with regard to appropriate funding and relationships between the boards around this issue. In the first place, he must clarify the legal issue. In addition, he must assure full and open access to the programs in adult education that the ministry supports; he must provide funding in such a way that such open access is effective and meaningful, and he must allow some across-the-board purchasing of service and billing arrangements to make equitable the funding and support system available.

POLICE SERVICE

Mr. Villeneuve: I want to draw to the attention of the House the manpower shortage in the Long Sault detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police. Residents of Crysler and area must put up with OPP response times ranging from one hour to 24 hours. Hunters trespassing on private property are long gone by the time the OPP arrive, and during the summer months the OPP must patrol parks, major highways and other areas with little or no time left to patrol communities and respond to individual residents' problems. OPP cruisers are not on the road continuously because of court duty, sickness and other problems, resulting in too few officers being available.

There have been no complaints from the officers of the detachment. They are dedicated professionals doing the best job they can with the available personnel. The concern is being raised by residents of Crysler and area who petitioned the OPP to provide the service to which their tax dollars entitles them. This petition to the OPP was signed by 120 persons.

This is a clear failure on the part of the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) to meet the policing needs of the communities in eastern Ontario. It reflects very badly when the Solicitor General would sooner use OPP boats for booze cruises, sipping and sailing, instead of taking the time to meet legitimate community concerns.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Ms. Gigantes: Since February 11, the government has had a bill before this House which it has called the first step in the battle against pay discrimination, Bill 105. The standing committee on administration of justice began public hearings on the bill on September 23; on October 8, the hearings were completed. On October 20, the New Democrats and Conservatives tabled comprehensive amendments to meet our longstanding commitment that Bill 105 would provide equal pay for work of equal value for the full public sector.

At the government's request, the NDP and Conservative members of that committee agreed to delay clause-by-clause consideration of the bill unti1 October 27 to allow the government to review our proposed amendments. From October 27 until today, through four weeks of justice committee sittings, the government has engaged in a filibuster of its legislation on equal pay. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has led Liberal members in a concerted effort to block the work of the committee. They have used procedural argument, irrelevant argument, recesses and stalls of every kind to bring committee work to a standstill.

The government is playing shameful games on the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. If the Liberals do not want an amended Bill 105, they should have the guts to withdraw it and table a bill to provide pay protection for all women who work in Ontario. Their current tactics are a disgrace and an insult to the women of this province.

MICROELECTRONICS CENTRE

Mr. Mitchell: Many of us in this Legislature had the opportunity this morning to meet with the board of directors of the Ontario Centre for Microelectronics and to learn at first hand how successful this facility is. It is one of the great successes in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program put into operation by our leader when he was Minister of Industry and Trade.

It is a tremendous success, yet in talking to the people from the microelectronics centre we find that they may be in danger of faltering. Why are they faltering? As I understand it, it is because under the direction given by the present government, they have been told not to appoint a new chief administrative officer for that great facility.

I am a little concerned about that. The centre cannot continue in this way. The government should immediately acknowledge the success of this facility and appoint a new chairman and not have a committee operating the centre, as is currently happening. I do not believe this needs reiterating, but I am going to say it again: This is a success; let not the government make it a failure.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to bring to the attention of the government an issue that is of continuing concern in Sault Ste. Marie. I refer to the escalating rate of unemployment in our community and the fact that we have had very little in terms of tangible initiatives from this government to assist Sault Ste. Marie in its economic turmoil.

Last summer, the major initiative announced by this government was the moving of 360 jobs from three ministries to northern Ontario. However, those jobs cannot move until the space is available in a facility in Sault Ste. Marie that can accommodate those positions. To this point, nearly six months after the announcement, we have not seen any action with respect to selecting a site for that facility or going to tender for construction of the major office complex.

The office complex is potentially a very large and major capital expenditure in the community. According to projections, it is likely to be roughly twice as big as the largest office complex currently in the city. It is a major capital project that the community is very much looking forward to. We want to see action on this facility as soon as possible in order that the jobs that have been promised to Sault Ste. Marie will be put in place. We are all looking forward to more jobs and more diversification of employment in our community.

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain if there should be more time.

Mr. McClellan: Give us some anyway.

Mr. Speaker: No. That completes the allotted time for members' statements.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, how can you have six 90-second statements, totalling nine minutes, and not have any time left? I do not understand that, and I ask you to check with the table again to find out how 10 minutes can go by in nine minutes.

Mr. Speaker: I believe we went through this on a previous occasion.

Mr. Stevenson: It must be the new time bill that is causing the trouble.

Mr. Speaker: That new bill may help. I will discuss it --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, this may be the reason some of that time has expired. I am looking around generally.

13:44

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Traditionally, when a minister is about to give a statement, he sends a copy of the statement over to the critic. In his attempt to follow this tradition, the minister has sent it to me. I hope the statement contains more than the envelope, because I got an empty envelope.

Mr. Speaker: I have heard of brown envelopes going around before.

Mr. Stevenson: Are we paying $55,000 for this sort of help?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Thank goodness there was no stamp on it.

My apologies to the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory). I know the contents are here somewhere. We will get them to him momentarily.

Mr. Gillies: We will be the judge of that.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not want that member to be my judge.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Today I have the pleasure to introduce legislation to reform the economic regulation of trucking in this province. The proposals contained in this legislation will benefit the entire industry, providing for increased competition, more responsive and flexible trucking services and lower transportation costs. In addition, they will improve truck safety on Ontario's highways, objectives this government is convinced are necessary to support Ontario's economy and the travelling public.

In the numerous representations made to me over the past year, the point was made again and again that the existing legislation cannot meet the needs of the manufacturing marketplace, which is the keystone of Ontario's economic viability. The current regulatory framework is provided by the Public Commercial Vehicles Act, which was enacted over 50 years ago. Since then, a patchwork of amendments has resulted in the legislation being both difficult to understand and to enforce. Consequently, it is perceived as unfair and inequitable by both carriers and shippers.

Trucking is crucial to Ontario's economic survival; it services virtually all our commercial sector to some degree. At the same time, transportation costs and services are becoming increasingly important as a cost of doing business.

The benefits from the increased competition we foresee will be more pronounced in northern Ontario, where transportation costs are higher and service options fewer. With more local involvement in trucking, there will be better service and job creation. Carriers serving northwestern Ontario, for example, will be able to obtain backhauls, obviously reducing costs not only of goods but also of transportation. In addition, with for-hire licences more attainable, northern truckers will be in a position to respond quickly to changing shipper or consumer demands.

In introducing reform measures, it is important that both the trucking industry and shippers be protected from any undue impacts, since both rely on the other. Hence, these reform proposals will steer clear of the virtual deregulation which occurred in the United States some six years ago. Because we learned from their experience, there will be mechanisms designed to prevent severe market disruptions, to stimulate fair and equitable competition and, most important, to ensure that highway safety will in no way be compromised.

The new legislation is the result of extensive consultation with a range of groups and associations with an interest in the for-hire trucking sector. While I am reluctant to single out any one group, I want to commend the Ontario Trucking Association; throughout the process, the OTA has provided helpful insight.

Additionally, a good deal of discussion took place with my counterparts in other provinces and the federal Minister of Transport in an effort to maximize consistency across Canada. Trucking regulatory reform is taking place throughout all provinces. Therefore, the legislation I am proposing is only a part of a wider effort, yet it seeks the same objectives as recent amendments to the federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act and the National Transportation Act.

I will be introducing three bills.

First, the Truck Transportation Act will replace the existing Public Commercial Vehicles Act. Entry control of the industry will be changed from an applicant having to prove a need for the service to a demonstration that he or she is fit to provide a responsible trucking service. Also, initially there will be provisions for a public interest hearing where there is concern about extensive market disruption.

Second, amendments to procedures at the Ontario Highway Transport Board will be proposed to accommodate the new regulatory system.

Finally, to ensure safe performance in the trucking industry, amendments to the Highway Traffic Act will be tabled, placing increased responsibilities upon truck operators for highway safety.

13:50

Mr. Gregory: At this point, I congratulate the minister for finally bringing in this legislation, which has been coming for a long time.

The minister was remiss in not mentioning this draft bill was prepared some time ago by a former Minister of Transportation and Communications, the Honourable James Snow. The draft bill was prepared to enable input from the various sectors across Ontario. I understand the minister is now benefiting from the information that was secured.

He probably was remiss in not mentioning the work of the select committee on the highway transportation of goods back in 1976, which I had the honour to chair. I want no credit for that, but I hope many of the recommendations on this legislation will come from that select committee.

Also in 1976, there was a select committee on highway safety. No doubt the minister has read its proceedings and findings from cover to cover and would be prepared to debate them at any time, which would also have a great bearing on the legislation as it is coming forward.

I promise the minister that when the legislation is introduced, there will be a rather interesting discussion. I hope to see the results of some of the public input that has been secured in the hearings.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is with concern that I view the legislation the minister is suggesting to the House today. What I would like to do for just a moment is to take this House through some of the more telling testimony we heard in our free trade committee hearings concerning deregulation in the United States.

Three representatives of the Canadian trucking industry appeared before that committee. Those representatives told us that deregulation in the United States had resulted initially in better prices for those shipping goods, but that it was a short-lived benefit. What happened also was that there was a tremendous shakedown in the industry and many of the smaller companies went out of business or were gobbled up by the big boys. Following that, many of the medium-sized companies went out of business.

I specifically asked questions to do with safety and environmental matters. We were told that in medium-sized companies those were some of the first things that went as they tried to stay competitive in the new deregulated market.

The most telling argument of all before that committee was the information from the trucking executives that when total deregulation was finished, they had a lot fewer trucking companies. I think there were 57 per cent fewer organized teamsters and better-paid workers in the industry. The prices were back up almost to where they were before deregulation took place. That is a scary scenario. The minister had better have in place all the protections he is talking about before he moves in this area.

