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

December 14, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L121 - Wed 14 Dec 1988 / Mer 14 déc 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SIKH CEREMONIAL KIRPANS

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

WEST END CRECHE

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

PROPOSED MOHAWK-RYERSON EXPANSION PROJECT

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING / HABITATIONS À LOYERS MODIQUES

PENSION BENEFITS

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PENSION BENEFITS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PENSION BENEFITS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RENT REGULATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

WESTERN COAL

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

CORONER’S INQUEST

TRANSIT SERVICES

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

WAGE PROTECTION

COMPENSATION FOR WITNESSES

PROPOSED PULP MILL

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CAMPING RESTRICTIONS

USE OF LOTTERY PROFITS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

PSYCHOLOGISTS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

SOUTH AFRICAN TRUST INVESTMENTS ACT /

LOI SUR LES PLACEMENTS SUD-AFRICAINS DÉTENUS EN FIDUCIE

SOUTH AFRICAN TRUST INVESTMENTS ACT /

LOI SUR LES PLACEMENTS SUD-AFRICAINS DÉTENUS EN FIDUCIE

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT ACT /

LOI SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX INTERVENANTS

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT ACT /

LOI SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX INTERVENANTS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 pm.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SIKH CEREMONIAL KIRPANS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I want to ask both the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to get themselves directly involved in the issue that has risen around the Peel Board of Education’s decision not to allow Sikh students to go into the classroom with their ceremonial daggers.

I know this is a difficult issue for us to deal with and is not something most of us in western religions can identify with, but there has been the experience of the Toronto Board of Education for a number of years now, where no instances at all have taken place of the misuse of these daggers, and the North York Board of Education has come up with a very interesting method of allowing them to come in as long as they are concealed.

I suggest it is high time this government, through the Minister of Citizenship and the Minister of Education, came up with a policy and a rationale that could be given to boards of education to assist them in making decisions that would avoid some of the problems we have now seen develop in Peel.

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Villeneuve: In recent weeks, I have been pleading with the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) to speed up an application made by the Mutual Aid Firemen’s Association of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. These professional part-time firefighters have a rare opportunity to upgrade their skills, but the ministry has been so slow that the 62 firemen involved may lose their only chance to take this course to upgrade their training skills.

The reason for the ministry’s delay is strictly bureaucratic, another failure by urban bureaucrats to understand issues in rural eastern Ontario communities. Even though the errors were pointed out directly to the minister on November 30, the ministry has failed to take prompt action.

The course in question begins on January 6, 1989, and that is very soon. Without funding by the ministry, there is no chance that any of these rural firemen will be able to attend. With Highway 401 and Highway 417, three major rail lines and many scattered rural communities within their area of coverage, these firemen must be trained to deal with as many serious situations as are full-time urban fire departments.

I urge the Minister of Skills Development to take prompt and positive action to ensure that the 62 members of the Mutual Aid Firemen’s Association of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry are able to start their course on January 6.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

Ms. Collins: I rise today to urge our government to adopt a procurement policy giving preference to environmentally sound products. There are several conditions that likely are necessary to implement a successful purchasing policy.

The program should be clearly understandable to purchasing officers, the environmentally sound products should perform their functions well and have prices competitive with conventional alternatives, and the policy should not increase trade barriers for Ontario and other producers that fear market fragmentation.

I suggest our government recognize the importance of environmentally sound criteria in purchasing products and letting contracts. This policy would have a number of beneficial spinoffs, including encouraging the development of environmentally sustainable products and technologies in our industry and setting an example for other governments, along with society at large.

With respect to the costs of implementing this procurement policy, it is significant that an overwhelming majority of Canadians have repeatedly indicated in opinion polls that they are willing to pay up to 10 per cent more for environmentally sound products. This does not surprise me. Like most of those surveyed, I may not know what the final bill will be for making the shift to an environmentally sustainable lifestyle, but I do know what the price will be if we do not start to pay it now.

WEST END CRECHE

Mr. Allen: The West End Creche is a Toronto children’s mental health agency that works with abused, autistic, speech-impaired and organically damaged kids. There are assessment units for these children in hospitals like the Hospital for Sick Children but no treatment facilities. Private psychiatrists also pass these children on to places like the West End Creche because, as some of them say: “These kids are too depressing. They destroy your office.”

Agencies like the creche are essential to the future wellbeing of up to 18 per cent of Ontario children, according to a 1983 Ontario Child Health Study. The staff at the West End Creche are highly trained with two, three and four degrees. They relieve highly paid psychiatrists of treatment responsibilities. Ironically, they are at the bottom of the heap of what are called transfer agencies in Toronto and across the province.

The government relies on them for delivery of crucial health services, but the Ministry of Community and Social Services pays these transfer agencies, and especially the West End Creche, grants that preserve a large gap in salary between them and equivalent personnel in direct payment agencies and the ministry. In a letter to me, the minister admitted the gap is growing. As in child care and homemakers’ fields, trained and experienced personnel are leaving the field. The creche has had a 75 per cent turnover in three years, when continuity in personnel is crucial to treatment.

Do these agencies all have to strike or threaten closure, like Catulpa Tamarac Child and Family Services, to get some recognition or response from the Ministry of Community and Social Services?

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

Mrs. Cunningham: On November 25, the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) announced amendments to the regulations for training for crane operators. One of the troublesome amendments was the elimination of compulsory ministry training and accreditation requirements for operators of hoisting devices under eight tonnes. Over the last six years, the Ministry of Skills Development has changed its training policy three times with regard to boom truck operators who are affected by the proposal.

There is an average of one boom truck fatality every eight months in this small industry now. With less training, the workplace is less safe. Should we expect more accidents and fatalities? This ministry has obviously spent extensive time, effort and moneys for private consultants to address its concerns with training, safety and efficiency at the work site. Boom truck operators want a safe place to work.

I cannot believe this ministry is sincere about reducing accident rates and providing a safer work environment for Ontario construction workers when it is exempting a sizeable number of workers from compulsory training they were previously entitled to. We do not want this change. Too many lives have already been lost.

PROPOSED MOHAWK-RYERSON EXPANSION PROJECT

Mr. Neumann: Many members may not be aware that my riding of Brantford is the only community of its size in the province without the benefit of a significant post-secondary facility. We do not have a university and we do not have our own community college. The lack of such an institution has meant that young people in Brant county have traditionally had a lower than average post-secondary participation rate. People in Brant county who wish to further their education must go outside our community.

Mohawk College of Hamilton does offer some programming at scattered locations in Brantford and this has proved to be very popular; however, it is not enough. Brant county needs and deserves a full-scale college campus to give our young people the same opportunities as those that exist in other communities of a similar size. Sadly, Brantford was overlooked during the growth years in post-secondary education.

People in our community fully support the proposed Mohawk-Ryerson expansion project recommended to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) by her advisory committee. I am confident this government recognizes the need. I urge the minister to recommend this project to cabinet for implementation, as this exciting project forms an important part of our community’s diversification and restructuring strategy.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Miss Martel: The Ontario Public Service Employees Union has launched a campaign to bring its concerns about pensions to the attention of all members of this House. OPSEU members are concerned about several of the proposals in the Coward report, especially the one to raise employee pension contributions by more than two per cent in order to fully fund the pension escalator.

Negotiability is also a problem. Collective bargaining is not permitted on the issues of contributions or benefit levels, nor do employees have any say over what happens to the pension fund. They have no control or effective input into the management of the fund or its investment. The $4 billion in assets could and should be invested so that surplus revenue can be generated to fund improved benefits. Some of the improvements in benefits that OPSEU members would like to have the opportunity to negotiate include improved early retirement provisions, survivors’ benefits, improved portability provisions and inflation protection.

OPSEU members have every right to be upset since the assets of their pension plan have been used freely by both the Liberal government and the previous Conservatives, resulting in a low rate of return. OPSEU members are seeking the right to negotiate a pension agreement that is fair to its members, to the government and to the taxpayers of Ontario.

In order to do this, changes are required to two important acts. Most of all, a change is needed in this government’s attitude, with real recognition that the pension funds belong to the employees and that pension contributions are deferred wages and not simply a captive capital pool to be used by the employer at every opportunity.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING / HABITATIONS À LOYERS MODIQUES

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It gives me pleasure to inform all members of this House that the Ministry of Housing and the Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto have today entered into a partnership to provide affordable housing.

This agreement is a direct result of the leadership shown by His Eminence Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter, Archbishop of Toronto, with whom I signed the agreement and who is in the House today to receive the appreciation of all members.

This is the first partnership agreement of its kind that the ministry has entered into with a major religious denomination. I know that partnerships of this kind are essential for us to make progress in supplying affordable housing across the province.

Cette entente s’inscrit dans le cadre des politiques de logement du Gouvernement, en particulier dans les domaines de soutien communautaire et de l’offre de terrains.

L’archidiocèse catholique, dans le même esprit du message du Nouvel An de 1988 de Son Éminence, fait appel à ses fidèles afin de trouver des solutions aux problèmes de logement. Ceci encouragera l’ensemble des communautés de Toronto à appuyer et à promouvoir les organismes de parrainage à but non lucratif dans leur quartier.

As members well know, one of the biggest obstacles to producing affordable housing is the identification of available land. The archdiocese is making an inventory of its land to determine its appropriateness for housing development. This activity will have a major impact on our shared ability to produce affordable housing.

The archdiocese is leading the way with its plans to develop nonprofit housing on its own lands and is opening a housing office to co-ordinate the development of affordable housing on all church lands. This office will assist all concerned in providing more opportunities to build housing that is needed and so necessary. The Ministry of Housing will provide financial support to help set up this office.

Under the agreement, the ministry and the archdiocese are planning for the development of more than 800 nonprofit units over the next three years under our nonprofit programs. This includes some 400 now under active consideration and an additional 400 to 600 that will be identified once the inventory is complete and housing targets are established.

This agreement is a significant beginning to our strong working relationship with the archdiocese, and I hope a sign of things to come with other organizations.

PENSION BENEFITS

Hon. Mr. Elston: I wish to inform the House of the government’s intentions concerning a number of pension issues, if I may.

