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

June 1, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L072 - Wed 1 Jun 1988 / Mer 1er jun 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MINIMUM WAGE

HOME CARE

TOURETTE SYNDROME AWARENESS MONTH

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

WASTE DISPOSAL

RAVI VAKIL

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

RESPONSES

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

TABLING OF INFORMATION

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

INDUSTRIAL DISEASE STANDARDS PANEL

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

TRUST COMPANY SERVICE CHARGES

GRAIN HANDLING AT THUNDER BAY

HAZARDOUS WASTES

COUNSELLING SERVICE

YUGOSLAVIAN FILM FESTIVAL

PREMIER’S ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCE

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

PETITIONS

MINIMUM WAGE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TRITIUM

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS / TROISIÈME LECTURE

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to be able to present later today a petition, signed by 800 residents of Sault Ste. Marie, on the subject of minimum wage. This is a subject of concern to all of us in this Legislature when we see situations of working poor who are unable to support their families with levels of income that are above the poverty line.

I think this is an issue the government has to take a serious look at. I would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) to act on behalf of these concerned citizens of Sault Ste. Marie.

They really have three requests in their petition: (1) that the legislation be revised so that the minimum wage covers all workers in Ontario without exception, which is not the case today in terms of certain exceptions; (2) that the minimum wage be adjusted automatically with inflation, not based on the arbitrary will and occasional generosity of the current government; (3) and most important, that the minimum wage be increased to a level so that all families are able to be supported by a standard of living that is above the poverty line.

I believe this is a very vital issue facing all of us in our society and I ask the government to give serious attention to this issue.

HOME CARE

Mr. Cousens: On this, the first day of Senior Citizens’ Month, I would like to bring to the attention of the House another case of the government not putting its money where its mouth is. This is the case of community-based care.

As we all know, there is a large percentage of seniors who have been placed and continue to be placed in inappropriate beds in hospitals. Not only does this put a strain on the already overtaxed hospital system, but it also causes great hardship for those seniors.

The reason seniors are forced into these unnecessary conditions is that this government continues to ignore its commitment to community-based care. If this government was willing to pay home care providers what they are worth, it could provide better and more humane care for seniors in their own homes. Instead, we have at least 50 per cent turnover rates in home care agencies, in homemaker agencies.

Let me give a specific example of one of the major problems in Ontario for seniors. The Sarnia-Lambton Victorian Order of Nurses administers a nursing program as well as the Ministry of Health’s home care program. The ministry has awarded to the home care professional staff an increase of four per cent more than that awarded to the nursing program.

When a service provider sees a commitment like this, or rather the lack of one for these worthy programs, it is not surprising that he or she withdraws the service. Who is hurt most of all? The seniors.

TOURETTE SYNDROME AWARENESS MONTH

Mr. Neumann: The month of June has been designated as Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month in Canada. “What is Tourette syndrome?” members might ask. Until late last year, I was unaware of Tourette syndrome. A November

article in the Toronto Star about a similar awareness program in the United States drew the symptoms of Tourette to my attention. This led to a diagnosis for a member of our family, thus ending the frustration of not knowing what was wrong.

Tourette syndrome, a multiple-tic disorder of neurochemical origin, manifests itself in involuntary behaviour, such as motor tics and vocalizations. Early diagnosis is critical. Misdiagnosis can lead to the wrong treatment and thus to severe psychological problems.

While there is no known cure for this lifelong disorder, drugs are becoming more effective in controlling the symptoms in many cases. Public awareness can help to create tolerance and understanding for the Tourette sufferer. There are many undiagnosed children and adults in our society. Greater awareness can lead to proper diagnoses. Frustrated families and individuals will then understand what they are facing and will learn to cope effectively.

Today we have present with us in the members’ gallery Louise Rosenbloom, national president of the Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada, and David MacLachlan, director and past president. We urge members of this House to become better informed about Tourette syndrome. Help us to achieve improved awareness in all of Ontario’s municipalities.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. R. F. Johnston:

Section 6 of the Rental Housing Protection Act says that tenants cannot be asked to vacate a building until the municipality has first granted approval for the renovation requiring the vacation and that the certificate of such approval must be attached to the notice.

The landlord of 1 Rannock Street in my riding has flouted Bill 11, much as was the case in the Rafael case, which most people have read about again today in the Toronto Star where, working without work permits, people were put out on the street and now, months after the fact, are trying to get themselves some redress.