The trucking industry was essentially not supporting the free trade initiative, but making it clear to us that if we have any kind of free trade agreement in this country with the United States -- a bilateral free trade agreement -- then trucking deregulation is necessary immediately as the only way they could survive. By that, I think they meant some of them, and that is the bigger operators in the business.

The minister also makes comments about how this will benefit the north. My northern colleagues have been quick to tell me the pattern is that there may be initial benefit, as there was in the United States, with a little more competition in the big market areas. That does not necessarily hold true in the small market areas where it is something like the airline industry; there you find them pulling out and you find less competition and less ability to look for prices in terms of the transportation of goods.

There are serious questions as far as northern Ontario is concerned in this government move. I want to see an awful lot more information than we have before we rush into trucking deregulation in Ontario.

13:55

ORAL QUESTIONS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I think it speaks volumes that the minister is here today and not out in British Columbia dealing with a very important issue that confronts all Ontarians. We now have a situation where more than 900 people are out of work in northern Ontario, arising out of the softwood lumber decision. It is going to be discussed in Vancouver, and our minister of trade is here in Toronto. It also speaks volumes that neither he nor the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Kerrio) bothered to make a statement to the people of this province today, with 900 people out of work and another 65 layoffs reported in Thunder Bay's paper today.

Who will be presenting Ontario's position in Washington on the softwood lumber matter on December 1? Will Ontario's position be the national position?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am going to Vancouver. I will be leaving very early in the morning. I came here today in case the member had a question to ask me. I knew he would want to be kept up to date. As I have told the member in the past, we will be represented in Washington, as we have been represented in Ottawa in our discussions with the federal government; and the matter of softwood lumber will be discussed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) with the federal government officials and other provincial people.

Mr. Pope: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology should be out in Vancouver fighting for Ontario's position. On October I he supported a national position that has cost Ontario 800 jobs. He should be out fighting for Ontario's interests. He never answered my question. Who is going to fight for Ontario's interests in Washington? Who is going to present Ontario's position in Washington on December 1? Will Ontario's position be the national position?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Again, had the member seen the

schedule for the meeting of the Premiers he would know the meetings start tomorrow. I will be there for those meetings. Ontario will have officials there. We will have lawyers who will represent us, both from here and there. If required, I will also be there to fight the case.

Mr. Pope: On October I and for three weeks following, this minister and this government went along with the national proposal of an eight per cent to 10 per cent solution announced by Pat Carney. The Ontario Progressive Conservatives forced him to abandon that position when he knew it would cost 500 to 1,000 jobs in northern Ontario. He has systematically refused for the past three-and-a-half weeks to tell us who will be representing Ontario's interests in Washington on December 1.

He did not file a request for a hearing on his own behalf. He has refused to tell us who is representing him. He has refused to tell us what his position is going to be, and 900 people in northern Ontario are out of work because he will not bother.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pope: Now who is representing Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We have notified the Department of Commerce that we will be represented at those hearings, which we are required to do before the end of November. We have done that. With respect to a lot of information about the questions the member is asking me in the House, the most recent time we met with Pat Carney I understand he made two or three calls to her asking for information. He wanted to know what was going on, to give his advice.

ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY

Mr. Grossman: Is the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) in the back room somewhere?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He will not be here until near the end of question period.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a question to which minister?

Mr. Grossman: I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of Health. Does the government House leader know how long he will be?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He is on my absent list; that is all.

Mr. Grossman: In the absence of the Minister of Health, I will ask the Attorney General the question. I hope he will be aware that in 1984 Windsor lawyer Charles Clark was appointed to head a review into the practice of using electroconvulsive shock therapy on patients in Ontario. The report that was received by the Attorney General's colleague in December 1985 contained 39 recommendations. I am sure the Attorney General is very concerned about making sure that the legal and other rights of the patients in Ontario's system are being protected.

Will he report to the House today how many of the 39 recommendations have been implemented?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am aware of the report and I have read significant portions of it, and I know the Minister of Health is aware of the report and is considering it. I will bring my learned friend's inquiry to his attention this afternoon and try to get an answer for him at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Grossman: I wonder whether we can prevail upon the Attorney General to do one thing further, and that is to take this position: in the event that none, or very few, of the 39 recommendations have been implemented -- and my information is that none has been implemented -- will the Attorney General agree that, pursuant to the recommendations of Mr. Clark, shock treatment should be stopped immediately until the safeguards recommended by Mr. Clark are put in place?

Hon. Mr. Scott: This is another example of my honourable friend asking a question to which he apparently knows the answer. I take it l am now discharged from passing the request on to the Minister of Health, because the questioner has indicated he already knew the answer when he asked the first question. However, I will pass on the concern he has expressed.

Mr. Davis: It is interesting that you do not know the answer, though. Why do you not know the answer?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I raise the matter because when I came here I really believed questions were asked for information and information was provided.

Mr. Gillies: Don't be naïve.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I run the risk of getting a lousy question rating from the press gallery for making this observation, but as the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) says, it was perhaps incurably naïve of me to think that questions were posed in order to obtain information.

However, let me advise the honourable member that I will convey to the Minister of Health this afternoon, if I can reach him, the member's concern about the recommendations Mr. Clark made in that most important report.

Mr. Grossman: I say to the Attorney General in all seriousness, in response to the rather snide and supercilious attitude and the joking with which he treats a problem that affects patients who today, almost a year after the minister received a report, are receiving shock treatment, no less, without any appropriate safeguards being put in place, that while he may enjoy trivializing the questions that are asked in this House, while he might like to muse quietly about his irritation at being asked questions that relate directly to the safety and welfare of the mental health patients in this province, he has a responsibility to those patients.

I will therefore repeat the second question I asked, because it has not been answered. One year after the report has been received, there are patients today who are receiving shock treatment without having any safeguards put in place. Does the Attorney General not agree that, in the absence of safeguards, those shock treatments should be stopped immediately until his colleague puts in the safeguards?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the member knows, the concern for the circumstances in which shock treatment prescribed by fully qualified medical doctors is provided to patients has been a legitimate concern of members of this party and members of the third party for some years. The member for Scarborough West (Mr. K. F. Johnson), for example, has been concerned with various aspects of this and raised the matter almost interminably with the previous government.

The report is now at hand and, as I have indicated to the member, it is not a report that is within my ministry. I will bring his concerns to the Minister of Health as soon as I can reach him this afternoon in order that he may respond as quickly as possible.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Can you inform me whether the Attorney General bills the Legislature for his lectures?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. That is a point of personal comment.

Mr. Rae: He charges exactly what they are worth.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is getting up to pick on mascots again. What mascot is he picking on today?

Mr. Rae: The mascot I am going after today is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ON SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to refresh his memory about the recommendations he made to cabinet back in September with regard to South Africa. The first recommendation the ministry made was, and I am quoting, "The government continue to urge Varity" -- that is to say Massey-Ferguson -- "to consider its policy with regard to South Africa, but take no further action." I wonder whether the minister would care to cut through the Sir Humphreyesque bafflegab which that sentence clearly represents and tell us what in goodness' name is the government's policy with respect to its shares and its direct investment in South Africa.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The leader of the third party knows that was a cabinet document that was submitted for consideration by cabinet. Whether the recommendations will be accepted or whether they will be changed by the cabinet still remains to be seen. In looking at that, I think the last thing the leader of the third party would want to see is Massey-Ferguson put in such a position that it would have to lay off additional workers or close its plants here in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: The minister has not answered the question. The federal government has undertaken certain very modest, but nevertheless clear measures with respect to South Africa. In September, the minister recommended to cabinet that a ban on all Ontario government procurement in South Africa be implemented, as well as a ban on all products coming from companies that have a majority ownership in South Africa. Can the minister explain why even these very modest -- one could say inadequate -- recommendations have not been followed by his cabinet colleagues?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We consider that to be a very important matter. We hope the recommendations in the document will go forward again to cabinet and will be dealt with as soon as possible.

Mr. Rae: Clearly, the minister is saying that even these totally inadequate recommendations, even the ones that suggest that all Ontario should do is parallel what the federal government is doing, have not been accepted by his Liberal Party colleagues and cabinet.

Can the minister explain why Ontario imported more between January and June 1986 than in the same period in 1985? When it comes actually to looking at what has taken place since he announced his much-touted gestures with respect to South Africa, why is it that trade has increased and that cabinet has done absolutely nothing with respect to the recommendations that he and his colleagues have made with respect to divestment, procurement and direct investment in South Africa?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: It is hoped the cabinet will act very shortly on some of those matters.

14:10

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: I would like to turn to another area where the cabinet has done less than nothing. Can the Minister of Financial Institutions, who is responsible for pension reform and for headlines in many newspapers, tell us why he has been unable to produce legislation for us at this stage and why that legislation does not contain any protection with respect to inflation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: l find it very interesting that the leader of the third party says we have not been able to produce any legislation, and then he says what is in it. I suggest he comment on the legislation when he sees it.

Mr. Rae: The minister clearly is not interested in engaging in any useful dialogue on this question.

In 1984, when the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) was the Treasurer in the Conservative government and was holding interprovincial conferences with respect to pension reform, John Ilkiw, a senior adviser to the Treasurer on pension reform, who I understand is now working in the private sector, made this statement:

"`Inflation protection per se does not involve extraordinary costs,' said John Ilkiw, a senior adviser on pension reform to Ontario Treasurer Larry Grossman. `Pension plans already profit from increases in the inflation rate which boosts the returns on investments made by pension funds,' Ilkiw said."