The Pension Benefits Act, 1987, deals with post-1986 surplus generated in a pension plan. Plan sponsors were given until December 31, 1988, to amend their documents to provide for ownership of surplus. Other plan amendments related to the 1987 pension reforms, however, are not mandated to be made until January 1, 1990.

In order that all plan amendments can be made in a comprehensive manner, the deadline concerning ownership of surplus amendments will be extended by regulation for one year.

I also wish to announce that we are amending another regulation to the Pension Benefits Act, 1987, to continue the restrictions of surplus withdrawals in terminating pension plans until January 1, 1990.

I also wish to announce we are in the process of consultation with business communities, labour organizations and consumers around the province, and that in our consultations on pensions we have recognized there are a number of closely related critical pension matters.

Therefore, it is my intention to release early this new year, draft legislation to form the basis of discussion on these issues, which include inflation protection, pension benefits, the guarantee fund, the solvency valuation rule, the splitting of pensions on marriage breakdown and clarifying amendments and strengthening of enforcement and administrative law elements of the Pension Benefits Act, 1987.

This draft legislation will be widely distributed for comment.

All of us recognize that pension reform to date has improved pension standards for the approximately 40 per cent of the Ontario labour force who are members of employment pension plans. But we must also be concerned about the rest of Ontario’s workers who do not have benefits such as those provided by pension plans.

It is our goal to expand employment pension plan coverage in Ontario, and this too will be included in our discussion draft.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other ministerial statements? If not, responses; the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: I was hoping that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) would be making a statement to accompany the rosy picture he painted here and left on our desks at one o’clock this afternoon. Since he does not have a statement, perhaps I can refer -- Hon. R. F. Nixon: Are you not going to be here tomorrow?

Mr. B. Rae: Are you going to make it tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No.

Mr. B. Rae: No? Oh, I see.

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps I can respond, first of all, to the announcement by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek). Any development of new housing in this province is to be welcomed and we on this side of the House certainly want to welcome it. It is part of a long-standing tradition on the part of many of our charitable and religious institutions to be heavily involved in the field of affordable housing. We are very, very proud the cardinal is here and has been speaking at a press conference, indicating exactly what the archdiocese plans to do.

But I would like to point out to the minister that in last spring’s budget –

Mr. Black: Now be careful; be nice. It’s the Christmas season.

Mr. B. Rae: In the spirit of the season, in last spring’s budget she announced 30,000 units in the Homes Now program, of which this, I take it, is part. This announcement gives details of several hundred more units to be built, but we have added it up and it means that out of the 30,000 that were announced, 3,800 have been solidified. There were 30,000 units promised in the budget, but there are only 3,800 units in what is supposed to be a multi-year program, so all that can be said is that there is a long, long way to go to achieve the necessary target.

I say to the minister that I look forward to her action on a number of applications that I know are in front of her that will, I am sure, be announced day by day by this government for the next several years. But I would say that I doubt very much that we will in fact reach the 30,000 units promised and headlined by the government on many occasions.

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. B. Rae: If I might also respond to the statement by the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Elston), you have to have to have been here a while to know how ludicrous the minister’s statement is today.

When the accord government was in place, it was the inheritor of a set of policies that were in place, discussion papers with industry going back to 1981 and 1982 on this question of inflation protection. It has been sitting in the Treasury and the Ministry of Financial Institutions for seven years, and the minister knows that.

The issue has been canvassed. It has been discussed by treasurers across Canada. It has been discussed at conferences on pensions since 1981 or 1982. It is not a new issue.

After all the arguments we had with his predecessor, after all we were able to demonstrate in terms of the abuses by companies taking advantage and withdrawing surplus, of all the issues that we have raised with respect to contribution holidays and companies that are now contributing, of the thousands and tens of thousands of pensioners who have been waiting all this time for some action on what is going to happen to them, for the minister to say that the best he can do is that some time in the new year he is going to produce a draft discussion paper, draft legislation which will be discussed, legislation in draft form -- not even first reading, not even legislation presented as a bill but legislation simply out there for discussion -- it will be a long time before pensioners in this province get justice under a Liberal government.

It is perfectly obvious that under either the Liberals or the Tories, the message to pensioners in this province is wait, wait and wait again. We say the waiting should be over. People who are in their seventies and eighties should have the right to a pension that is protected from inflation by employers and by funds that have been making billions and billions and billions in excess profits these last seven years.

For the government to say it is simply going to ask pensioners to wait and wait and wait again just is not good enough.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Brandt: I am delighted to rise in my place today to have this opportunity to compliment His Eminence G. Emmett Carter on the initiatives that he has taken to assist the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) with respect to the development of affordable housing in this province.

I am delighted as well that Cardinal Carter has indicated that he is prepared to co-operate with this government in helping to solve one of the real crises this government is facing with respect to the expansion of a housing program that will meet the needs of the people who are unable to find adequate housing accommodation in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Are you currying favour with the church?

Mr. Brandt: I hope that the Minister of Housing will take into very serious consideration the kind of leadership shown by the cardinal with respect to this announcement, which will hopefully lead not only to the 400 units now under construction but to an additional 400 to 600 units that are being proposed on lands now controlled by the Catholic Church, but I hope as well that this will serve as a signal to other organizations throughout our province that the minister is now conceding that she is unable to meet this demand alone and will in fact need the voluntary contributions of organizations right across the province in order to fulfil the needs of housing.

I hope that all organizations that are in a similar situation to those under the responsibility of G. Emmett Cardinal Carter will in fact come forward and offer to the minister their assistance and help as well.

I would like to suggest, if I might -- and this may be somewhat unusual, but it is so infrequent in this House that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and myself can get up and agree with what the government is doing on any particular proposal that it puts forward -- that the cardinal should in fact be informed of the unanimity of this House with respect to this question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: You won’t make it into heaven no matter what you say.

Mr. Brandt: I think he should be informed in one of the most direct ways possible. I would like to recommend -- if I can get over the interruptions of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who is so amazed that we are agreeing with him on this point -- that the Hansard be sent to the cardinal and that he be very directly informed of the fact that all parties in this House applaud this very progressive and yet, at the same time, conservative measure with respect to the needs of this province. I hope it will lead to further initiatives that will in fact be taken in the days and weeks ahead by other organizations.

Mr. Cousens: In her statement, the Minister of Housing said, “This agreement is a significant beginning to our strong working relationship.” The one thing that is very true is that the Catholic Church and the Christian church have been working to help people for close to 2,000 years.

I am indeed pleased that there is a sense of hope for at least 400 to 600 more families. I think maybe the signal should go out that if the government can work effectively with the church groups and can work effectively with the civil service, maybe it can begin to work more effectively with those who build rental accommodation and develop a better strategy to work with the whole marketplace.

It takes all levels to work effectively in order to solve the problem. The government cannot do it just by itself. The fact that it has tried to do it by its lonesome for this length of time --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Even the cardinal couldn’t crack Markham.

Mr. Cousens: The cardinal can give it a blessing now, and that is going to be good, but let’s begin to have government and the builders in private enterprise and the church and the community at large working together. It has not happened till now. The government has not completed the triangle. Let’s see it work a little harder, because it has not begun to reach its election goal of 192,000 rental units by the end of this year. So far, the government is still a failure.

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. Runciman: A quick response to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Elston): We have mixed feelings about the statement today. While we share the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) about further delay, we are also reluctant to see this government plunge headlong into a process the way it did with the auto insurance. They rushed into the auto insurance field with an ill-thought-out, interventionist approach that has developed into one sorry mess. We hope that by taking this extra time and talking to a variety of people --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: You’re on the status quo kick today.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: -- about the implications, we are not going to be faced with the same sort of situation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions for the Premier about the car insurance review that is going on at the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and some of the tremendous difficulties that are being experienced at the board.

I understand the Premier made some statements to the press this morning with respect to who has the last word in this regard. I have once again been reading through Bill 2, the act under which the insurance board is working, and the Premier says he thinks the cabinet has the last word. If that is true, I wonder if he can explain why

section 14 of the act says, “The board has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred upon it by or under this act.”

Just what

section of the act is he going to be invoking or using in order to make sure that the rates are fair and reasonable, as the act in fact calls for?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is wrong, but I will turn it over to the minister to tell him why.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am pleased to rise to provide a little bit of background for my friends with respect to the means by which the proposal has been put in place to ensure that there are fair rates in the province for auto insurance. The member knows about the board. He has just quoted the

section dealing with the issue of the hearings that bring within their jurisdiction the hearing of the rates. One of the things that we have been doing is funding the public interest, through the Consumers’ Association of Canada.

Of course, as I have said to all people as we have gone through this process, when the product is in the field and when in fact the rate system is well in place, we as a government obviously will be comparing our product against that of any other jurisdiction. Then not only will we be sure that the rates are fair, but that the people of the province are getting the coverage that insurance is designed to provide them in a reasonable manner, a cost-effective manner and in a manner which provides them with the coverage which they require to protect their interests in the event of accidents.

Mr. B. Rae: I do not think I heard an answer to my question. Perhaps I could ask the minister, since he did not answer my question, whether he would not agree with subsection 27(1) of the act, which says, “The superintendent, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council” -- which means the cabinet – “may issue policy statements on matters related to categories of automobile insurance, classes of risk exposure and automobile insurance rates and dividends.”

Subsection 27(2) goes on to say, “A policy statement takes effect on the day it is published in the Ontario Gazette.” Subsection 27(3) says, “In making orders under this act, the board shall have regard to the policy statements issued under this section.”

Since the board has final jurisdiction over what the level of rates is going to be, and the only time the government gets to influence a board decision is by issuing a policy statement on the subject of insurance rates before the board makes its decision, does the minister not think he and his cabinet colleagues had better get together and decide what that policy statement is going to be on behalf of consumers? He has not appointed the advocate; the very least he could do is issue a statement telling the board what it is allowed to do.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, you will also want to know that in addition to people being able to get in touch with the Ministry of Financial Institutions so that we can pass the questions of difficulty that consumers are having on to the board, they can also get in touch with the superintendent of insurance, just to put to rest the member’s concern that consumers have no access to deal with questions of concern.