The tenants in my riding have been given notice that they are to leave as of the end of this month. They have been told the landlord will not accept any more rent from them, that he is taking their last month’s rent as paid and that they must all leave. He claims he has work permits, which the city of Scarborough tells me have not been issued to him. He has already started the demolition that is involved and he seems to be acting while knowing precisely what the law is, because we have informed him from time to time.

I must ask the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) today to intervene personally in this matter, to indicate to this landlord what the act says and that he must not threaten any more as he has. “If people give a hard time to the landlords, they will never return to this building,” he says.

This is unacceptable practice. The minister for once should intervene before the tenants are evicted and on the streets, instead of waiting for the kind of travesty that we have seen with Mr. Rafael’s apartments.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). The minister’s meddling in the garbage crisis in Simcoe county and throughout the rest of Ontario has resulted in trash being hauled from one municipality to another at high tippage fees and exorbitantly increased taxes. The people are already being taxed enough.

Last year the minister closed the Pauzé landfill site and directed six north Simcoe municipalities to transport their garbage to the Keele Valley landfill site north of Toronto. The taxpayers were disturbed about the increase in their municipal tax bills because the $18-per-tonne tippage fee was to be charged at the Keele Valley landfill site. Then Metro Toronto turned around and raised that tippage fee at its two landfill sites to $50 per tonne from $18 for private haulers, but municipalities were supposed to pay only $13 to $15 per tonne. This rule apparently does not apply to the six north Simcoe municipalities that are still paying the $50 tippage fee.

The minister’s lack of leadership, poor planning and outright meddling have resulted in tonnes of garbage travelling the highways of Ontario, landfill tippage-fee policies that treat some municipalities as private haulers and increase taxes for people who are already staggering from his government’s massive tax grab. The minister’s efforts to solve this province’s growing waste disposal crisis is nothing but garbage, and the people of Ontario will not only want to recycle this government, but they will want to dispose of it.

RAVI VAKIL

Mrs. LeBourdais: I stand in the House today to inform all members of the recent accomplishment of Ravi Vakil, an 18-year-old student at Martingrove Collegiate Institute in my riding of Etobicoke West. Ravi competed with 389,000 other high school students from across Canada and the United States to win the US Mathematical Olympiad.

Ravi is no stranger to awards honouring his abilities in math, but his interests extend to active involvement in many extracurricular activities at Martingrove Collegiate along with his regular studies. Ravi is a fine example of what young people are capable of within the standards of excellence this province has set for our educational institutions.

I would like all members to join with me in wishing Ravi the best of luck as he travels with the Canadian Olympic math team to Australia for the International Mathematical Olympiad, and when he begins his studies at the University of Toronto this fall where he will be studying international relations, economics, computer science, physics and math.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr. Wildman: The intransigence of this government and the failure of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) even to consider the land claim in the Temagami area have produced a potentially very serious situation on the Red Squirrel Road today. As the minister will know, the Bear Island band is occupying the road and is determined to prevent its construction from beginning.

I hope the Minister of Natural Resources will prevail upon his colleague, the minister responsible for native affairs (Mr. Scott), to begin a serious negotiation of the land claim so that it can be settled in a responsible way, rather than leading to an escalating situation which could result in something like Wounded Knee.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Today I am pleased to announce details of an increase in funding to enhance specialized transit services for disabled persons throughout Ontario. My colleagues in cabinet, the ministers without portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) and for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson), were of great assistance in formulating this expanded spending program.

An additional $50 million over five years, including $8.2 million in 1988-89, will be used to increase the quality and extent of existing specialized transit services and to widen the eligibility guidelines for service recipients. With this additional funding assistance, it is estimated that a total of 2.3 million trips will be provided for disabled persons in the 63 participating municipalities across the province.

It will also result in the addition of 125 buses to existing fleets, increased use of microcomputers for greater efficiencies in dispatching and improved availability of trips to adjacent municipalities. These new buses will bring the total of special buses for the disabled, operated directly by participating municipalities, to 525. That is an increase of 30 per cent.

We will be expanding the provincial eligibility guideline beyond the current “unable to board regular transit vehicles” to recognize those persons with other mobility problems which preclude their use of conventional transit.

This initiative is consistent with recommendations in The Freedom to Move is Life Itself report prepared by the Ontario advisory councils on disabled persons and senior citizens.

As well, I would like to emphasize that the finalization of this guideline will be pursued through consultation with municipalities, operators and groups representing persons with disabilities. We will be contacting these groups across the province to request their comment on the proposed eligibility guideline and its implications. The expected deadline is September 1988.