Is it still the position of the government that pension funds benefit from inflationary increases and that it is only fair that workers, who should be receiving money from those pension funds, should also receive some kind of increase as a result of inflation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party will know this government is on record as saying it favours mandatory inflation protection. That being said, he will also know that during negotiations with other jurisdictions in Canada, with the various provinces and the federal government, we could not get consensus. He will also know that notwithstanding what Mr. Ilkiw and other people say -- that it is possible mandatory inflation protection would cost no more than one per cent of payroll -- there are others who feel that is not accurate and that it could cost significantly more than that. These are some of the problems we have to address.

Mr. Rae: It must be tough to be in government. I do not know how they solve all those problems. It would be nice if the minister would tell us in his view today, as minister responsible for pension reform, (

a) what the cost would be of providing for indexation for private pensions; and (

b) how much the value of private pensions has gone up in relation to inflation in the past two years.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: One of our problems is that I cannot give the member that information; it is not readily available where I can say, "This is what it is going to cost to provide mandatory inflation protection for all the private pension funds in Ontario." That information is just not available. Our problem is that there are people such as the leader of the third party who say it is one per cent of payroll, but if you investigate you find it is not so. The exact figure is something we have to determine.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Sterling: My question is for the Attorney General. According to Superintendent Jack Burke, who is with the community services division of the Ontario Provincial Police, if an OPP officer were found to have open liquor on a boat, he would be charged and suspended from his job and could even be fired. The Ministry of the Attorney General Act,

section 5, says, "The Attorney General...shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law." Can the Attorney General tell us why our top cop, our Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes), is being treated differently from the ordinary people of the province?

Interjections.

Mr. Davis: Laugh this one off.

Hon. Mr. Scott: When the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) is finished, I will begin to answer the question. Is he finished?

The fact is, as the members know, an investigation is being undertaken by the staff of the crown law office. When that investigation is completed I will report to the House.

Mr. Sterling: This morning we contacted the OPP to see how many other luncheons and how many other boat rides had been taken and by whom. We were told they could make no comment and we would have to speak directly to someone from the Solicitor General's office. We believe this is a blatant attempt to cover up information which every person in this province has a right to know. Will this information be readily available to us under Bill 34, the Attorney General's freedom-of-information bill?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The answer to that question is that clearly it would not be available to the member under the bill he introduced in this House or under any of the bills he has discussed.

There is a possibility that it might be available -- not a necessity, but a possibility, depending on questions of timing that the act presents -- under the bill we have introduced. If we can get that bill moving in committee as quickly as possible, I hope we can report on it to the House.

Mr. Davis: Why do you not show up once in a while?

Mr. Rae: Do you even know where the committee is held?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are members who want to ask questions.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It should be clarified that if the Attorney General would show up at the committee we would get on with the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I remind all members that we have a book of standing orders. I suggest you all read it and refer to the standing orders.

ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY

Mr. Reville: I want to give the Attorney General an opportunity to participate in the question period. My question relates to what he knows about the matter of electroconvulsive therapy and the civil rights of people in Ontario. The Attorney General will know his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has shared his views with the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), and the Attorney General will know his ministry is very active in this matter.

Will the minister not acknowledge to the House that we have had no action on a matter of extreme importance regarding the civil rights of people in Ontario precisely because the report is stuck in a committee in his ministry, that is, the Guardianship Committee?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not accept that assessment at all. As the honourable member very correctly says, the views of a number of ministries on this important and critical subject have been made known to the Minister of Health.

The Guardianship Committee is not some government or bureaucratic committee; it is a committee composed of representatives of consumers and social service providers, a committee made up of representatives of the public. They have been considering the matter, as I understand it, to make their views known.

I do not believe it is a bad thing to have that kind of consultation with consumers, with patients and with service providers undertaken by a government. All those interest groups and ministries should have a right to express their views to the minister before he recommends to his cabinet colleague the appropriate response.

While I am on my feet, I can say I am anxious that the standing committee on administration of justice should deal with Bill 51 , but it has been so busy dealing with quasi-political matters that it has not had time to turn to freedom of information.

14:20

Mr. Reville: I remind the Attorney General it is the standing committee on resources development that is dealing with Bill 51.

I also remind the Attorney General that I do not believe there is one consumer in the province who thinks it is appropriate to put an electric charge through somebody's brain against his will. I ask the Attorney General to rise in the House now and say whether it is his position that somebody who is competent under the law and who has refused electroconvulsive therapy should be subjected to such treatment.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, the issue that is presented by that question is that of the circumstances, if any, in which that kind of treatment should be provided by a duly qualified medical practitioner. That issue has been addressed by a number of reports. A number of ministries have concerns about it, which they have made known to the Minister of Health. A number of consumer groups, including patient groups, who are members of the Guardianship Committee, are anxious to make their views known, and their views should be heard.

As the member will also know, Bill 7 has a number of important amendments to make with respect to this kind of matter. When the executive council makes the decision, the Minister of Health will respond to questions of that type.

DETROIT INCINERATOR

Mr. Newman: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I understand the Minister of the Environment has been over to Detroit to see exactly what the city of Detroit is planning. What they are planning is the construction of a monster incinerator that will pollute not only Detroit but also Windsor and its surroundings.

What plans does the minister have concerning this issue so we can convince the mayor of Detroit that if they are going to build an incinerator, at least they should have up-to-date pollution control devices?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is correct. I attended a conference yesterday, which really dealt with the Great Lakes and was a very useful conference. However, at the conference I had the opportunity to meet with officials of the state of Michigan to canvass with them the options that might be available.

I indicated once again -- and I know the federal minister, the city of Windsor and the local members of the Legislature have done so -- the position we have in Ontario that Detroit should not construct this incinerator without the best and latest available technology.

Unfortunately, Detroit has a permit that has allowed its construction to proceed. Nevertheless, I indicated very strongly to the officials of the state of Michigan that we wished to see an intervention on their part with the city of Detroit. Yes, an additional cost would be applied -- the estimate that Detroit has is $17 million in capital costs and some operating costs -- but it would be essential to protect the people of Detroit and those of Windsor and Essex county.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the government House leader. I want to ask the government House leader whether he feels it appropriate -- this is the second day of asking -- that the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes) remain in his position as the chief law enforcement officer for Ontario after he has so seriously put at risk the reputation of the Ontario Provincial Police. We excused his demeaning request that the OPP salute him, but now we ask whether the government can condone this minister asking the OPP to cater to and be a party to his famous booze cruise, putting at risk the reputation of the force while he flagrantly broke the law.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has indicated to the House that the matter is under investigation.

Mr. Gillies: This so-called investigation seems a little superfluous. The facts of the matter are not in dispute by the Solicitor General or by any other member of this House. We also question an investigation being conducted by the Attorney General, his own rather cavalier attitude towards liquor laws being known through his famous front-lawn booze party.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On what ground does the honourable member question an investigation conducted by me?

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

Mr. Gillies: Why is it necessary to have a superfluous investigation conducted by a minister who had an unlicensed party on the front lawn of the Legislature not one and a half years ago, although he did not seem to see anything wrong with that? What is necessary is to maintain the integrity of the government by accepting the minister's resignation. Why will the government not do the honourable thing and accept the minister's resignation, as is requested in this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member for Brantford has set himself up as some sort of executioner on the basis of his own opinion that we on this side are not prepared to accept his views. The law officers of the crown, under the direction of the Attorney General, have important responsibilities in this regard, which we recognize, in spite of the views of the member for Brantford, which are well known on a wide variety of these matters.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Ms. Gigantes: I will ask a question of the minister responsible for women's issues. Will the minister confirm that the delay in providing protection against gender-based pay discrimination is costing working women in Ontario an average of $100 a week?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not have the answer to that question. I will try to ascertain it.

Ms. Gigantes: It seems to me the minister should know; it is an important area for which he has responsibility, and he should be able to answer that question.

The minister is reported to have told business representatives yesterday that equal pay adjustments would not raise their payroll costs and that equal pay increases to women could be made from moneys that are normally allocated to wage increases. Why is he proposing that workers, rather than employers, foot the bill for equal pay?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The quotation that was assigned to me in that press report, if that is what it was, was misunderstood. What I was trying to explain was that in a number of jurisdictions in which pay equity has been introduced, either in the public sector or in the private sector, the costs of implementing it for women who were entitled was frequently, though not always, substantially less than inflationary increases that are normally borne annually by an employer.

Also, the concern that the costs would be exorbitant was not demonstrated, when it was borne in mind that the costs often were less than the inflationary increases that employers normally have to bear in normal market circumstances. For example, in the city of Toronto, the cost of pay equity in those areas in which it was applied was substantially less than four per cent.

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment, who is noted for his short and concise responses. I want to say initially that I am pinch-hitting for the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward), who could not be here today, and indeed for the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Munro), who cannot ask a question.

Mr. McClellan: Question.

Mr. Davis: Did you write it for him?

Mr. Ferraro: I do not understand this, Mr. Speaker. I cannot do any worse than some of my friends' questions. They should give me a break.

The question pertains to the Lax company's harbour site in Hamilton and essentially to the cost of cleaning up the contaminants there. The estimated cost was originally $215,000. Unfortunately, it was discovered that more contaminants had been dumped into the river than was originally believed and the cost jumped to $1.6 million. Is the minister aware of that? If so, what is he going to do about this problem?

14:30

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I believe I did see a television clip on this. My understanding of it is that the case is as the member has suggested. At a meeting in Hamilton, members of one of the committees of city council discussed this. Members of the House, particularly those from around Hamilton, may be aware that they are attempting to use the property around the bay for recreational purposes.

In the light of the question the minister has asked --

Mr. Davis: The minister? You are the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am the minister. Perhaps I have made a prophecy that the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) would be pleased to have come true.