I can tell the honourable member that in terms of policy it is very clear that the board is to work in a manner which puts a fair rate system in place in Ontario. It is charged to ensure that the consumers of this province understand and know that its deliberations have provided a fair result.

That is what the open hearing process is about. That is what this public discussion we are having now with respect to rates is all about. That is a very clear policy statement made by this government as it was put through this Legislative Assembly. The public knows full well that the proposal which is in front of the board now to deliberate upon is being considered with respect to the public interest of having fair rates. I cannot think of anything that is more clear than that. Fair rates for coverage is a very clear and distinctive policy statement to that board in outlining its mandate.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me ask the minister a yes-or-no question. Is he or is he not, on behalf of the government of Ontario, going to issue a policy statement under

section 27 indicating what the policy of the government of Ontario is with respect to insurance rates? Is he going to do it under

section 27 specifically? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The government of this province has already spoken very clearly. We have indicated we want fair rates in Ontario. We have said that specifically. To ensure that this process is carried out, we have a very open and public hearing. The member would also be aware that at this particular time we have the first in a series of hearings the board will be having. It has an ongoing jurisdiction with respect to this matter. It will continue to hear in a public way concerns from the public, industry or other people about the rates, but the policy is never going to vary: fair rates in Ontario.

Mr. B. Rae: I never knew that the word “no” had a thousand syllables, but I guess it does. We just heard it from the Minister of Financial Institutions. The answer to my question was no.

Mr. Speaker: Your new question would be?

RENT REGULATION

Mr. B. Rae: A question to the Minister of Housing. I want to ask the minister some questions about rent review.

The minister will no doubt know that as of October 31, which is the last date for which we have figures, some 242,000 rental units are still awaiting a decision on rent review. That compares to, on March 30, 235,000 and on April 30, 240,000. It is, I admit to the minister, since I know she will say this, a slight decline from the peak of 258,000. It still represents nearly a quarter-of-a-million citizens, nearly a third of all people living in rental accommodation in units that are covered by the act, who are waiting to hear a decision on rent review.

I would like to ask the minister, when she has a situation as serious as that, when she has tenants who are routinely receiving increases of 8 per cent, 9 per cent, 10 per cent -- in fact, the average on rent review now is 11.4 per cent; again, the latest figure is from October 31 --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder how the minister can justify a system which leaves 250,000 people waiting, hanging around for years on end for a decision; and those tenants who have had their decisions show an increase which is over twice the allowable amount under the government’s so-called legislation.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have said in this House many times before, and I am happy to say again, that it concerns me greatly that we are not processing these answers as quickly as we would like. However, I would like to share with the member opposite, who I am sure is very interested in the answer since he was so interested in the question, that as of our last date, at the end of November, the backlog had been reduced to 18,300 applications, which is a significant reduction, and the number of applications governs how quickly people get their answers.

The member also made a case about the average increases for the people who have gone through rent review. That is indeed the case and those increases have to do with increases that are justified because of capital costs and other costs associated with running those buildings.

Mr. B. Rae: Since the minister’s answer states very clearly that there are increases that have been called justified, I would like to ask her how she feels about the fact that there are literally thousands of tenants who are paying more now, paying more this year, who will pay more next year and will pay more the year after and well into the 1990s because of the financial loss provisions of her bill.

In fact, would the minister not agree with me that there are thousands of tenants who are being asked for the next five or 10 years to carry the cost of flipping and speculation on apartment buildings, which her government has done absolutely nothing to stop?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The provisions of the act the member is talking about are there to make sure that if there is an increased cost when buildings change hands, the cost is contained. In 1982, when our party was in opposition, we worked hard to make sure that that increase was contained and capped at five per cent, and that is the way it works now.

It seems to me that one of the pieces of information that might be helpful to the member opposite is the knowledge that at the same time as there are indeed rent increases that go through the rent review system there are also rent reductions and rebates, and the average rebate of rent in this province has been 14.4 per cent.

Mr. B. Rae: If the minister needs documentation, we can provide it to her on a daily basis in terms of where the flipping is happening, where the speculation is taking place and why it is that the government’s law, in fact, sanctions it, allows it and indeed requires the tenants to finance it. Let me give one example.

Would the minister comment on this example at 191 St. George Street in Toronto, which has 100 apartments? The building was sold to 191 St. George Street Ltd. on August 31, 1987, for $2.9 million. This company then resold the building to Tri-Arms Investment Ltd. on January 5, 1988, for $5 million. This represents a 72.4 per cent increase in a little over four months’ time. That speculative increase is being paid for by the tenants every year on the financial loss provisions, and the minister knows it full well.

Does she not realize that the law she is in charge of administering requires tenants to finance speculation, not for one year, not for two years, but for as long as they are going to be tenants in that building? Is she not ashamed to have that kind of law in her jurisdiction?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The law I am administering was put together after consultation and extensive work with landlords and tenants. It is not perfect, but it was meant to be a balanced package in which there was a series of initiatives to balance the concerns raised. There are extensive and increased protections for tenants under this rent review legislation. There is, I believe, a reasonable balance.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier with respect to the Mercer report and the proposed auto insurance rates.

I want to suggest in advance that I have heard the comments of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston), so I would prefer that the question not be transferred to him. My question, therefore, is to the Premier and it relates to his comments. He said that just because the consultants give a suggestion does not mean that the government is going to do it. Cabinet, ultimately, and the Legislature make the decision on these things.

Is the Premier now admitting that the entire process of setting rates is not independent? That is contrary to what he has been saying in this House. What are the implications of his words with respect to this arm’s-length, independent review board, which he has indicated time and again in this House is going to have the responsibility for setting rates? Obviously, what he is saying here flies in the face of his previous comments, and I am looking for him to clarify which of his comments is correct.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The leader of the third party is wrong too; and I will not refer this to the Chairman of Management Board, I will refer it to the Minister of Financial Institutions.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It always gives me pleasure to respond to the member for Sarnia. Although I have said before basically what I am going to say now, I think it bears repeating. We have mandated the board to go out and set the rates. They have gone about their business in a very workmanlike way and they are in the process of setting rates, as is their responsibility.

Ultimately, of course, as has been indicated, we will compare the product which we have in place and working, after it has been in place in Ontario for some time, against the products that are in any other jurisdiction in North America to see what happens and deal with issues. With regard to the rates, the board will set the rates some time in January, as the member suggests.

Mr. Brandt: I want to be very clear in my supplementary to the Chairman of Management Board, since the Premier does not want to handle this particular issue. I say to the Chairman of Management Board that just a few days ago he indicated that there was more than adequate time for the board to get input from the public. Today, the Premier is saying that there is not adequate time and that we are going to have to extend the hearings -- again, a contradiction between him and the Premier.

Since the Premier has indicated on a number of occasions that this is an arm’s-length, independent body and today has indicated that in some way cabinet is going to make the decision -- two statements that are in direct conflict with respect to how this matter is being handled -- could the minister perhaps share with this House how those statements that are in direct conflict happened to occur? Then the public of Ontario will clearly understand what is going to happen with these rate increases, how it can have input, how the decisions are going to be made and what role, if any, the government is going to play, recognizing that on September 7 --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The minister.

Mr. Brandt: My question is --

Mr. Speaker: I heard quite a number of questions. Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The people will know that there has been a commitment made by the board, by us, that the hearing process will allow for input. I have said and the Premier has indicated that there ought to be ample time for public input and, in fact, that goes a long way to deal exactly with the public pronouncements of the chairman the first day the hearings started, Monday, December 12. He said that if they needed more time, they would take the time.

The interesting thing is that, as a result, there is no conflict in that statement, which goes a long way to indicate that the member obviously is not in possession of all the material facts. I had said the public is going to be able to appear before the board and I expect that to occur.

With respect to this board process, the hearing process is of course quite independent and is going to deal with all of the material facts that come before it and make its determination independently of us and will set the rates. We have a mandate in the province with respect to dealing with the issues of insurance. As the member knows, my capacity as the Minister of Financial Institutions is to deal with the act or any other parts. Of course, ultimately the responsibility for all of the carryings on in the business field in Ontario in one sense or another comes back to --

Mr. Speaker: That is quite a full answer.

Mr. Runciman: There is a very critical issue here that is being avoided like the plague by both the Premier and the minister. The Toronto Star says, “For the first time, Peterson indicated the government, not the so-called independent auto board, has the final say on auto insurance.” This is very critical. It is going to destroy any credibility this board supposedly has.

Let’s have an answer from the minister quite clearly. Is the Premier wrong or is the minister not giving appropriate and accurate information to this House?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is obviously not quite on on this one because, of course, ultimately we do have the carriage of the issue of insurance throughout the province: auto, private and otherwise. But I tell the member that the board has the requirement under the act to set the rates. We have the requirement as a government to take a look at the product and see how the policy is working out, and that will in fact take effect. I understand and the member understands full well that the board is setting the rates and we have, as the ultimate managers of the province, the obligation to compare the products.

WESTERN COAL

Mr. Brandt: My question again is to the Premier. I do not know if there is a minister of coal over there, but he will not be able to refer this one in that respect. The question I have is to the Premier in his capacity as vice-chairman of the Action Group on Western Canadian Coal.

It was about two years ago that the Premier issued instructions that Ontario Hydro should enter into immediate negotiations to buy western coal. I wonder if the Premier could indicate to the House today, since it was two years ago that that initiative was taken, what progress has been made. What contracts have Ontario Hydro entered into with the respect to the purchase of western coal and what contracts does the Premier anticipate will be unfolding in the weeks and months ahead?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am glad my honourable friend asked me that question. He is quite right. I think it was perhaps a year or so ago, perhaps two years, that we struck a task force under the chairmanship of Don Mazankowski and the western premiers to try to develop a methodology to buy more western coal in central Canada; not just for Ontario Hydro, but looking at its industrial applications as well, recognizing that even though we are in a world of free trade that my honourable friend supports, we would like to purchase as much as we can from our sister provinces.