Full implementation of this new guideline is expected by January 1991, which will provide municipalities enough time to adjust their budgets and acquire any additional vehicles without compromising services to existing users. Those municipalities which are ready will be permitted to implement the new guideline as soon as possible.

Recognizing that specialized services will always be required by the more severely disabled, it is essential that we provide adequate service levels.

Another program advancing rapidly is the provision of accessible taxi service for the disabled. The first service has been running in Sudbury for nearly three months now, while Ottawa, Markham, Sault Ste. Marie, Kitchener, Richmond Hill and Pearson International Airport are planning to introduce accessible taxis, subsidized by the Ministry of Transportation.

We are also advancing on a broad range of other transportation initiatives for all disabled and frail elderly persons in Ontario. I hope to announce further details in the near future.

RESPONSES

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Allen: I would like to respond to the announcement by the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) with respect to the additional funding for specialized transit services for the disabled.

The first thing that needs to be said, of course, is that expansion of the specialized services is badly needed. There were over 4,700 instances of trips asked for in the Wheel-Trans system alone last year which the system was not able to meet, and that is certainly true across the province as a whole.

Just the other day I had a complaint in my office from a disabled person whose complaint obviously indicated that the Hamilton system was under some pressure to meet the demands of service there and that the office system of allocating rides was obviously under pressure from lack of funding by virtue of a lack of personnel who could keep the system operational, moving and meeting all the demands placed upon it.

However, I want to say to the minister that when he says this meets the request of the study that was done by the Ontario advisory councils, entitled The Freedom to Move is Life Itself, that is not entirely correct. If I look at some of the key recommendations of that study, it says in the first instance “that the provincial government make a commitment to develop a fully integrated transit system to meet the needs of all Ontario residents by 2010” and further, “that the provision of all provincial funding for transportation be contingent on criteria for a fully integrated transportation system being met.”

The minister has not responded at all to those fundamental requests from The Freedom to Move is Life Itself study, nor has he responded to the disabled community in its attempt to get a memorandum of agreement from him, in which he would provide a staged-in expansion of the specialized services where the municipalities do not now have them and a staged-in integration of specialized and completely fully integrated systems across the province as a whole.

It is quite obvious that the disabled community is not hugely impressed, although it appreciates the specialized service. Its representatives, for example, are prepared to be quoted as follows:

“Many years ago the United States had a system called Separate but Equal, but you cannot be separate and equal at the same time.” The simple fact is there is no guarantee that the municipalities, when they do go into specialized services, will provide a fully accessible integrated service for their disabled people.

The communities in question are obviously short of funds. They have to back up on their property taxpayers in order to meet the immense costs of both specialized services and of fully accessible public services.

We were told at the National Access Awareness conference, sponsored by the Speaker -- which you graciously sent some of us to, Mr. Speaker -- by the president of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities that they were not prepared to put money into a fully accessible integrated transit service for the disabled.

I would be impressed if the minister were to stand up and tell us several things: first, that he is prepared to write legislation that will require minimum standards of access to all public transit systems where they are in place across this province; second, that he will provide funding, which he does not provide now, for modifications to provide for full access to transit systems; third, that he would move the subsidy rate from 75 per cent to 90 per cent for the minor modifications which he now does fund, but engage in an active program of making certain that the communities in question actually access that funding.

At the present time, there is very little takeup of that funding that he provides. The problem centrally is that this announcement does not really tell us that across the front and, in particular, with respect to fully accessible public transit in this province, the minister will act, in fact, in a proactive, energetic, aggressive way to provide the disabled community with what it has asked for, for so long.

Mr. Cousens: It is appropriate that we recognize it is important that we are doing more to service the needs of seniors and the disabled. The kind of announcement that the Minister of Transportation has shared with the minister responsible for disabled persons and the minister responsible for senior citizens’ affairs is an important and welcome announcement.

We all know that we want to see full involvement by our seniors and by those who would otherwise not be able to get around, and that they have access to public transportation. They have problems that can be helped and can be aided. It is important that we remember that.

So the commitment that we see the minister presenting today is something that is really a sense of welcome news for those who are seniors. It might give them a chance to use public transit to come down to see what else the Liberal government is doing for them. When they get here, they might not be happy with everything else they see. There are enough other things that I could comment on, but I would rather stay with the subject of seniors and the disabled.

I wonder why it is the government has not done more to help that senior or disabled person who has a car to have a parking spot and to have some way of co-ordinating protection of that through local police forces. That little sticker and that little identification on the licence plate do not mean as much as they should. I think all of us need to have more respect for that.