Our investigations and enforcement branch will be looking into this matter to determine whether there was any illegal dumping or whether it was in excess of what is required by the Ministry of the Environment. I will give an undertaking to have an investigation by our ministry. On all of these occasions, I know the investigations and enforcement branch takes the appropriate action on its own initiative.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Attorney General. We found out yesterday from Superintendent Jack Burke of the Ontario Provincial Police that the police are exercising a discretion with regard to laying charges with respect to people who are drinking while a boat is under way. Evidently, they exercise this discretion not to lay a charge if there are important people on board.

Is the Attorney General willing to acknowledge that all people hereinafter charged with a similar offence will have open to them a defence of improper use of police discretion, as long as they have an important person on board?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Of course, I am not.

Mr. Sterling: Will the Attorney General ensure that some 800 ordinary people of this province who have been charged and/or convicted of a similar offence be treated in the same vein and the same manner as the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) of this province and either have their charges dropped or withdrawn, or their fines refunded so that everyone in this province will be treated by the rule of law which it is the Attorney General's duty to enforce?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The allegations that were made about the conduct of the Solicitor General and about which he made a comment himself yesterday are in the course of being investigated by the police and by the crown law office. If there is anybody else my honourable friend wants investigated, he should let me know.

Mr. Gillies: It is about time you guys realized there is only one law in this province, not one for the general public and one for cabinet ministers.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) contain himself. Other members wish to ask questions.

EMISSION DISCHARGES

Mrs. Grier: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment about his promised revisions to his fines and penalties legislation. Can the minister tell the House whether the revisions he proposes to bring before us will make the crown subject to the Ontario Water Resources Act, so that provincially owned facilities are treated in the same way as any other facilities that discharge effluent to our waterways?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am sorry I missed the press conference the member for Lakeshore had today. I did not get that opportunity. I am told this was a topic of some considerable interest. Was it the member's press conference or another press conference? I am not quite certain. To answer the question the member asked, and that is what she wants me to do, I think she may be under the mistaken impression -- and it is understandable because of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program dealing with water -- that the MISA program involved the Ontario Water Resources Act.

It is my intention to proceed with the MISA program under the Environmental Protection Act. It is my understanding, in consulting with the legal people in our ministry, that

section 19 of the Environmental Protection Act specifically binds the crown. As a result, all plants will be regulated under the MISA pollution abatement regulation. That would mean the Ministry of the Environment, and I think the Ministry of Government Services which might be involved because it is crown-owned land, would both be prosecutable. Since we are proceeding with the MISA program under the Environmental Protection Act, and since the forthcoming amendments will deal with the Environmental Protection Act, under which MISA will be regulated, the answer is that we will not be immune from prosecution.

Mrs. Grier: I did not ask the minister about his MISA program. I asked him about a device open to him to do in the short term what he says he wants to do in the long term, that is, to amend Bill 112, which deals with fines and penalties, so that he can immediately make crown-owned facilities subject to the same fines and penalties as any other polluter.

Can the minister tell us why he is not prepared to do that when the opportunity presents itself to him so simply and so soon?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is --

Mr. Stevenson: Here comes another verbal spill.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Durham York, who intervenes, is an individual who is a specialist at verbal spills. Perhaps we can place the member under the Environmental Protection Act as well. He has referred to me -- I do not know whether in a complimentary or noncomplimentary fashion -- as Captain Chemical. I reject that. What was the question?

Mr. Speaker: Can I have a response?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The question related to the penalties legislation, which is going to be proceeded with during this session of the Legislature. I am quite willing to entertain all the suggestions that have been made. The member will know that during the summer months a number of representations were made by different groups and organizations. I believe she herself has made some suggestions. I want to take those all into consideration and proceed with a bill which is absolutely the most effective possible to ensure that the environment of this province is protected.

PROPANE EXPLOSION

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In response to a previously asked question by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) relating to the explosion which occurred at the corner of Weston Road and Victoria Boulevard, I wish to inform the member that, as of this time, the investigation into the situation is ongoing and has not yet been completed. However, preliminary evidence seems to indicate that the explosion occurred in the attached garage, which, technically, is not related to the propane-dispensing facility. It is like the garage where car repairs are done at one's local gasoline station.

In any event, the fuels safety branch of my ministry completed a full inspection of this site on March 17, 1986, and gave final approval, having checked all requirements to determine compliance. No further inspections took place after March 17. That was one of the things the member asked me about.

These propane facilities licensed by the ministry number about 1,800 to 2,000 in Ontario, and our records indicate that we have experienced no major problems with them. In fact, during the past two years, we have experienced three minor fires at propane refueling stations in Ontario, similar to the one in the member's riding.

The explosion appears to have originated in a garage and not in the actual site of the propane-dispensing facility. The investigation is ongoing, and I will keep the member informed on any new information I receive.

Mr. Rae: The minister will know that this is in the middle of a residential area. If he wants to go up Weston Road, it is a block away from my constituency office. It is smack in the middle of a residential area. There are houses 80 feet away and residents were very concerned and expressed their concern over a period of months.

Is it the general practice of the ministry simply to have one inspection and no additional or routine inspections of these facilities? If that is the practice, is he not concerned that, as a result of this explosion, ongoing inspections are necessary and should be introduced as a matter of rule, particularly where facilities are put right in the middle of residential areas?

14:40

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am concerned, but I would also like to point out, just so there is no misunderstanding, that what normally happens is that an inspection takes place before the facility can operate. Subsequent to that, there are random inspections. In this case, the records show there was not an inspection subsequent to March 17.

Notwithstanding that, the preliminary report shows the accident happened in the garage and had nothing to do with the facility itself. If the inspectors had gone there and seen the facility, it would not have prevented the explosion in the garage, which had nothing to do with the installation of the facility.

RETIREMENT OF CLERK

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Attorney General. On October 14 of this year, in response to a question from our leader concerning the severance package awarded to the former Clerk, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) indicated with respect to the legal opinion the government had on the matter, "The answer is that the Attorney General has given a legal opinion on this matter."

Yesterday the Attorney General tabled in the House a legal opinion, not by him but by Graham Stoodley, director of legal services for the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. Can the Attorney General please tell us whether he personally provided a legal opinion on this issue to the Premier and the government?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The opinion the Attorney General's department provided to the government is the opinion that is set out in the return to the question dated last April. I have been asked whether I agree with the opinion, and I have made it plain on a number of occasions orally that the effect of the 1974 legislation is to invest the Clerk with an office for life that can only be terminated after a trial at the bar of the House in which cause is demonstrated.

Mr. Eves: First, the Attorney General is telling us that when the Premier indicated the Attorney General had given an opinion on this matter, in fact he had not.

Second, if the Attorney General will look at Mr. Stoodley's opinion, as I am sure he has, Mr. Stoodley comes to the conclusion that what the former Clerk is legally entitled to as a retirement or severance package is much less than that proposed or given by the government.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The answer to the first question is no, I do not agree.

The answer to the second question is that Mr. Stoodley's opinion is that, by virtue of the statute, the Clerk had an appointment for life, subject to termination for cause. I have orally agreed with that opinion.

CORPORATE TAXATION

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer realize that in a meeting of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs on October 8, when Robert Luba, executive-vice president of Crown Life, a company whose net income was $17.5 million, was asked when his company last paid corporate income tax, he answered: "A long time ago. It was before my time....not within recent history. Many years ago."

When I asked the same question of P. D. Burns, president and chief executive officer of Confederation Life Insurance Co., a company whose net income is $408 million, he said he could not remember either.

If the Treasurer were to ask the same question of a working single mother earning $18,000 in this city and living below the poverty line, she would answer, "Last payday." Does the Treasurer think that is fair? When is he going to change it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The insurance companies pay other forms of taxes, as I am sure the honourable member is aware. I cannot defend them. I am delighted, however, that the new committee I set up is working so effectively.

Mr. Foulds: Could I ask the Treasurer and his officials to work just as effectively, and to look seriously at removing at least the $625 of income tax that Ontario collects from that poor working single mother and that he urge his federal counterpart to remove the $1,200 in income tax she pays? The Treasurer knows full well that she too pays other taxes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure the member is aware that our corporation income taxes parallel the structure of the federal tax almost exactly. On a number of occasions, we have put forward amendments that have been supported by the member and other members in the House to effect that parallelism. There is nothing new in that, and we think it is important to maintain it.

I also want to respond to the comments made by the Treasury critic of the New Democratic Party having to do with decreasing the number of people at the low end of the income spectrum who are paying income taxes. I have said it many times and I am delighted to say it again. In the two budgets for which I have been responsible, we have increased the amount available for tax reduction, which is applied 100 per cent to those people at the low end of the income spectrum. In these two budgets, more than 500,000 people who still pay tax at the federal level have been removed from the responsibility of paying provincial tax.

SHORELINE PROTECTION

Mr. McCague: I presume the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) will not be here.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have not been informed that he will not be present, but I am told he is not well.

Mr. Speaker: A question to any minister?

Mr. McCague: The acting Chairman of Management Board will do. Last week I brought to the attention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs the need for about $1.5 million in my riding for shoreline assistance. Did cabinet and Management Board approve the $1.5 million that is necessary?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I should point out that it is not all for the honourable member's riding, but in the program that is established, which requires the government to meet certain payout provisions as the applications come in, all the money previously allocated has been used, as might be expected. Management Board of Cabinet has approved an additional $1.5 million, and I am not at all sure that will be sufficient to take us through the fiscal year.

Mr. Brandt: Surely the acting Chairman of Management Board is aware of the fact that the number of requests that have come from municipalities right across Ontario will far exceed the very small additional amount he has made provision for, namely, the $1.5 million my colleague mentioned.

In recognition of the $400-million windfall which my leader has pointed out still remains somewhere in the murky depths of the Treasury closets, will the minister not use some of that money to grant some relief to the taxpayers and citizens of this province who are having a problem and who are being devastated with high water at this time?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the honourable member understands my previous answer. I said the $1.5 million allocated recently, and as a matter of fact approved by cabinet today, would be used in response to the applications received. The program permits other applications, and we will fund them as they come in.