I am going by memory but I think my facts are right. At the present time, I believe 37 per cent of Ontario Hydro’s coal requirements are purchased in western Canada. If I am wrong, my honourable friends will help me. We pay a premium for that now of about $100 million. In other words, if we purchased that same coal in the United States, in West Virginia, we could save Ontario Hydro roughly $100 million. One of the reasons we are doing it is because we believe we should support other provinces. Another reason, of course, is to diversify the suppliers in a contract of this nature.

We have also entered into and signed in a memorandum, even though we did not have a meeting, a number of co-operative projects that we could look at. One of the great problems in bringing in western coal is the transportation problem. We are looking at ways to get the BTU value of the coal up so you are shipping a higher-concentrate fuel. We are looking at our port facilities in handling this.

There are a number of new research projects that we are actively participating in and funding with the federal government. They are funding it out of their western opportunities fund or the equivalent thereof, as well as the other provinces. So we are engaging intensively in a lot of research to try to get the price of western coal down and make it more competitive.

We want to take this beyond just Ontario Hydro and have it for industrial applications, as I said, in Ontario as well. But at the present time, there is a severe price difference and a difference --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: My supplementary is with respect to the fact that, as the Premier is, I am sure, aware, the contracts we have at the present time with the United States in regard to the purchase of coal are coming due. If there are going to be major decisions made, those decisions are going to be made within a relatively short time frame, given the period of time required to plan for these kinds of massive changes.

The Premier is probably also aware that the $100 million he mentioned will be offset very substantially by environmental improvements that can be made through the reduction of sulphur dioxide -- which is the problem with purchasing American coal at this time, the high levels of SO 2 -- and also the fact that some 5,000 jobs will be created in Ontario as a direct result of the importation of western coal as opposed to Pennsylvania or other US coal.

My question to the Premier is, what immediate steps are going to be taken with respect to entering into these contracts? Can he give us some concrete dates and figures with respect to his plans in regard to the purchase of western coal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is no, I cannot. The negotiations are continuing on both sides, as my honourable friend will know, and I do not think it would be helpful to Ontario Hydro or the suppliers to make all of those figures public at the present time. Frankly, I do not know them. There are experts there who are negotiating these things.

My honourable friend raised another interesting question, the implications of the free trade agreement, which is something that he supports. It is very interesting to hear him talking out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. On the one hand he is saying we should favour Canadian vendors, and on the other hand he is saying we should respect the free trade agreement. My honourable friend will want to get his own philosophic act together before he gives us advice.

That being said, I do appreciate having the honourable member’s advice, even if it is on both sides of the issue.

Mr. Brandt: Even that rather stretched statement did not get applause from the trained seals over on that side of the House.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: It is a little late now.

Since he raised this question, the Premier knows full well that nothing in the trade agreement denies him the opportunity to buy environmentally safe coal from western Canada. There is nothing in the agreement that sets aside a

section that denies him that opportunity; so let’s not use that as some kind of red herring in this particular debate.

The Premier should also be aware, since I am trying to keep this on a positive note, that the importation of western coal into Ontario will alleviate part of the harbour crisis in Thunder Bay and will create a substantial number of jobs in that community as a result of increased harbour activity, which is now being impacted very substantially by the reduction in the shipments of western grain.

In terms of the importation of this particular coal, which I believe even the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) would agree is a substantial and positive step forward environmentally and for Ontario Hydro, will the Premier take the initiative, as the vice-chairman of the committee studying this question, to move this issue high on the priority list so that in fact we can bring in western coal, as we should have been doing for some long time, and as a previous government back in 1970 originally initiated? Will he take the steps to make sure --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. You did get to the question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Again I find my honourable friend’s advice a bit contradictory, but let me say that we issued instructions to Ontario Hydro a couple of years or a year ago to try to increase those volumes from western Canada.

Indeed, I think if the member talked to Premier Vander Zalm, Premier Getty or the others, he would understand that Ontario has been making a supreme effort in this regard, and we are anxious to do so.

There are certain differences in SO 2 , as my honourable friend has pointed out, but there are also differences in technology and what can be burned where. There are different technical problems. It is not always easy, as I understand it -- and others will give me advice if I am wrong -- to transfer one grade of coal for another. There are problems involved in this.

My honourable friend is suggesting that we should bring this forward to solve the problems in the Lakehead today because of the layoffs of the grain handlers. That is a different problem, and I am glad he raised it. This is an issue that worries me a great deal -- not just the jobs in the Lakehead but indeed the future of the St. Lawrence Seaway. As my honourable friend knows, the Seaway has been a major artery for the province of Ontario and indeed for western Canada. Because of federal government policies, they are stripping down the Lakehead.

I have had considerable correspondence with the Prime Minister on this issue, as indeed have many other members from the Thunder Bay area. This is extremely worrisome. Because I know that my honourable friend is held in such high repute by the Prime Minister, I would ask him for his advice and for his help in this matter. Would he please get in touch with the Prime Minister and say that he should treat the grain handlers in Thunder Bay the same way he is treating other grain handlers and that he has got to fulfil his responsibilities?

I know when the honourable leader of the third party stands up and speaks with passion --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Solicitor General. She will be aware that under the present Retail Business Holidays Act, Boxing Day is a holiday. Is the minister aware that the Hudson’s Bay Co. has sent a letter to its employees advising them that it intends to disobey that law and in fact encouraging its employees to be part of this disrespect for the present law? If so, what does she intend to do, as the chief law enforcement officer of this province, to uphold the present act?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I particularly welcome such an interesting question from this member who has not been uninvolved in the discussions at the standing committee on administration of justice. We were very hopeful that we would have this out of committee and to the House so that we would have a new act with teeth in it to prevent such an occurrence.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale expects an answer. Minister?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would remind all members of the Legislature that last year there was some confusion around the Boxing Day closing. The stores indeed stayed closed on Boxing Day, which was Saturday, and some of them tried to open on Sunday due to the Sabbatarian exemption. That issue is not here presently at stake this year.

I saw the letter to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) from the Hudson’s Bay Co. in which it said that it had heard rumours that 70 per cent of the stores were going to open, etc., and then went on to advise its staff on all of this. I do not operate on rumours. I have heard no such rumours. The police are instructed. They will pursue the law as it stands and lay charges. I trust that the Hudson’s Bay Co. and other corporate citizens will obey the law, as indeed individual citizens are expected to do also.

Mr. Philip: Now that the minister has heard the rumour, the same minister who has introduced legislation that has amounted to every Hudson’s Bay store in British Columbia being open on every Sunday, would the minister tell us what she intends to do about a company that is advising its employees that it intends to break the law? Is she going to use the powers of injunction or other powers, as the chief police officer in this province, to see that this kind of wilful disobedience of the law and counselling others to --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait for a while, if you want to waste time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I hope no member will complain in the future that he has not had an opportunity to ask a question. Order.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member is well aware there are injunctive powers in the new bill, which has not been passed, which is still in committee.

There are no injunctive powers in the present bill to apply to anybody, be it the Hudson’s Bay Co. or the smallest merchant anywhere.

When we get the new bill, we will use the powers it gives us. In the meantime, we will lay charges as the present bill permits.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The London area office staff of his ministry has informed parents of autistic children of a 25 per cent reduction across the board in parent relief time. As he knows, raising an autistic child is a tremendous challenge and puts a great deal of strain on family members. In some families, this means a 25 per cent reduction in just six hours a month of relief time.

With this totally inadequate level of support services now, can he explain to the family members just how they can continue to provide the necessary care for their children in their own homes?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member is referring, I believe, to our special services at home program. In the past three years, we have increased the budget of this program from about $5.7 million to about $11.5 million. That is more than a 100 per cent increase.

In the specific area that she is referring to, the London area, it has increased just over the last two years from $637,000 to about $1.1 million. That is almost a doubling; not quite. That is just simply a reflection of the increased demand for the service.

The member would know that in all of my programs I have limitations on total budget available, because the rest of the budget has to go to all the other programs for which I am responsible.

There has to be some control on the expenditure expansion because there just is not an unlimited amount of money; so our area office has been asked to reduce contracts by 25 per cent, where it is possible, as they come up for renewal. There is no reduction where it would make a significant impact on the family.

It is not an across-the-board reduction. It is a reduction for some but not for others.

Mrs. Cunningham: We checked this information with regard to the across-the-board reduction, which is one part of our concern, just within the last hour or so and we were informed otherwise: that six hours a month for some families and 40 hours a month for other families will be reduced across the board. So, I would ask the minister to check into that part.

I think really the question here is the ministries’ priority, both in health care and in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, for keeping families and children in their own homes.

I do not understand, and I am spending a great deal of time explaining to the public as we get calls in our office, how the government can support home care and not provide the resources.

My question is: How can a decision like this even take place when his ministry professes to support deinstitutionalization?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let me speak to the very last point the member made.

I have issued a clear directive that no family, where there is a possibility of a child being institutionalized, will have any cut. I would ask the honourable member to check the sources she referred to in her question to see if that is the case. In fact, there will not be any institutionalization as a result of this.

Secondly, I would remind the honourable member that the specific program to which she is referring is only one of several programs that are available to many families. For example, once a family has reached the $10,000 maximum of this particular program, then there are other programs to which it has access, other agency programs from my ministry and, in a number of cases, home care assistance through the Ministry of Health. It is not just this program in the case of many families, particularly those families who have children with multiple needs. A combination of all of those resources is usually sufficient to meet the needs of families.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

Ms. Collins: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. In recent years Canadians have become more aware of the quality of their environment. Issues such as acid rain, climate change and ozone depletion are discussed on a national scope every day. Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon elected representatives to lead by example. Would the minister please indicate whether consideration is being given to use environmental criteria as part of the provincial government’s procurement policy?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I listened carefully and with great interest to the member’s statement today. She will be aware that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) a few months ago announced the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy, which among many things identified a couple of major concerns, one being the interdependence between sustainable economic activity and long-term environmental concerns; the other one was, in fact, government’s corporate responsibility. As such, I have asked my officials if they would begin to look at our responsibilities related to environmentally sensitive and environmentally friendly products in our procurement area.

Ms. Collins: In a recent survey of my constituents, the majority have indicated that the environment is the issue of greatest concern to them. Would the minister inform this House how quickly he expects his ministry to adopt this policy?