I wonder what the government is doing about integration of services for seniors and the disabled between the regions of York, Durham and Peel and Metropolitan Toronto, because a person who needs transportation services from York region or from Peel or some other area into the city cannot always get it. Also, the time that it takes to get it is another problem.

But the impossibility of crossing that Berlin Wall between the municipalities and Metro Toronto is something that is still a barrier for many of them. So I would like to see a better degree of integration of those services in the greater Toronto area, which the minister described in the road map which he presented last week.

What about weekends and evenings? Is the minister saying, by this announcement, that those seniors or those disabled people who are going to need Wheel-Trans can obtain that service in nonregular hours? What about the Wheel-Trans people going on strike again? We are just over that one. I notice the minister did not make this announcement when they were out on strike.

Obviously, there is still a problem there and people forget very quickly the problems that were felt by the disabled and those people who use these services just a short time ago, because when they wanted to use them, they just could not get on them.

So let us look at the whole context of providing excellent services for those who are our seniors and those who are our disabled. We have a challenge in this province to help get people around, to help them travel from A to B. It is not happening as easily as this minister would make us believe. We still know there is a great deal to be done. Seniors who live in Peel, York or Durham do not get the benefit of reduced rates in Metropolitan Toronto even though Ontario tax dollars do a great deal to subsidize the Toronto Transit Commission. That is another thing that could be done.

We like to be positive where there is a place to be positive and I am in the sense that there is action being taken. But there is still so much more that needs to be done that will truly understand what is needed for our seniors and the disabled. It does not always take money. It takes a little bit of enforcement of the rules, a little bit of following through and a little co-ordination with the regions in the areas outside.

Mr. McLean: I would like to respond briefly to this announcement by the minister today, because yesterday my constituency office had several phone calls with regard to a program the government has with regard to the disabled and seniors who are in need. They wanted to have ramps built. The minister had a program whereby he would fund this type of help that seniors and the disabled need. We find out now that this fund is out of money.

There are people in wheelchairs in a home in Orillia who wanted to get out to get some sun and warm weather who cannot get out because of the facilities not being there. His government made the announcement that it would provide funding for that. We see now that the funding has run out. I hope this does not happen to the funding the minister has announced today. The Orillia Ability Association is looking for some help in what he has announced. I do hope he follows through and makes the funds available so that they can enjoy life like the rest.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: On a point of order before we get to question period, Mr. Speaker: I am rising under standing order 88(d), really on two aspects. Standing order 88(

d) requires an answer to Orders and Notices questions within 14 days. First, there are now 27 questions on the order paper that have been there over 30 days, some from 1987, with no substantive answer. Occasionally, we get some answers on issues that are less sensitive, but clearly --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I think it is pretty obvious, as to getting substantive answers, that there is a strategy in place to delay answers to those questions that will be a political embarrassment for the government. Mr. Speaker, you have always brought those to the attention of the ministers and I would appreciate it if, on the first part of my point of order, you would do that again. It clearly is not living up to the spirit of the standing orders. I do not think there is any room for flexibility.

The second

part I want to speak to is that there must be an answer of some sort within 14 days or the government is in violation of the standing orders. Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to intervene with the interim responses and the nonanswers, but technically it appears to me as though this House is now sitting, as I speak, in violation of the standing orders. I refer you to questions 89, 90, 91, 92, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113 and 118, where there has been no answer forthcoming in excess of 14 days, not even an interim answer. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this House can sit in violation of the standing orders and if in fact --

Hon. Mr. Ward: You just want the day off.

Mr. Harris: Either we respect the standing orders or we do not. Certainly, we know the spirit has been violated many, many times, but now I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether in fact this House can sit right now in violation of the standing orders. If in fact it cannot, then I suggest the House adjourn until the standing orders are being complied with.

Mr. Breaugh: I would just briefly like to address the same point of order. I have had on the Orders and Notices paper for some period of time now question 97, where I asked the Ministry of Government Services to simply list all lands the province owns in and around Metro. I was surprised the government did not know. They did give me an interim answer that said they did not know what it was and that it would take a somewhat longer period of time to put that information together.

I was surprised this morning to read in the Globe and Mail, on page A4, the answer to my question. I believe that if we are to write to the Globe and Mail to get answers to our written questions, we should change the standing orders to say so; but if that is not the case, if there is a written question on the order paper and we take the time to publish that question and to expect the ministries to reply to us, we deserve the courtesy of a reply here first before it is published in the newspapers.