If you will give me a moment, Mr. Speaker, to respond to the comment made by the member that we have $400 million lying around that we do not know what to do with, the member will be aware that the money is already allocated. Without listing it all, $60 million has gone to the colleges' special fund, something like $80 million has gone to the Ontario health insurance plan for utilization, $14 million extra to firefighting and so on. I should also refer to the fact that $100 million went to reduce the cash requirements.

We are hoping the buoyancy of the economy of the province will continue so we can make an even stronger response to shoreline protection in the manner the honourable member brings to our attention. However, the $1.5 million extra has been allocated, and we are still receiving applications.

14:50

LOW-INCOME WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I will direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Unfairness and discrimination against women, in the ethnic community in particular, is nowhere more obvious than in the service industry, especially among cleaners and food service workers. They have underlined that with a 10,000-name petition that is on the desk of my leader today. The situation is so bad that the Premier himself was forced to intervene in the Olympia and York situation to fend off public indignation just a short year ago.

This minister has constantly said that government and private sector tendering is under active review. Is "active review" the Liberal government's euphemism for actively sitting on the issue?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The matter that so concerns the cleaners and this government is one of many for which we are reviewing the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act.

I can only say that while a number of these matters may already have reached a conclusion in that the government may have decided on legislative amendments it can propose, because the spectrum of legislative amendments in these acts is quite wide -- I think the honourable gentleman will agree that very substantial amendments to these acts are necessary -- we intend to come forward with an amending bill that amends more than this one narrow issue. When those changes come forward, they will come forward as part of many changes to the act.

Mr. Mackenzie: How long does the minister think he can get away with ignoring a very obvious injustice and unfairness in this situation? It does not need to wait for the comprehensive legislation the minister is talking about. How long will we continue to allow discrimination against these employees who do not have the same rights as other unionized employees in a business that happens to be sold?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member has proposed an amendment of his own to the act that my colleagues and I find unacceptable. The very simple amendment he has talked about is one that goes far beyond helping that group and has implications for the construction industry and the automotive industry, as the member knows. While his amendment would protect unionized workers in the cleaning industry, it would not protect nonunion workers. This minister and this government are going to protect all workers and not just some workers.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board has requested funding for additions to three high schools in its jurisdiction. The additions are necessary to provide space for students who have a right to go to that system to acquire a secondary school education. Why is the minister not helping them with the funding? Why is he dumping the total burden of that funding on the local taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to disagree with my learned friend from Manotick, because we are doing nothing of the sort. I am pleased to have the member for Carleton-Grenville strongly advocating the case for the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board, but I can tell him that this government, under the leadership of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), will expend approximately $147 million on the capital account in 1987, which will be double the allocation of the honourable member's government in 1985.

Specifically, the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board will continue to share very substantially in those capital dollars, but it will not be given retroactive funding for projects it was told it ought not to proceed with until approvals were forthcoming. The member should know that. Let me repeat, the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board continues to share very substantially in the capital funding of this government.

PETITIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS LEGISLATION

"We, the undersigned, call on the Honourable David Peterson, Premier of Ontario, to:

"1. Ensure that cleaners' jobs and collective agreements at Queen's Park, the Toronto-Dominion Centre, First Canadian Place, the Aetna building and the Gateway postal facility are protected;

"2. Amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act,

section 63, so that successor employer provisions also apply to subcontractors; and

"3. Work with the honourable Bob Rae and the honourable Larry Grossman to ensure the speedy passage of the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act when the House reconvenes."

On behalf of our party and on behalf of the Committee for Cleaners' Rights, I am very proud to present this massive petition to the Legislature and hope it will change the inane, inept response of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) to the kind of changes we want to see.

EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Mr. Pierce: I am pleased to present a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario on behalf of some residents in the district of Rainy River in opposition to the inclusion of the amendment to Bill 7.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Allen, on behalf of Mr. R. F. Johnston, from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Office Responsible for Disabled Persons be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31 , 1987:

Office Responsible for Disabled Persons program, $1,418,800.

Mr. Speaker: I say to all members that it is very difficult to hear in here. If you have any private conversations, you may like to carry them on under the desks, under the galleries or outside.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr30,

An Act to revive Italo-Canadian Centennial Club; and

Bill Pr38,

An Act to revive Traco Investments Ltd.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr29,

An Act to revive Magnum International Productions Inc.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual costs of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr30,

An Act to revive Italo-Canadian Centennial Club.

Motion agreed to.

15:00

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved first reading of Bill 150,

An Act to regulate Truck Transportation.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved first reading of Bill 151,

An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act.

Motion agreed to.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved first reading of Bill 152,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have a number of rather inconvenient situations involving my colleagues in the government, who are on their way to attend a first ministers' meeting in Vancouver. We have some bills listed today that apparently have not been sufficiently caucused by one of the opposition parties. Some opposition members in committees that will be meeting this afternoon feel for some reason they cannot attend the House; therefore, the bills in Orders and Notices cannot be called.

However, I am suggesting -- and we can do this only by agreement -- that we can do the following bills, which are in Orders and Notices, and one that is not on the business paper today but is in Orders and Notices and ready to go. I suggest we begin with the bills of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that are ready. I point out that he will also be participating in the first ministers' conference and will be leaving later, but is here now. Those bills are orders 8 and 20.

With concurrence, I would then like to go to committee of the whole House for Bill 122, which was almost completed yesterday. I would then like to go to the Time Amendment Act, which has had second reading and which has been referred to committee; order 12, a bill standing in the name of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton); order 24, a bill standing in the name of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney); and order 26, a bill standing in the name of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins). They will be called in that order if that is reasonably convenient.

I do not necessarily apologize, because some of the inconvenience and difficulty lies with each of the three parties, but as usual, we will do our best among the three House leaders, who are present, to see that the business of the House proceeds. With that, I would like to call order 8.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement?

Mr. Harris: No, there is not. I object strenuously to the tone of the government House leader. He has insinuated that the opposition parties are not ready to go on with this legislation. We received a note 10 minutes before he stood on his feet, telling us he wanted to change the order all around, telling us he wanted to bring something on that is not on and telling us he has ministers all over the country rather than here in the Legislature.

Earlier this week we heard the government House leader say on an open-line radio show that we should be sitting nights. The reality of the fact is that we adjourned early on Monday, at 5:30, because the government could not fill Orders and Notices. The reality also is that it cannot carry on with what it has in Orders and Notices; the ministers are not ready.

Our party stands ready to proceed with all the orders in the order in which they are there; we are ready to go. Failing that, if the government House leader wants to adjourn for 15 or 20 minutes to discuss this in a reasonable and sensible manner, we are prepared to do that and see whether we can get all our people to change plans to accommodate the government.

Mr. McClellan: I do not know why everybody is being so cross. I want to indicate that as far as I know -- and perhaps some of my colleagues can correct me if I am wrong -- we are ready to proceed with everything that is in Orders and Notices, including Bill 113, and I have the honour of having the carriage of that bill myself.

I repeat: we are ready to do everything that is in Orders and Notices. I understand the government does not want to proceed with Bill 142 because it does not like the opposition amendments, which are guaranteed to carry because they are so sensible. Some of the other problems have to do with the time of the Attorney General's flight.

However, as I say, we are ready to co-operate with the government House leader in ordering the business in any way, shape or form; and any suggestion -- and this is the point I want to stress -- that the opposition is delaying the passage of government legislation or the deliberation on government legislation is sheer and utter nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can certainly accept the comments by the House leader of the New Democratic Party, because I have not indicated that either of the opposition parties is attempting to delay the business. However, I do take issue with the comment on the point of order made by the House leader for the official opposition.

I did not indicate in my remarks, which were not designed to be aggressive in any way but were simply trying to allow the business of the House to proceed reasonably, that any member of the official opposition had indicated he was not prepared to go forward with any order, except for one, order 20,

An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act, which is listed not only in Orders and Notices but also on the business paper. It was indicated that they could not proceed because one member of the official opposition would be in committee. They have other competent spokesmen, many of them, and I must insist that that order be called.

The honourable member has indicated that I have not listed Bill 142,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) gave verbal notice yesterday that he had amendments to that bill. We have not had a chance to review those, and we are not prepared to proceed at this time.

If the House leader for the official opposition wants to move the adjournment of the House and ring the bells for a while, that is one of the things he can do. But I have the right and the responsibility to call the orders in Orders and Notices, which the honourable member will know is before him on his desk, as it is before every member in the House; and the business paper has the list of orders we wish to call today.

Mr. Speaker, with my responsibility as government House leader, I call order 8.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: What point of order?

Mr. Harris: On the ordering of the business, which the House leader for the government party has just commented on. He indicated the Conservative party had indicated it was not ready to proceed with order 20. I indicated we are ready to proceed with the orders in the order in which the government has given them to us.

The orders of the day starts with Bill 122, committee of the whole House. Then it calls for order 10, Bill 14, the oleomargarine act. Unfortunately, the minister is away. It is such a significant act that the parliamentary assistant is not capable of carrying it; so the government does not want to do it.

The next order of business is Bill 127. Unfortunately, the minister is being lobbied over the next couple of days by the surveyors. There will probably be significant amendments and the minister is not ready to proceed with the next order that he told us we would be ready to do.

The next order is Bill 142, the Ontario Energy Board, which we are quite prepared to proceed with. As a matter of fact, we are prepared to proceed with Bill 90.

15:10

To plan our time, you will recall the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) sat in the House to hear the Premier (Mr. Peterson) speak, went through until about 4:30 and refused to start the committee on Bill 105 yesterday. Now the minister is telling me that because he is going to change his mind and change the order with 10 minutes' notice, I have to change my mind and bring back all my speakers and people to suit his whim.