Hon. Mr. Patten: As I think the member has, I have heard many constituents in my community identify the environment as a major concern and how that is applied to the daily activity of government. In fact, parenthetically, I am planning to organize a workshop in my own riding. Having asked my officials this particular question, I would expect that early in the new year, perhaps in January or February, we would be able to come forward with recommendations for some changes to our procurement policies so that they may be far more environmentally sensitive than they are now.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Last week in the House, with regard to the Bastien case, the Solicitor General said, “As I understand it, the difference between the

section 58 that the member uses and the

section 59 that I would be using” is that under order in council of the Lieutenant Governor, this

section would give broad definition to the inquiry being held by the Ontario Police Commission.

Clearly, last week, the minister was saying the inquiry into the Bastien case was being called under

section 59 of the Police Act. If that is the case, I would like to ask the minister why it is that Mr. Drinkwalter, the chairman of Ontario Police Commission, in an interview with the Windsor Star, said that it was being called under

section 58, and then this morning when I spoke to him, he said it was being called under

section 11, under regulation 790 of the Ontario Police Act, and as of today, there has still been no order in council passed; so even if it is under

section 59, as the Solicitor General announced last week, there is no order in council, and the chairman of the Ontario Police Commission has no idea under which

section of the Police Act he is proceeding for this inquiry.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It is certainly my understanding -- and I do not intend to get into a legal play on words here -- that the issue is fundamentally being dealt with under

section 59, as I indicated. It is my understanding it also involves the

section mentioned,

section 11. When I was instructed originally about the numbers, both numbers were used, but 59 is what I had heard. I think the actual numbers do relate to two other similar sections, 58 and

Section 59, as I indicated, is broader in scope, dealing with matters related to the Ontario Police Commission that deal in a general way,

whereas under

section 58 it deals more specifically with problems of a municipality or of the OPC relating to a municipality, and tends to be something requested often by the municipality in reporting back to it.

Section 59 is the

section involved here. It will be by order in council and will be acted on in that way and reporting back to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as required under

section 59.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I can only say that this matter has been handled by the minister in the most incompetent fashion possible in the last several months -- absolutely incompetent.

Last week, when the minister made her announcement, she had no idea which

section she was calling it under. We had to ask her. When is the order in council going to be passed, what is the scope of this inquiry going to be; and can she answer the question that I asked Mr. Drinkwalter this morning -- will there be public hearings? This morning when I asked him, he said, “There has been no decision on public hearings.” If there are no public hearings on this matter, if it is not going to be handled and defined by order in council, then last week was a hoax and the incompetence continues.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I wish to be very clear. When I stood up and made my announcement last week, I noted that the member of the opposition rushed over to the library behind the throne, came up with the book and the

section involved. When he used the term “58,” I was surprised and checked indeed to make sure that I had not made an error. It turned out I had not. It was 59, as I had announced. He had the book in front of him and got the wrong number. I cannot help that.

Mr. B. Rae: You didn’t tell us which

section of the act. You didn’t say anything about it. You didn’t say whether it was a public hearing.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: With regard to whether there will be public hearings or not, once again, I am not about to get into a battle around words. I have assured the public that the whole matter will be aired in public with public input. I am not going to argue about the precise wording of the terms of reference until we present them to the members.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Cousens: A question for the Minister of Transportation. Is it the minister’s intention to institute parking fees for the 19,000 Go Transit parking spaces in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member will be aware that I had stated earlier that indeed we have become a very large parking operator. He is, I am sure, quoting from a report from the press recently where the regional chairman of Halton made reference to that. It is something that has not been discussed in my office.

Mr. Cousens: Maybe this gives us a chance to have the minister go on record. Certainly, the 19,000 spaces are insufficient to meet the needs of the people who need Go Transit. We need more transit services. We need to have more support from the government for the people to get them off the roads and on to public transit. What I would like to ask the minister is if he can give us his commitment today in the Legislature that he will fight to make sure that there is no charge for parking spaces in Ontario for Go Transit spaces.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not know whether the member comes to this House by his large car or by transit. I would certainly like to find that out. I really have to --

Mr. Cousens: I don’t fly on a broom.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: He arrived on his broom this morning.

Interjections

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I sometimes have to take the member’s questions as if they are addressed to me with his tongue in his cheek, considering that in the short time that he was a member of the previous government, the only decision they made with respect to transit provisions for this province was to cancel the Go advanced light rail transit.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Oh no, shame.

Mr. Farnan: Ask Mr. McCague behind you.

Mr. Cousens: I did; you’re wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for St. Catharines-Brock.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. It has been close to two years since the declaration of intent was signed by two United States and two Canadian jurisdictions in regard to the Niagara River toxic management plan. While about 90 per cent of the contaminants originate on the American side of the river, I think it is clear that we on the Canadian side have the responsibility to clean up our own act. Would the minister tell this House what actions have been taken on our side of the river to meet these environmental obligations?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would be pleased to do so because the member’s point is a valid one: Unless we take the appropriate action, we cannot point the finger. Between 1982 and 1986, the reduction was some 60 per cent on our side of the river.

There have been a number of capital projects jointly funded by the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario and the regional municipality of Niagara, including the Niagara Falls sewage treatment plant improvement where we put in $3.3 million, the Anger sewage treatment plant upgrading where we have $3.4 million, the expansion of the Welland sewage treatment plant where we put in $4.8 million, and it goes on. There is a list of a number of projects.

I understand there are at least 19 projects which are currently on the go or recently completed in the regional municipality of Niagara which have contributed to an improvement of the quality of the water which goes into the river. In addition to that, we have imposed control orders on companies that have effluents which head into waterways heading into the Niagara River or the Great Lakes system.

Of course, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program will have a measured effect, a very important effect, on this. All of these actions taken together, generally from the Ministry of the Environment, that apply to the whole province and specifically to the Niagara River, have put us in a very strong position to demand equal action from our American friends.

Mr. Dietsch: Concerns have been expressed about the rather short list of persistent toxic chemicals to be dealt with on a priority basis. It started out, I believe, as a list of 10 and has now grown and has been expanded to a list of 15.

Would the minister be prepared to assure this House that just as that list has been enlarged from 10 to 15, expanded by 50 per cent, will it be expanded past that stage and will it include any chemicals that scientists or others may deem appropriate for immediate attention?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is correct in saying that initially there were only 10 on that list that were selected as priority pollutants. At that time I expressed concern that it was a very limited number and I wanted to see that list expanded. It has been expanded by some 50 per cent at the present time. That list, of course, includes polyaromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls.

In addition to that, there are some 50 that are on what is called a grey list at the present time, 50 chemicals which are being examined to be put on a list of chemicals to be reduced. The sampling protocols are being developed for those. As the scientists, technical people and others have their input and as protocols are developed for the testing of those, they will then be placed on that priority list.

If anybody knows anything about the Niagara River and particularly the inputs from those toxic waste dumps on the other side, I think it is safe to say that it is a requirement that there be far more than the 10 or 15 we have seen at the present time. That list indeed should be expanded beyond that, and I intend as Minister of the Environment of Ontario to ensure that --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question, the member for Hamilton East.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, and it is a serious concern to a number of workers in Ontario. We have two situations. We have 26 workers -- ex-employees of Max Security and Investigations, owned at the time by the Tunney brothers, who do the wrestling promotion -- who are out of work and who had an order from the employment standards for some $70,000 owing them issued in August of this year. They are nowhere in receiving that money and most of them are not very highly paid employees.

We have as well the Consolidated-Bathurst plant in Hamilton, which closed five and a half years ago and which four and a half years ago got an order, on the basis of bargaining in bad faith, for an additional $335,000 to the 177 workers in that plant. Those workers, over one third of whom are still not working to this day, have never received that money. It is worth well over $400,000 now with the interest that has accrued to it.

Can the minister tell us what he is doing in the case of these workers who are not getting their money five and a half years later, and about a year or less later, and who are in real need?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to respond first to the question about Max Security and Investigations. My understanding is there is some $70,000 in unpaid wages and vacation pay and that orders have now been issued by the employment standards branch, but those orders have not yet been complied with. The employment standards branch will continue to go after that employer to recover those moneys on behalf of the employees.

On the matter of Consolidated-Bathurst, I do not have an answer available for the member at this point, but I will provide him with one as soon as possible.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister will know that you cannot eat an order and that the order from the employment standards branch does not mean anything if it cannot collect it. Yet the owners of this company, or the ex-owners of it before they closed it down, are obviously doing quite well.

In the Connie-Bath case, about nine of the workers have died since that plant closed down and it will be their estates, if anything, that will get the money they are due. How many more are going to have to die -- it has now been five and a half years they have been without their money -- before we get that?

These governments -- the minister’s and the previous government, I believe -- have promised we would get legislation to see that workers could collect money legitimately owed to them, even if Ontario had to take action on its own and not wait for federal changes. Can the minister tell us when we are going to have some action that will give these workers who need that money the money that is due them.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Hamilton East makes a very good point. Shortly after I assumed responsibility within the Ministry of Labour, I was apprised of relatively high-level negotiations going on across Canada among ministers of labour and my counterpart in the federal government, looking forward to a national wage protection program that would ensure that right across this country we would have a system in place where wages and vacation pay that were owing to workers under circumstances where a business failed, for one reason or another, insolvency or otherwise, would be paid.

It is to my great disappointment that over the past few months I have heard zero, nothing, from the federal government as to whether it is actually going to implement the program. Notwithstanding that bankruptcy is a federal matter, I agree with my friend the member for Hamilton East that we should not let the clock run much longer before we look at initiatives that would respond at least to the workers in this province. Those are matters I am working on presently.

COMPENSATION FOR WITNESSES

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question for the Attorney General. Sandra Boyd, a single mother in the town of Smiths Falls, was a witness at a criminal trial in Whitney, Ontario, almost 100 miles from her home. In order to testify, she had to take a day off from work and she forfeited her pay of $52. In return, she received a cheque for $6 from the province for being a witness -- a measly $6. She has asked me to return the cheque to the Attorney General, which I will do.