Do I object if he is not prepared to proceed on that basis? Of course, I object. If he wants to go the way he told us we would go, we are ready. We are ready to go on all the bills, and we will do Bill 90 when the time comes. If he wants to start off with Bill 90, we will start off, but sooner or later --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all members that, according to standing order 45, "Except as otherwise provided in these standing orders, government business will be taken up in the discretion of the government House leader or a minister acting in his place."

I called for orders of the day. The House leader called item 8; so I will recognize the Attorney General.

SUCCESSION LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 1,

An Act to amend the Succession Law Reform Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will be very brief. I made a statement when the bill was introduced.

The purpose of this bill is to assure some technical housekeeping amendments that are required to the Succession Law Reform Act that are made necessary by the Family Law Act. The principle one is to incorporate in the former act the definition of "spouse" that was established by this assembly when it passed the Family Law Act. I commend the bill with these technical amendments to the members of the assembly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. O'Connor: I welcome the opportunity to say a few remarks with regard to Bill 1,

An Act to amend the Succession Law Reform Act. The Attorney General has quite correctly pointed out that the family law bill, which was before the House earlier this year, which was before the standing committee on administration of justice for some considerable time and which was a long, detailed, complicated series of amendments to the Family Law Reform Act, necessarily required amendments to the Succession Law Reform Act because of the nature of the bill and the references it made to deceased spouses.

The bill before us is a housekeeping matter only, which gives effect in the Succession Law Reform Act to the changes that were implemented through the family law bill. It allows us to mesh with the former bill the same kinds of changes as have been explained by the Attorney General.

Having sat through the lengthy deliberations of the administration of justice committee, having been very much a part of the amendments to that bill and having understood at that time the necessity for amendments to this bill, I can advise that our party will be supporting the amendments in Bill 1. We will be happy to allow its passage in a speedy and efficient time, because there has been some considerable delay since the implementation of its companion bill.

Why has the government taken its time to introduce this very simple piece of housekeeping legislation? There is nothing of consequence in that there is nothing new. We were well aware of the need for these amendments many months ago. That has been demonstrated. The opposition parties are here to support the bill and give it quick passage. Therefore, I query the efficiency of the government in ordering its business and taking the time that it has to bring this matter forward when the amendments to it, because of the passage of the family law bill, have required this bill and its passage almost immediately thereafter.

However, we will be supporting it on second reading and throughout its passage.

Ms. Gigantes: It gives me pleasure to indicate on behalf of my party that I will be speaking in favour of this bill and we will make every effort to co-operate with the Attorney General in having it passed as quickly as possible.

There are a couple of areas in the bill I would like to draw to the attention of the members. One is in

section 3, in which we are dealing with an amendment that will allow an application for support to be made by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in the name of the minister.

That relates to another piece of legislation we also carried forward over the past several months, and that is the maintenance enforcement legislation. We are very concerned that while this bill provides for dealing with succession matters under this new way of enforcing maintenance, the apparatus necessary for the implementation of maintenance enforcement by the Ministry of Community and Social Services is not in place.

We are very concerned about that and very concerned that the minister now looks to be in a position where he is assuming the role of giving something to the fathers, the nondependent spouses in a situation of marital breakdown, by way of access enforcement which he proposes to undertake fairly shortly. We are concerned that he is doing this with inadequate consultation with women's groups in Ontario.

I would like to use this opportunity to draw to his attention and to the attention of members of the Legislature that I, as spokesperson for my party on this issue, will be extremely upset if, in the course of bringing forward this additional legislation in the area of family law, the minister does not make a greater effort to see there is adequate discussion and consultation with very significant women's groups that are concerned about the issue of access enforcement.

The other matter I would like to mention at this point is that it contains the same clause this party has found objectionable through two rounds of family law reform, and that is

section 4, which amends

section 62 of the act. Subclause 62(1)(r)(

i) alludes to a course of conduct by the spouse during the deceased's lifetime that is so unconscionable as to constitute an obvious and gross repudiation of the relationship. I will once again, on behalf of my party, note our longstanding objection to that clause, but we will be supporting this bill.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the two members who have participated for their support of this rather technical, but none the less important bill. With respect to the comments made by the speaker for the third party, I recognize her concern about automatic enforcement and about any potential reforms in the access field.

I know something of her views on those two questions and I want to assure her that, on the first, we will move as expeditiously as a prudent, efficient and workable scheme will permit. On the second, we will consult as widely as we effectively can before proposals are made. In that connection, I invite her to share with me, on an appropriate occasion, her views on this very difficult, but none the less quite important subject.

15:20

It is a matter that does not concern every family unit and is perhaps an irritant in only a small proportion of families. However, when access is an irritant, both she and I know that whatever conduct may be responsible for that irritation can quickly produce serious, protracted inflammations.

With respect to her long-standing objection about the formula of words that has been used about unconscionable conduct, though only in the House for 16 months I have become quite familiar with her objection on that score. I understand its origin and its purpose. I note it and thank her for agreeing to consent to the bill, notwithstanding that long-held view.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 90,

An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act.

Hon. Mr. Scott: This bill was introduced some time ago, and I have only a short statement to make about it at this stage.

This bill originated in 1981. Before 1981, if a citizen had a complaint about the conduct of the police towards him or her or other citizens, there were two avenues for the advancement and determination of that complaint. The first was to complain to the police force, which was almost invariably the police force about which the complaint was being made, and appeal from any determination made by the chief of that police force which might be adverse to the citizen to the board of commissioners of police of the municipality, if there was one, or to the Ontario Police Commission.

The other avenue of complaint was to complain directly to the board of commissioners of police of the municipality, which, if an investigation was required, had no alternative but to refer the matter back to the police department, whose conduct was not infrequently the very object of the complaint in the first place.

In 1981, because of a series of particular and unfortunate events in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, it was determined that the scheme was no longer an adequate assurance to members of the public that their complaints would be effectively, thoroughly and independently reviewed and that steps as a result of legitimate and authorized complaints might be taken.

Mr. Harris: I do not think there is a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

15:25

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is regrettable that something I have said has irritated the official opposition to the point where its members cannot effectively participate in the business of the House. If there is something I should do, some sword I should fall on or perhaps some rule I am not aware of, I would be very glad to accommodate the House leader for the official opposition who is sitting in lonely splendour.

If they want an adjournment on this bill, I would be delighted to accommodate them. I have a responsibility to call it; they do not. I am doing the best I can. We have significant legislation, in spite of the view expressed by the member and his colleagues, and we want to proceed with it. The last thing we want is an argument that is going to detract from the ability of the House to go forward.

I ask all members here to be as co-operative as they can and I promise we on this side will be as co-operative as we can. On the other hand, if the business is not going to proceed, perhaps we could have a vote on whether the House should adjourn. We feel it should not; we feel the business should go forward.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I was saying, as a result of the events in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in 1981, it was decided that the existing situation could no longer be sustained. As a result, the Honourable Roy McMurtry, Attorney General of the day, introduced the bill which established the Public Complaints Investigation Bureau of Metropolitan Toronto.

It is significant and important to recognize that that initiative was taken with the full co-operation and support of the seven mayors of the municipalities that then made up Metropolitan Toronto. It was important and significant because the exercise was founded on a high level of co-operation among the police forces represented by the police board of the municipality in each case and the agency that was to be responsible for the supervision of complaints, then headed by Sidney Linden and now headed by Clare Lewis.

That experiment has not been without its difficulties, but all objective observers, of whom I am one, I hope, not having had any responsibility for the original legislation, will concede that on balance the results in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto have entirely justified the experiment.

In my respectful view, which I know is shared by Sidney Linden and Clare Lewis, the strength of the experiment has been its optional nature. There will be some who say, with a good deal of logical reason, that the optional nature of the process that this bill contemplates as it moves from municipality to municipality is inappropriate and that the government should make a decision either to carry it to every municipality or to terminate the experiment.

Mr. Linden and Mr. Lewis believe, and I think experience justifies their belief, that it is the commitment of the municipalities and the police forces, which in a sense they represent, to working the bill effectively, to working the process effectively that has produced the good results we have seen in Toronto.

15:30

On the other side, we know that on those few occasions when this level of co-operation is absent or lacking for whatever reason, at that moment the process shows whatever weaknesses it may have. Because of that, we propose in the bill now before us to move the office across Ontario at the option of each municipality. It is contemplated that if any municipal council believes the complaint process in its municipality can be enhanced by the mechanism this act contemplates, it will vote a resolution and seek the permission of cabinet to be included within the ambit of the act.

Frankly, cabinet's approval is required not because cabinet desires to restrain or prohibit a municipality that wants to opt in -- we do not -- but because the mechanism of the act which requires the opening of an office and the staffing in the municipality involves certain fiscal expenditures which are not insignificant. For example, if a small municipality with two police officers and perhaps only a few hundred people sought to opt in alone, cabinet might decide, as a matter of fiscal responsibility, that it would not be possible to permit it to participate in this kind of arrangement.

What we contemplate -- this is the heart of the bill -- is that it be optional. As experience has indicated, it works only when it is optional; it does not work effectively when there is a sense of compulsion about the application of its component parts. The restriction that cabinet's approval must be obtained is, in the sense I have described, an administrative requirement only.

In an amendment that has been submitted to critics on the other side, we also ask that the name of the office should be changed from the Police Complaint Bureau to the Public Complaint Bureau. That is a request the bureau itself has made and one that both I and the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) have agreed to, as has cabinet, because it has been made clear that the title Police Complaint Bureau somehow leads some citizens to believe it is a forum at which only police officers can be complainants when in fact exactly the opposite is true.

This is a forum in which the public can complain about the conduct of police officers. It is believed by the current commissioner and by the previous commissioner that the change of name will more correctly represent to the public the work of the bureau and will be productive in that sense.

Mr. O'Connor: The Attorney General made reference to the opting-in ability of municipalities around the province at the pleasure of the cabinet -- that is, subject to the approval of the cabinet -- and said the reason therefor was related to cost. Can the Attorney General tell us whether he has done any studies in the area of cost and advise us as to the approximate cost of an average-sized municipality adopting the board?

It seems to me the cost would be almost minimal. There would be the ad hoc appointment of several people to hear complaints from time to time as they arise. There would certainly be no cost involved in setting up a permanent structure in each of these areas. In the smaller forces, it is anticipated that few, if any, complaints per year would be lodged, and as and when they are lodged, the administration of a hearing could be set up for that purpose. Therefore, the cost cannot be a significant factor in most of the municipalities, towns and cities around the province.

Hon. Mr. Scott: We have not done the kind of cost analysis the honourable member seems to contemplate, but as he will see, the act requires the opening of an office in each municipality. The opening of an office is one thing -- it is important -- and the act contemplates that the office will be staffed with at least one person so that a complaint can be dealt with freshly when it is made. It will not be useful to have an office in which no one is present and to which the door is locked if complaints are going to be received.

If an office is opened only for a rural municipality, it will be difficult to maintain a significant office. For example, in the township of Erin in the county of Wellington, a township that has several thousand residents, all of whom are law-abiding, the incidence of complaints about police is likely to be very small. If a municipality in the township of Erin desired to opt into the scheme, it would be administratively and fiscally expensive to permit it to do so.

On the other hand, if the city of Guelph, adjacent to the township of Erin, opts in, it would be quite practical to run the office from the city of Guelph, which is only 10 miles from the township of Erin. That is the problem presented by the potential proliferation of offices, and this is the way we have attempted to respond to it.

Ms. Gigantes: Can the minister lay out in his own words for the benefit of the members of the Legislature exactly how this decentralized centralized system will work? We are not talking about duplicating the existing system right across the province.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The general scheme is that the commissioner, who now is in Toronto, will remain the commissioner for Ontario with responsibility for any mechanism in any municipalities that opt in. When a municipality opts in and the cabinet approves its opting in, an office will open in that municipality that will be staffed to receive complaints. When a complaint is made to the office about an investigation, about the conduct of the police or about the adequacy of an ongoing investigation, it will be dealt with in the municipality precisely as it now is dealt with in the Toronto.

The local police will conduct the investigation, with their work monitored by the local representative of the office in the municipality, subject to whatever assistance, if any, he desires to obtain from the central office.

The question of whether the police investigation is adequate or whether a staff investigation must be made will be made by the centralized office in Toronto after consultation with the representative of the local office on location. If it is decided an arbitration must take place, which is the ultimate process, we will maintain a rota of local arbitrators who will be nominated to deal with local cases. The administration for that part of the process will undoubtedly be centralized.

Mr. O'Connor: I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments with respect to Bill 90,

An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act, 1984.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I indicated when I read the orders we intended to do this afternoon that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was going to be joining the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in Vancouver. If there is some thought that the bill might proceed while he is here, I expect the debate to go forward. However, if it is the feeling that there will be a lengthy debate -- I do not know whether it is in order to inquire about this -- the Attorney General has indicated he will be glad to adjourn the debate and we can proceed with other business. He must go fairly soon.

Mr. O'Connor: Speaking to the point of order, I can advise that a considerable number of members of our party wish to speak on this matter this afternoon. My House leader has recently indicated there will be four, five or six. We might well take the balance of this afternoon. He is rounding them up right now.

As indicated in the previous exchange of comments by the two House leaders, we did not expect that Bill 90 would go forward this early in the afternoon. I believe my House leader is currently advising the members of our party who wish to speak on the matter, and they are making their way into the House one by one. We will be speaking on this matter for most of the afternoon.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Scott, the debate was adjourned.

15:40

House in committee of the whole.

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Registry Act.

Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

section 9:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Kwinter moves that subsection 97a(2) of the act, as set out in

section 9 of the bill, be amended by inserting after "subsection 14(2)" in the first line, "of this act and subsection 18(2) of the Land Titles Act."

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This amendment ensures that regulations made by the director for the registration of instruments outside prescribed hours apply equally to land titles offices and to land registry offices. The Land Titles Act contains several cross-references to the Registry Act, particularly with respect to administrative matters in the operation of offices. This amendment ensures that the administrative flexibility with respect to registrations outside prescribed hours remains equal. It is a housekeeping amendment to make sure the two acts dovetail one with the other.

Motion agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to. Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

TIME AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Time Act.

section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that

section 1 of the bill be renumbered as

section 1a and that the following

section be added to the bill:

"1.

Section 1 of the Time Act, being

chapter 501 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is amended by striking out `time reckoned as standard time' in the seventh and eighth lines and inserting in lieu thereof `the time in effect as provided by this act.'

Mr. McClellan: What is happening in this bill is relatively simple. Daylight saving time is being extended for an additional three weeks in April of each year, so that instead of starting in the third week of April, it will start in the first week of April. The amendments I will be moving to this and subsequent sections of Bill 58 simply clean up the Time Act, make all the

definitions consistent and implement an earlier starting of daylight saving time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am the designated time critic, and I am glad to respond to the honourable member's initiatives in this connection. I was interested to read that one of the very useful effects of this accommodation to an initiative taken by the Congress of the United States of America will be that our stock markets will be not be an hour out of sync with New York.

Mr. McClellan: My initiative was taken long before the Congress of the US ever dreamed of taking this initiative, as the Treasurer surely knows. The initiative was inherited by me from my predecessor, Michael Cassidy, who moved this on many occasions.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk think this is an appropriate point of order?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am glad to be corrected in this, and if I had known where the real source of this initiative was, I might not have been so enthusiastic about having it go forward in this form.

However, it is correct, and I know the member who introduced the bill, whether it was in his mind at the time, would want us to be in step with New York. It would be too bad if the markets there opened an hour earlier or later than Toronto. As the financial centre of Canada, we want to be in sync with those. I know that if the member is not so concerned with that, Mr. Cassidy, who was for a long time a reporter for the Financial Times of Canada and is a leading proponent of a growing economy, would have been concerned about it.

The idea of an extra three weeks of daylight saving time in April makes a good deal of sense. I can recall the controversies over the span of daylight saving time in years gone by. It used to be argued by my constituents, the farmers, that the milk cows found it very confusing indeed. We were able to calm that difficulty by legislative fiat, and the cows' production did not suffer unduly.

The idea of improving the duration of daylight saving is important in that it means we will require much less electrical energy and may even save something like $25 million worth of energy in those three weeks. There are other advantages. The main one is that this is a suitable vehicle for one of the more popular members of the House to fly. The bill that is in his name is going to affect the lives of everybody in this province, we trust advantageously. I know for a fact his amendments have been carefully drawn and will mean the bill will be clearly understood by all who will be impacted by this initiative.

Normally, as a critic of the time area, I oppose what comes forward from the other side, but in this case the initiative is a good one. We intend to support the amendment, as I think we supported the second reading of the bill.

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure to rise and to concur with the comments made by the two previous speakers. It is a very practical piece of legislation. I must compliment the member for Bellwoods on taking this initiative. I had the opportunity to discuss his amendments with him yesterday for a while, and it is going to bring this jurisdiction into sync with other parts of North America. I hope other provinces as well will support the initiative taken by us here in Ontario.

15:50

Mr. Chairman: Do any other honourable members wish to speak on this amendment? No.

All those in favour of Mr. McClellan's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan, you have a second amendment.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There seems to be a bad echo in here. It must be from a previous vote. I have another amendment to Bill 58 and this is really the operative amendment that moves daylight saving time ahead in April.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that subsections 2, 3 and 4 of the said act, as set out in the renumbered

section 1a of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(3). Daylight saving time shall be reckoned as one hour ahead of standard time.

"(4). The time in effect shall be,

"(

a) daylight saving time during the period between 2 a.m. standard time on the first Sunday in April and 2 a.m. daylight saving time on the last Sunday in October; and

"(

b) standard time during the rest of the year.

"(5). The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations varying the reckoning of standard time and daylight saving time as fixed by subsection 1, 2 or 3 and varying the time in effect as fixed by subsection 4."

Do you have any statement or comments to make regarding that?

Mr. McClellan: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said, this is the actual amendment that sets the time for daylight saving time, changing it from the third Sunday in April to the first Sunday in April.

The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has already alluded to a number of the more obvious benefits to doing this. For the sake of the historical record, I refer to the report done by the National Research Council as long ago as 1981, which studied the question of extending daylight saving time and found a number of clear benefits and advantages.

The first one was the one the Treasurer made reference to, that there would be significant savings in electricity costs as a result of doing business during daylight hours in the afternoon as opposed to doing it in the darkness of the winter morning. Second, there are benefits in terms of reduced traffic accidents. Third, there are benefits of public safety. Studies done in the United States determined that the rate of crime in the streets has been reduced as a result of extended daylight saving time.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It certainly does not help in Detroit.

Mr. McClellan: I guess Detroit is the major exception to that.

The Treasurer alluded to the concerns of the international capitalists that their money markets be synchronized and that the Toronto Stock Exchange not be out of sync with the New York Stock Exchange and that all these things be harmonized.

Unfortunately, the government focused in an excessive and narrowly concerned way on that last point and has resisted the opportunity to extend daylight saving time even into the beginning of March, where I think it should be. However, we recognize that compromises are necessary in order to move the Legislature forward even if it is only by three weeks, so we accept that in order to secure the passage of earlier daylight saving time reform it is necessary to be synchronized with the US.