I would like to ask the Attorney General if he feels this is adequate compensation for someone who incurred this significant expense in trying to do her duty to society, bearing in mind that she is a single parent.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think the honourable member’s point is a good one. I think some mistake has been made, probably by one of those people the member’s government appointed down his way to deal with these things. As the honourable member knows, the regulation fixes a daily fee for attending as witness and provides for a mileage or transportation charge as well.

Based on the facts the honourable member has given me, I believe the cheque should have been for significantly more than the amount the honourable member has referred to. If he would like to return it, I would be delighted to look into it, see what the appropriate compensation is and send it right along to Miss Boyd.

Mr. Wiseman: I understand that under the jurisdiction of the federal courts they have amended that payment to witnesses to something more reasonable. I understand from a lawyer in my area that as the Attorney General said, the fee is set through regulation. In fairness to witnesses who come forward to do their duty, I ask him if he will try to put through a change to the regulation to bring it at least equal to the compensation the federal government is paying at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am very sympathetic to that. The honourable member’s leader, of course, is always saying we are spending too much money, but certainly, if the honourable member can persuade his leader we should be spending more money on matters of this type, I would be very delighted to have his support in that major effort.

In so far as this cheque is concerned, it seems to me fairly clear it was erroneously made out. Perhaps the honourable member will return it. He said he would but I do not have it yet.

Mr. Wiseman: I have returned it.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Ah yes; here it is. “Return to Sender.” I thank him. I will look into it and see it gets corrected and sent out as quickly as possible.

PROPOSED PULP MILL

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Energy.

In view of the need to assure proper end use of timber resources in northern Ontario, the announcement that the governments of Alberta and Canada are funding a new experimental pulp mill in the northern part of that province, and in view of the need to process more of our natural resources in the north to diversify the northern economy, will the minister facilitate the establishment of a new chemothermomechanical pulp mill in the Wawa area to process hardwoods, by directing Ontario Hydro to implement the recommendation of the legislative committee to emulate the practice of Hydro-Quebec by providing preferential electricity rates in the northern part of this province?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I can conceptually answer the honourable member’s question by saying that many of the objectives he enunciated are objectives this government would like to see implemented through a vehicle like Ontario Hydro in terms of its supply-side generation policies.

With respect to the specific project the honourable member referred to, I would be more than pleased to have my officials look at the precise facts to determine how we can best co-operate in terms of meeting the objectives of the government and Ontario Hydro.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

Mr. Speaker, I present these 533 signatures properly placed before you with the hope that the government will do something about it.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Mr. Faubert: I have a petition addressed, “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the crown in the province of Ontario continues a lengthy and expensive prosecution against the Church of Scientology; and

“Whereas at no time in recorded history has an entire church been charged with a criminal offence for the actions of individuals, and freedom of religion in the province is at risk; and

“Whereas the alleged offences occurred over a decade ago and those responsible have been expelled from the church or rehabilitated,

“We petition the Attorney General and the government of Ontario to withdraw the charges against the church and end this prosecution.”

This petition is signed by some 450 residents and I submit it with the caveat that I will sign this petition, as I am obliged to do, in order to allow the petition to be entered into the record, and for no other reason.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Henderson: “To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

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

“Whereas we strongly oppose Sunday openings, we believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain a common pause day.”

This petition is signed by about 150 constituents and residents of the Metropolitan Toronto area and by me.

CAMPING RESTRICTIONS

Mr. Pope: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

“We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Ministry of Natural Resources to remove all ‘No Camping’ signs posted at several locations within the limits of the district of Cochrane. We also petition the ministry to make campsites available in the district without a day limit. As it now stands, ‘No Camping’ signs have been posted in areas of existing campsites and we feel this is unfair to all taxpayers. Dump sites could be made available at these sites to protect the environment and water source.”

This petition is signed by over 200 residents of the communities of Iroquois Falls and Timmins and I have signed it myself. It was delivered by Robert Joanisse, and I support the petition.

USE OF LOTTERY PROFITS

Mr. McClelland: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“We agree with the intent of Bill 119, to divert a portion of lottery profits to help with the funding of hospitals, and we respectfully urge the parliament of Ontario to pass this bill into law as soon as possible.”

It is signed by 492 residents of the town of Caledon and I have affixed my signature to the petition.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Eves: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

This petition is signed by 131 teachers employed by the West Parry Sound Board of Education and I have affixed my signature to it itself.

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. McLean: I have a petition signed by 36 parents of children in the Simcoe County Board of Education school system to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“We, the undersigned, are opposed to the use of multifaith prayers and readings in Simcoe County Board of Education schools.”

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Furlong 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 Pr73,

An Act to revive George A. McNamara Memorial Foundation;

Bill Pr75,

An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on Bill Pr73,

An Act to revive George A. McNamara Memorial Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. McLeod moved first reading of Bill 199,

An Act to amend the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The minister may have a brief explanatory note.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Just a brief introduction: The purpose of the proposed legislation is to amend the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act to give Ryerson the authority to grant new baccalaureate degrees consistent with the objects and purposes of the institute.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 193,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

PSYCHOLOGISTS REGISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Caplan moved second reading of Bill 196,

An Act to amend the Psychologists Registration Act.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I will be brief. I have spoken with the critics from both the opposition parties and explained that the Ontario Board of Examiners in Psychology is responsible for regulating psychologists under the authority of the Psychologists Registration Act, which was originally passed in 1960 and has never been amended.

The act constitutes a board of five members with a quorum of three. This amendment will increase the size of the board to allow due process. It will also include, for the first time, the participation of public members on the board. I will be pleased to answer any questions any members have regarding this particular amendment, which will allow for a discipline hearing to go forward.

This bill is considered by the association to be a housekeeping amendment to allow it to get on with its business as a self-governing profession.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly, we will be supporting this amendment.

I would not necessarily say this is simply a housekeeping amendment. As described in the compendium of information, the amendment is necessary because there is an emergency situation. One wonders, when we are dealing with these types of legislation regulating the professions and we get into emergencies like this -- my understanding is that the first request for this amendment was made in the late 1970s. We are now in the late 1980s and we are finally dealing with an emergency situation. God only knows what would happen if there were a crisis.

However, we will be supporting this because we understand and agree that it is necessary to have additional members to deal with concerns and have a quorum and all the rest of the things that are important. We will be supporting it and at House leaders’ meetings we were happy to facilitate this getting on the agenda today.

Mr. Eves: Our party as well will be supporting this proposed bill. It basically increases the number of the members of the Ontario Board of Examiners in Psychology and adds three lay people to the board. This bill will allow the Ontario Board of Examiners in Psychology to deal with the growing number of complaints and disciplinary matters.

The current legislation provides for five board members and no committee structure to handle complaints and discipline. As a matter of principle, and in order to ensure due process, complaint and discipline committees hearing the same case should not be composed of the same members. Currently, the board finds itself in an emergency situation where some major disciplinary hearings cannot proceed because three board members have previous knowledge.

The proposed increase of the board to 10 members, three to be lay members, with a statutory quorum of three, will allow the board to establish a de facto discipline committee. In the current act, there are no lay members. Adding public members to the board will bring the Ontario Board of Examiners in Psychology closer to the model established in the Health Disciplines Act.

We in our party, as I said, support the bill. The Ontario Psychological Association has been pushing for these changes for quite some time, as my colleague in the official opposition has indicated, because of an increasing number of complaints before the board of examiners. The volume of disciplinary cases currently before the board has doubled since 1985.

They had been expecting the proposed new Health Disciplines Act, which is now being developed by the health professions legislation review, to legislate these changes. The fact that the minister has had to introduce these amendments is perhaps an indication that there are indeed problems being experienced by the health professions legislation review. Notwithstanding that fact, we feel that these changes are necessary at this time and we are in full support of them.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to thank the members of the opposition and members of this House and the opposition House leaders who have made it possible for this bill to proceed.

The critic for the third party referred to the health professions legislation review, which has been ongoing for some five years. I am hopeful that we will soon have the report of that task force and that we will then begin the legislative process. But because that is sometimes a lengthy process, the urgency of the situation arising for psychology is such that I felt it was wise to bring forward this amendment to allow for discipline hearings to proceed. As far as I am concerned, this is a matter of protection of the public and in the public interest.

I would like to express my thanks to members of the Legislature.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

SOUTH AFRICAN TRUST INVESTMENTS ACT /

LOI SUR LES PLACEMENTS SUD-AFRICAINS DÉTENUS EN FIDUCIE

Mr. Offer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, second reading of Bill 9,

An Act permitting Trustees and other Persons to dispose of South African investments.

M. Offer, en l’absence de l’hon. M. Scott, propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 9, Loi permettant aux fiduciaires et à d’autres personnes d’aliéner les placements sud-africains.

Mr. Offer: Today, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), I am presenting for second reading the South African Trust Investments Act. Many people, including members of this House, have expressed concern that despite the nature of the government in South Africa, a large number of corporations incorporated or managed outside that country have subsidiaries there or carry on business there.

These companies are seen as directly or indirectly supporting South African government policies since they contribute in some measure to the economic prosperity of the country, to the benefit largely of the white minority. As a result, many people in Canada believe these companies should stop doing business in South Africa.

Many have already accepted for themselves a policy of divestment. That is a policy by which shares in South African companies or companies doing business there are disposed of. Many institutional investors, such as pension funds, have expressed to government their desire to participate in a voluntary program of divestment of assets relating to South Africa.

The problem is that these investors face a legal barrier to divestment, and that is the law of trusts. The law now imposes a legal obligation on trustees to maximize the economic return to the fund. Buying and selling on moral or political grounds is forbidden by law if this reduces the profitability of the investment portfolio.

The purpose of this bill, I believe the first of its type in Canada, is to permit the divestment of trust assets on the grounds I have set out. It is an option that, under the bill, will be opened to a wide number of trusts, charities and pension funds in Canada, whereby the beneficiaries and trustees of those funds can express in a voluntary way their disapproval of the policy of apartheid in South Africa.

The government does not wish to impose on the people of Ontario one view of how to contribute to a solution of the deplorable problem in South Africa. The bill does not compel divestment; neither does it allow the trustees on their own to be moral at the expense of investments held for the beneficiaries, for it is not the trustees’ money here. Therefore, the consent of the beneficiaries is required for a divestment policy. However, we do wish to respond to what we believe is a clearly felt desire by a number of trusts to take this kind of action with the full accord of the beneficiaries.