For people who live in a cold northern climate, the principal benefit is really that we will have an extra hour of sunshine after work and after school rather than in the morning, so that people will have an opportunity to use their daylight hours for leisure and recreation. Instead of having the sunlight wasted on the early morning hours, there will be an opportunity actually to use it, not just by adults but by children especially.

The only other point I want to make, again for the record, is to point out that subsection 5 of the amendment I am moving gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the fair and unequivocal power to make regulations varying the reckoning of standard and daylight saving time. I hope that in the future a government of this province will extend daylight saving time even to the beginning of March, where I think it should be, as does the National Research Council, so that our people who have to endure a long, severe and dark winter can, through the courtesy of their government, have the advent of spring even earlier than they are used to receiving it.

I want to thank the government House leader and his cabinet colleagues for taking the initiative in October to extend daylight saving time by calling my bill forward. I know the government House leader, having served for so many years in opposition, realizes that it is a great honour for an opposition MPP to have a private bill called forward. I am quite pleased this is happening. I also thank my Conservative colleagues for their support. I assume I have the support of my own colleagues in the New Democratic Party.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am delighted the member is pleased, if that is not too convoluted. I do not recall ever having a good enough bill to attract the attention of the government in years gone by. I am not sure they were entirely to blame for that. Normally, I used to resort to resolutions, which are not nearly so effective in that connection, to indicate a view and, with good fortune, the will of the House.

I want to say a bit more about the antecedents. I think that fast time, so called, was invented in Canada, which is quite something. It is an extremely useful tool to make available a much longer period of daylight for people who are working or, in the case of children, to enjoy life and go to school.

On a recent trip to the People's Republic of China, I was interested to note that in that huge nation, by fiat of the central government there is only one time zone. As the member will know, it is a centrally planned economy. Anybody who is discombobulated by this in any way can, of course, criticize the government. For reasons that are not entirely apparent, there does not seem to be any criticism, even though people get up in the middle of the night and go to bed when the sun is fully out because the centrally planned economy dictates it.

In this jurisdiction, our main aim is apparently to coincide with initiatives taken by the great republic to the south. I find this a bit awkward, but since we do not want our television programs to come in at odd times, this kind of harmonization is quite important and valuable.

I do not want to talk long about the usefulness of private members of the House bringing forward legislation that is passed into law. I do not see much wrong with it, but it was tried by a previous government going back a number of years, more than 60 years as a matter of fact. The government of the United Farmers of Ontario at that time found itself appealing to the parties in opposition to bring forward legislation. It was an attempt to strengthen in a substantial way the role of all members of the House and not to leave all initiatives to the prerogative of the government.

I do not see too much wrong with that, although I suppose in the long run the system that has evolved over these years works reasonably well.

16:00

I am glad to balance it up -- and I know this is not directly on the amendment -- by advising that the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) had an opportunity to present another bill, which was of a different level of importance, but still much appreciated by people who were honouring Rick Hansen, and the Lieutenant Governor gave royal assent to the bill at that time.

I see my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) has been able to come back from an important meeting associated with his announcement of new legislation, which means I can stop talking.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other honourable member who wishes to participate in the debate? If not, Mr. McClellan has moved an amendment to

section 1. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported two bills with certain amendments.

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved second reading of Bill 18,

An Act to amend the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: This bill received first reading on June 14, 1985, and I support its objective. As was pointed out, the purpose of the bill is to extend to licensed trappers the same right to operate three-wheeled, all-terrain vehicles on the highway as is already enjoyed by farmers. In addition, the bill contains an amendment that revokes the authority of municipal bylaw enforcement officers to carry out the provisions of the Off-Road Vehicles Act. The powers of arrest contained in the act are felt to be inappropriate to this category of officer.

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think the House leader has us in an embarrassing situation here. We are having a problem. The agenda has been altered substantially. We had anticipated that the bill of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) was going to be called next. We worked hard to get our critic here, and here we have another minister whose bill is called. We were not prepared for that bill. The House leader has put us in an embarrassing situation. Our critic is not here yet.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is certainly not my intention to put the honourable member and his colleagues in an embarrassing situation. I point out that the bill that is called is in Orders and Notices and the business paper for today, but rather than renew any controversy about these difficulties, which, I say again, have been shared by all three parties but principally by the government party, I am glad to move the adjournment of the debate. We can proceed with that item at a more convenient time, if one arrives.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the debate was adjourned.

HOMEMAKERS AND NURSES SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sweeney moved second reading of Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Homemakers and Nurses Services Act.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The purpose of this bill is to enable us to provide an expanded range of homemaker services to the frail elderly and handicapped adults in this province.

Members of the Legislature will be aware that the thrust of this government is to provide increasing opportunities for such frail elderly and handicapped adults to stay in their own homes and communities as long as possible, rather than to be moved to a facility or institution. This serves two purposes: first, it retains the independence and autonomy of these citizens as long as possible; and second, it is a more effective use of the financial resources available to the government.

Operating under the jurisdiction of the ministry act, we have already begun to move in this direction. In January, I announced six sites that are currently operational and, more recently, I announced 10 other sites that will be operational by January 1987. These have been well received indeed.

There are three initiatives in this legislation. The first one is to make it possible for homemaker services to be made available through this program to the frail elderly and the adult disabled without charge. Members will be aware of the fact that there are already in existence, and there will continue to be in existence, two other programs to provide homemaker services: one through the Ministry of Health's home care program and one through my ministry's program. They will both be in effect for those persons who cannot qualify under this program. This is an additional program, and it is to provide services without charge.

The second initiative is to make it possible for us, by including some Ministry of Health programs, to be eligible for cost sharing through the Canada assistance plan with the federal government. That is not now possible through the Ministry of Health.

The third initiative is to allow us to increase a range of services to the frail elderly and the physically disabled so that we can more effectively use the resources. For example, if it becomes evident that Meals on Wheels is really what a person needs rather than increasing homemaker services, then we can substitute Meals on Wheels.

I am pleased to join with my colleagues in the other parties in debating this legislation and, I hope, getting their support to pass it.

Mr. McClellan: Before we get to committee stage, one of the things I would like to ask the minister -- and I have lost my copy of the bill already -- is with respect to the provision-of-services clause of Bill 113 that authorizes the minister to provide for the furnishing of services by such persons or organizations as the minister may approve. Why is there no reference to profit or nonprofit in that section?

My understanding of the traditions of the Ministry of Community and Social Services is that it has always tried as much as possible -- and, in fact, there are some very clear policy directions of the ministry -- to rely on nonprofit organizations for the provision of social services. I am concerned that this

section of the bill, which has no reference to the provision of homemaker and nursing services on a nonprofit basis, will open the way to an extension of for-profit care in a field that hitherto has been the domain of the nonprofit sector.

16:10

I am sure the minister knows my views without my having to express them, but before we get into further debate, perhaps he could tell me whether I misunderstand the intention of the act. Does the ministry intend to use for-profit, free-enterprise organizations and companies to provide homemaker and nurses' services or does he intend to keep it in the nonprofit sector?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member does not misunderstand the legislation. We have very clearly indicated that our preference is for nonprofit services. However, we have not designed the legislation in such a way that this is a requirement.

It is possible for municipalities, for example, to contract with commercial agencies to provide the service. The only circumstance under which I can see that would likely happen is if the available nonprofit services in the community were so expensive as to be out of range of the dollars made available to the municipalities. The use of for-profit organizations is possible. It is not the intent to move in that direction in the first place, but it is possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Callahan): Are there any questions or comments by any other members? The member for Kitchener.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am not the member for Kitchener. You are looking at the wrong party.

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry, the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If the minister's comment in answer to my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) is correct, why did the homemaker services in his own home community get carved up in such a way that Red Cross --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The minister has responded to the question asked, and it is now the turn as taken by speakers.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This is the second time the chair has fouled up the procedure this afternoon. It is only the first time you, personally, have fouled it up but it is the second time it has happened this afternoon. I suggest that people review the standing orders.

The Acting Speaker: Does any member wish to dispute the ruling of the chair?

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: What is the ruling?

The Acting Speaker: The ruling, as I have stated.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If I may be of some assistance, it was the Speaker's view that the comments had been completed and that the minister had his minute or something to respond.

It was then that the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) got up with additional comments. I am sure the Speaker might be flexible enough to allow the additional comments to be made or it might even be worth while for the member to make a speech on a fuller basis on this bill. Otherwise, it would seem to be insoluble, but I hope we are not looking for a challenge to the chair.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I tried to stand up but the minister quickly stood up to answer the question of the member for Bellwoods before other members had an opportunity to ask questions. That was the difficulty.

Mr. McClellan: I rose only to point out that it was the second time this afternoon that the Speaker recognized the minister before allowing other members the opportunity to ask questions. I simply bring to the chair's attention that all members are allowed to ask questions within the time frame set out in the standing orders, if I could only remember how long it is.

The Acting Speaker: Your comment is noted. Members should rise more quickly to address questions to the minister.

Do any other members wish to participate in the debate?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: With all the goodwill that is apparent in the House this afternoon, the Speaker might be persuaded to permit a further question without allowing the parliamentary system to totally disintegrate.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed that the member should have an opportunity ask a question? Agreed.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Directly upon the question asked by the member for Bellwoods, I would like to ask the minister why, if the emphasis is on nonprofit delivery of services, did the delivery in his home community get confused and mixed up between Red Cross and a series of private deliverers, when Red Cross was more than willing to provide the service for the whole community but was told it would be fair only if it were divvied up between the private profit companies and the nonprofit Red Cross?

Second, can the minister get for us the information on how many times the pilot projects that now exist have had to shut down intake because they could not get enough people to work for them at minimum wage, and how does he plan to resolve that problem?

Obviously, this piece of legislation is going to be somewhat meaningless if we continue to base it on minimum wage, whereby the majority o