Honourable members may be interested to know that our bill goes well beyond many statutes with a similar purpose in the United States in that it applies to trusts in the private sector, and not only those that invest public money. It also applies to pension funds that are, legally speaking, not trusts but corporations. Likewise, charitable organizations and foundations are empowered to divest, whether or not they are trusts.

For these reasons, I invite the House to let all these organizations express their views without the impediment that has up to now prevented many of them from doing so.

Mr. Hampton: This is an important bill. We want to acknowledge that. It is an important bill, given the climate in terms of human rights around the world. We are glad that the government has finally spoken on this issue, although it has taken it some time.

We intend to support this bill in general, although not because we are happy with it. In fact, if I may say, we have significant displeasure with it. However, it having taken the government this long to get this far, we realize it is very likely that no matter how much we might protest, no matter how much we might want to move the government to go further, it is very unlikely that it will go further. So we will support the bill.

However, we think the government has taken the weakest way out. The government could have brought in a much stronger bill. The government could have made a more forthright, a more direct, a more persuasive statement through this bill than it has chosen to do. We are disappointed about that. However, we recognize that the government has an overwhelming majority and we recognize we cannot fight it to the wall on every issue.

So in this case we will propose -- and I will be showing my amendment to the parliamentary assistant a little later on -- one amendment to the bill in the hope that the government will recognize the wisdom of our amendment and will go along with it. I will be getting to that in a moment.

I want to make some comments just generally about this bill and generally about the situation in which it presents itself. I said moments ago that I thought the government was taking the easy way out, was making a weak statement, was doing as little as it could in this area. I want to refer to some of the documents that provide the history on this, just to back up my position.

Someone was kind enough to turn over to us a cabinet submission given back in 1986, where all of the issues are canvassed. It was submitted to cabinet by the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and, if I am not mistaken, the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and one other ministry as well. It canvasses at some length the government’s options in this area. It goes through at some length what some other jurisdictions have done and what could have been done by the government.

Let me just peruse some of those things. The parliamentary assistant has said what the bill is about. The bill provides for voluntary divestment by public and private trusts, public and private pension funds and so on. Basically, it says trustees are not liable for monetary consequences of such divestment decisions provided they have obtained majority approval or, in some cases, have reason to believe that they have majority approval.

What that does not do is require even this government to divest. It does not even require this government to sit down and say, “We are going to divest X, Y and Z.” As the parliamentary assistant knows, the government has control over or has a

part in some investments that continue in South Africa, and the government is in a position where it could make a direct statement on these.

If this legislation provided for mandatory divestment, if this legislation said there shall be mandatory divestment of pension and investment funds in South Africa, the government itself would be mandated to divest. I suppose the government might have to make some difficult decisions, but it would place the onus on the government to divest immediately some of the holdings or trusts or pension funds that have South African investments.

That would be a wonderful indicator to the private sector of where Ontario stands, but sadly, the government of Ontario has chosen not to do that. It has chosen not to go the mandatory divestment route, and I am very sad that it has chosen the weak route that it has and very sorry about the consequences that will flow from that.

There is much more that the government could have done. If divestment were mandatory, for example, I suggest that the government would then have to define clearly the South African investments which trusts are required to sell and avoid. The government would then become involved in saying to banks, investment institutions and corporations: “Look, these are investment funds, These are trust funds; these are business opportunities you should avoid.” I think that would be a wonderful statement for this government to make. It would be a wonderful statement for Ontario to make.

Likewise, if divestment were mandatory, we would not have to worry about getting the consent of beneficiaries. Clearly, from the parliamentary assistant’s statement, he is concerned about that. He is concerned that we go through the process of getting the consent of beneficiaries.

Well, let’s just look at that for a minute. I will concede just for a moment what the government’s concern appears to be. It does not want to appear to be intruding on or interfering with what it would term the legitimate business decisions of a trust fund, pension fund or investment fund. But I want to say to the government that if ever there was a case, if ever there was a time to interfere with, to give some direction on so-called legitimate business investments, pension investments and trust investments, now is the time. This is the time. This is the place to do it. If ever there was a time, this is it.

It would be a wonderful statement, again, for Ontario to make in terms of the direction it would give to the private sector, the example it would set for the private sector, a wonderful example it would set for the federal government, a wonderful example it would set for all the other provincial governments in the land. It would be a very good day, because really what the government has said in its position is that some very important, very basic human rights, which too many of us pay lipservice to, are once again going to get second consideration to how much interest someone is going to earn, to someone’s property.

Property rights and money in this most basic of all human rights situations are going to come first and foremost among human rights. When you have boiled down all of the wordage, that is what comes out of the government’s statement. We have to go through the delicate and difficult operation of finding out, in some cases, who the beneficiaries are and securing their agreement before someone’s basic human rights can be recognized. In the contest between property rights and human rights, in this government’s eyes property rights have won out again.

So divestment is optional. The trustees cannot make individual decisions about the extent of divestment. They have to obtain permission and they have to ensure that the people who are beneficiaries or hold an interest in the investment fund also agree that human rights should come before property rights. That is not going to happen here.

Some very worthwhile comparisons can be made. The parliamentary assistant said that the bill that has been presented compares very favourably with United States jurisdictions and jurisdictions elsewhere. Perhaps it does in some respects, but in other respects it pales in comparison; it is sad in comparison. Let me briefly refer to some American jurisdictions.

About 20 states and 80 cities in the United States have passed laws requiring divestiture of stock in companies doing business in South Africa or prohibiting state and local governments from giving contracts to such US companies. According to the United States voluntary body, the Investor Responsibility Research Center, some states have required that no public funds be invested in companies that do business in South Africa unless those companies comply with certain guidelines: equal wages and open promotion policies for all races.

I suggest that if the government had looked carefully at what some of these US states and cities have done, it would have had a model. I do not suggest it has to adopt every letter from A to Z of what has been done by US states and some US cities, but I think the government would have found some very good models which it could have used to do more and to give a better statement to the world, the private sector in Ontario, the federal government and all the other provincial governments in Canada.

Let me just give another example: the state of California. A California bill requires divestment of shares in companies doing business in South Africa by the public employees’ retirement system. In other words, California has come out and said: “Any pension fund or any retirement fund that the state of California has some control over or some input in, divest. Even if we lose money, we divest. Human rights in South Africa are more important than the money we may lose on the divestment.”

They have said that the public employees’ retirement system must divest; they have said that the state teachers’ retirement system must divest, and they have said that the University of California’s investment fund must divest. In American dollar terms, those funds in California amount to about $11 billion of investments in companies doing business in South Africa. They have made a statement which counts. How pale is our statement in comparison.

The California bill is even more specific than that because it says beginning January 1, 1988, until January 1, 1991, state trust funds must divest annually of one third of each of their investments in companies doing business in South Africa. The bill indemnifies trustees from claims and judgements that may arise from divesting.

I want to say to the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General and to the government that all of these models were out there for them. They could have looked at all of them. They could have picked and chosen. They did not even have to go all the way. There were models out there that would have allowed them, as California has done, to require divestment of one third of the remaining divestment each year. They could have done that, but they have not.

I merely want to say again that we have an Ontario Human Rights Commission; we have ministers of Citizenship and Culture; we have the Attorney General in charge of law enforcement. We attend many of these conferences. We claim to support multiculturalism; we claim to support basic human rights. But when the test comes, when the time comes to put words into action, Ontario fails miserably. That is a very weak statement. It is not a statement that Ontario can be proud of and it is not a statement that this government can be proud of. In fact, it has probably done next to the least that it could do. It probably picked the option of the lowest common denominator.

We recognize that the government has an overwhelming majority. We recognize that we could try to delay this as long as possible. We could argue and fight about this. We wish the government had done so much more. We will support the bill, but we will put in an amendment which we hope will go some way towards pushing them a little further in making a little better statement than it has made here in this bill.

We are not proud of this bill by any means, but it is a step in the right direction. We recognize that this is indeed a Liberal government. Liberals move slowly in terms of progress; one has to pull them along, so we will try to pull them along as fast as we can here. But while we do it, we say, “Shame on you for putting property rights in front of basic human rights at this time when you had the opportunity to do more.”

Mr. Farnan: I would like to rise and acknowledge the fine speech that this House has just heard from the member for Rainy River on an issue that is extremely important. The member has very clearly outlined the range of possibilities that the government had in bringing forward this legislation and its failure to take any meaningful action.

I would make one simple statement to the government House leader, who is engrossed in a private chat while this important bill is going through. What kind of message does this kind of lukewarm legislation give to, let’s say, our children as our children look at this House and ask, “What kinds of principles does this government work on?” I think we have to say that we have given our children today a message that is unworthy.

Human rights have to be predominant and human rights are not protected by either silence or apathy. I look upon this particular piece of legislation as apathy. It is apathetic. Basically, as my friend asks, how long must we push a Liberal government before it is prepared to take a reasonable stand on this particular issue?

I know some of the members of the government party, such as Mr. Velshi, have spoken in the House on this issue. I have to admire the stand Mr. Velshi has taken. It must be an extreme embarrassment to the member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi) to sit there with this piece of legislation. I hope there is a vote on this piece of legislation in order that Mr. Velshi can record his dissent.

Mr. Sola: I would just like to respond. I do not think this government has to take a back seat to any government in the world when it comes to respecting human rights or when it comes to multiculturalism. The comments of the opposition just show how myopic they are and how narrow-minded that they only believe in mandating --

Mr. Pouliot: You are pathetic. These are people of vision.

Mr. Reycraft: He doesn’t disagree; it is a myopic vision.

Mr. Sola: I think it is a myopic vision. The members opposite just seem to think in terms of dictating to other people. This government has shown that we believe in democracy. We show the way, but we also allow people to make up their own minds.

I think this bill may not be strong enough to suit some people. As far as I am concerned, it is not strong enough in one way, in the fact that there are other regimes that have equal disregard for human rights that we should also be focusing on, not just the one regime.

I support the bill and I support strong measures against South Africa, but I resent the statements made by the opposition that this government is very soft on abuse of human rights because I think this government has shown that it is at the forefront in the world, not just in Canada, in regard to protection of human rights.

Mr. Hampton: I thank my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) for his comments. I wish to respond to the government members by saying only this: If the members care to look at their own cabinet document that was placed before the government, it sets out all of the options. It sets out how far the state of California went. It sets out how some other American states and US cities have gone. It sets these out.

If the members want to look at their own cabinet document and then see how little the government has done here with how much it could have done with the models that were available from other states and other cities in the United States, they will see very clearly what a weak statement this is on behalf of the government of Ontario. It really adds very little to a generous and basic statement on human rights.

I see that Mr. Velshi is here. He must not be very happy with what the government has produced. I think he would have liked to have seen a lot more than what this government has produced. I repeat my statement: There was a lot more there the government could have done, but the government has chosen the easy way out, the lowest-common-denominator way out. I am sad to see it has done that and I would implore the government to go the extra steps further, to really make a meaningful statement on this important issue.

The Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed with the next speaker, may I remind members that parliamentary tradition requires that you refer to the members by their riding names as opposed to their family names.

Mr. Eves: We rise to support the proposed legislation.

This bill would allow trustees of trusts and persons responsible for managing and investing the assets of registered charities and pension funds to dispose of South African investments without committing a breach of duty, even if the value of the property they manage decreases as a result.

Trustees and persons responsible for pension funds would be required under this bill, before they dispose of a South African investment, to obtain the consent of a majority of identifiable beneficiaries, if there are not more than 100, or satisfy themselves that a majority of the identifiable beneficiaries would consent if there are more than 100.

Under present law, these persons have a duty to invest the property they manage in reasonable and proper investments without consideration of moral issues. This has caused a great deal of problems for many, including but not limited to university campuses and within unions where funds have been invested in South Africa in the past. Although many wish now to dispose of those investments on moral grounds, they are prevented by law from doing so.

I think this is an indication of this provincial Legislature’s support of the federal government’s economic boycott of South Africa and I think members of the House should support the legislation.

Mr. Sola: I would like to commend the member opposite for the positive approach he has taken to this legislation and I would just like to say that I agree with his viewpoint.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure for me to wind up this debate.

First, may I agree with the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) that this is an important bill and an important step. Where I would like to disagree with the member for Rainy River, if I may, is that it is not this government’s first step.

This legislation adds to other actions that this government has taken with respect to South Africa. For instance, Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the actions of this government in wine sales, in rules for government purchases, in an increasing demonstration of this government’s views on the racial policies of the Republic of South Africa.

This particular legislation is important in that it removes a legal barrier in the law of trusts that has prevented people responsible for investing money on behalf of others from disposing of investments in companies doing business in South Africa.

I listened carefully to the comments of all members and I thank them for their support of this legislation.

I think it must be put on the record that when the member for Rainy River talks about other jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, it must be stated that those pieces of legislation apply only to the public type of funds. This legislation goes further in that it applies not only to the public source but also to the private source.

By this legislation, we are trying as best as possible to persuade businesses with subsidiaries or operations in South Africa to break those links. We believe there is a substantial body of opinion that is urging -- and I believe all members of this House urge in one voice -- the breaking of those links.

However, we have to make certain that the law of trusts does not impose a penalty on those charged with the duty of looking after the trusts, that they will not contravene the law of trusts. This bill removes that legal barrier. This bill solves that problem. This bill provides, as has been stated, that there will not be any breach of any legal duty by trustees in selling or refusing to buy South African investments, even if their action results in a loss to the trust.

Finally, this bill applies to all trusts, charities and pension funds. This is a very large step forward, and maybe more important, it is another step that this government has taken with respect to its position and its opinion on South African policies.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plénier de la Chambre.

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comité plénier.

SOUTH AFRICAN TRUST INVESTMENTS ACT /

LOI SUR LES PLACEMENTS SUD-AFRICAINS DÉTENUS EN FIDUCIE

Consideration of Bill 9,

An Act permitting Trustees and other Persons to dispose of South African investments.

Étude du projet de loi 9, Loi permettant aux fiduciaires et à d’autres personnes d’aliéner les placements sud-africains.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any

section of this bill? The member for Rainy River -- with

section numbers, please.

Mr. Hampton: I want to move an amendment to subsection 4(2) of the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other proposed amendments to this bill? There are no others.

Shall sections 1 to 3 of the bill carry?

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 1 à 3, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

Section/article 4:

The Deputy Chairman: Shall subsection 4(1) carry? Carried.

Mr. Hampton moves that subsection 4(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“If there are no more than 100 identifiable beneficiaries of a trust or pension fund,

section 3 applies only if the trustee gives written notice to the identifiable beneficiaries of the proposed transaction and the trustee does not receive, within 60 days after giving the written notice, notice of opposition to the transaction from a majority of identifiable beneficiaries whose combined beneficial interest in the trust or pension fund comprises more than 50 per cent of its assets.”

Mr. Hampton: The reason for this amendment is that if you read through subsection 4(2) of the bill, in our view the way it is written now would probably provide or result in a significant obstacle to divestment. Subsection 2 as it is worded means the manager of a trust or a pension fund would have to get the consent of a majority of the 100 identifiable beneficiaries and they would have to hold more than 50 per cent of the trust fund or pension fund assets. In other words, he would have to go out and actively get their consent.

That could provide a mechanism for a roadblock whereby consent could be held back for quite a long period of time. Just in the process of getting consent for the divestment, months or years could pass. The intent of the amendment we have proposed is much like the argument that has often occurred in the trade union movement. I believe it is an argument occurring right now with respect to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). It is the opting-in or opting-out type of situation.

What we would like to see in subsection 4(2) and what we intend by our amendment is to have a situation whereby once the manager gives written notice, if you have a situation where there are 100 identifiable beneficiaries and no more, if he does not hear a negative answer from a majority of the identifiable beneficiaries within 60 days, then he can divest. It streamlines the period and it streamlines the process a great deal.

I have already said we do not think it goes far enough. I have already said we think it should have gone a lot further in terms of its basic principles, but we will accept the government’s basic principle. In my view, if the government wants to give effect to this legislation and if it wants to make its basic principle more effective in terms of a time line, more effective in terms of process, then we urge the government to adopt this process.

If you do not hear back within 60 days from a majority of the identifiable beneficiaries whose interest comprises more than 50 per cent of the pension fund or the investment fund, if you do not get a negative answer from them within 60 days, you are free to divest. We think it makes eminent good sense to do it that way.

I say again, if the government does not have this kind of procedure in subsection 4(2), it invites the kind of system, the kind of process whereby years can go by and a long, lengthy, difficult lobbying persuasion process has to be engaged in before divestment can take place. As I have said, we think that the way subsection 4(2) is worded at this time really could provide a very strong roadblock to divestment. It provides the kind of convenient wording, the kind of convenient mumbo-jumbo that effectively makes divestment in these circumstances very difficult to achieve.

If the government wants to give effect to the principle it has tried to embody, if it wants to make that process meaningful, we urge the government to get rid of the wording that is there and adopt a process whereby if the identifiable beneficiaries do not actively say, “We don’t want divestment,” then the manager of the trust fund can divest.

Just for a minute, let me go into the difference in the two situations in the real world. If the government follows the amendment we would like, it would provide a mechanism whereby those people who do not want divestment, those institutions that do not want divestment, may have to identify themselves. They have to make a statement. They have to say, “No, we don’t want divestment.”

I say to the minister that if there is a pension fund out there, if there is a corporation out there, if there are interests out there that are saying “no” to divestment, I think it is only good and proper they should have to make that public statement so those people in our society who really are concerned about human rights will be able to go to them and say: “Why did you do this? Why did you actively take the step of opposing divestment?”

The amendment we have put in really requires someone who opposes divestment to take that active step. If they do not oppose divestment, if they want divestment, all they have to do is sit there and say nothing and divestment will occur.

I say to the government that if it really wants to give effect to the principles of its own bill, it should adopt this process and make those who oppose divestment in South Africa stand up and identify themselves.

If the government adopts this process, it will have done a very good thing. It will have taken a very progressive step. It will have provided the enabling mechanism for its own principles to take effect. I urge all members of the House to consider this. I urge the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General to consider it very carefully, because as I say, it merely gives greater effect, quicker effect, to the principle he has already sought to embody in this legislation.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure for me to rise in response to the member for Rainy River, in particular with respect to the amendment he has brought forward to subsection 4(2).

I would like to state at the outset that we believe this bill is one that is important. We believe it is an important step forward. We believe it is an additional step this government has taken with a view to expressing its position against South African policy.

We understand very well what the member for Rainy River has indicated in his amendment. I will use this time just to bring to light some of the points he has made.

It is my understanding that if there are no more than 100 beneficiaries of a trust, then the trustee need only give written notice of his or her intention that he or she is going to divest or take advantage of

section 3 of this legislation, and if after giving such written notice he or she does not receive greater than 50 per cent objection, then the trustee is free to divest of that particular matter without --

Mr. Hampton: Without consent? It says now they have to consent to --

Mr. Offer: The member for Rainy River is saying that the wording of the act says they must consent. To be clear, I am reading from the member for Rainy River’s amendment.

Mr. Hampton: Okay; I apologize.

Mr. Offer: Apology accepted.

Basically, he is stating that if the trustee does not receive objection to that intent to divest by greater than the “majority of identifiable beneficiaries whose combined beneficial interest in the trust or pension fund comprises more than 50 per cent of its assets,” then the trustee is free to take advantage of

section 3 of the act; in other words, to divest.

I have absolutely no objection to that amendment. It is my intent to support that amendment. We understand that with respect to this whole question, there are going to be issues that trustees are going to have to come to grips with. They are going to have to come to grips with what stocks to divest and the timing of divestment. They are going to have to come to grips with the amount of South African connection needed to justify that divestment. They are going to have to come to grips with the best way to approach the beneficiaries for their consent. I have no doubt there are other issues that the particular trustees will have to come to grips with.

I feel the amendment moved b