I believe we are currently out of order. I believe there is a matter of some privilege here, and mostly because the practice has now become so widespread that one does not get answers to written questions any more. If one is lucky, one will find it printed in the Toronto Star or in the Globe and Mail before one gets an answer in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would want to say for the benefit of my friends opposite that scarcely a day passes that I do not table in the House answers to the several questions that are routinely put by our friends opposite.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The question is, do they read the answers?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Treasurer properly observes as to whether or not these answers are read at all, but the point I want to make to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), who has returned from Richard III in good health, is to say to my friends opposite that somehow, some of the questions are of very considerable complexity.

The point is well made and we will certainly continue to do all that we can to make sure that full and complete answers, including those to questions that are of very great complexity, are provided as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the point of order raised by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and then the comments by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the government House leader. I believe the matter has certainly been drawn to attention now, which should be done, and I hope that because of the numbers which you placed on the record today, it will be looked after immediately by the government House leader.

As far as the second part of your point of order is concerned, the suggestion that possibly the House is out of order sitting, at the moment I cannot see any reason why the House should not sit because that standing order has not been fulfilled.

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) seems to want to say something.

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

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe I have a point of order which is very, very serious. Last week in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, a group of citizens in this province was badly treated by that chairman, and in an uneven, unfair manner.

The group is called the Alliance for the Future of Young Canadians and represents a national group of about 16,000 individuals, is independently financed and happens to be in favour of the free trade agreement. This group phoned the chairman of the committee, the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), who unfortunately is not here. I would have preferred him to be here. This group was told by the Canadian Importers Association, which was scheduled to appear on May 26, that it could not appear and it asked this particular group if it would not go and make its presentation instead, or offered it to the group, not knowing the system.

This group phoned the chairman. He apparently took it upon himself to deal with this group. I want to quote from Hansard of the standing committee last week and I want to tell you the tenor of this particular response.

This group “apparently was coming out of Ottawa, was prepared to get on a plane, come down here and give a presentation, fresh from having met with Donald Macdonald. Frankly, I do not know who would be supplying their plane tickets, but I smelled a political rat and suggested that we were not particularly interested in hearing from them.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to the point of order.

Mr. Sterling: If you read on in the Hansard, the chairman then went about that evening phoning an individual to try to get somebody to replace that particular slot the next day. He, in fact, was not even able to contact that individual that night and had to make a phone call the very next day.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this group, who first of all phoned the clerk of this committee and complained about these remarks, which they heard about secondhand, should be treated that way regardless of their political view. Quite frankly, I thought this was a political forum in which people came to express political views as well as giving any other kind of opinion that they might give.

I really do believe that the chairman has impugned the privilege of every member of this Legislature and what, in fact, that committee was set forth to do in its duties. I can see no other honourable fashion or honourable path for that chairman but to resign from the chairmanship of that particular committee.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the comments by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and I took particular note that every comment made referred to what took place in a committee set out by this House.

As is the usual custom, all matters dealt with by the committee, at the committee, are resolved by the committee. I would suggest to the member that the appropriate place to take that matter would be back to the committee, and, if the committee so desires, report on that matter to the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I beg your pardon.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, with regard to your ruling --

Mr. Speaker: No, I am sorry. Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In every lawsuit brought before the courts that tries to establish a right to sue, the Workers’ Compensation Board response is always, and indeed in the most recent lawsuit was, that the reason there is no right to sue is a tradeoff which gave workers, and I quote, “a generally more valuable right to guaranteed benefits which are received promptly and without regard to fault.”

That is the so-called covenant that was originally made in 1915 with injured workers across this province, that in giving up their right to sue at common law, workers would have a right, to use these words, “to guaranteed benefits which are received promptly and without regard to fault.”

I want to ask the minister to address a particular problem. Those workers who have been awarded a pension by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal for the sole and simple reason that they are suffering from chronic pain -- all of those workers, and there are now about 15 of them who have been awarded such pensions by the appeal tribunal -- are not receiving their benefits, even though they have been ordered to receive benefits by the appeal tribunal, because the compensation board says it wants to study the issue --

Mr. Speaker: Put your question please.

Mr. B. Rae: -- and is studying the issue and is studying the issue. Why should that study prevent these workers from getting the benefits they deserve?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am delighted the Leader of the Opposition has referred back to that initial pact which goes right back to 1915, when the workers’ compensation system was introduced in this province. I think it is important, as we approach reform in the workers’ compensation system, to remember the words he has quoted. That was a historic tradeoff and we have to keep that in mind.

The Leader of the Opposition raises the issue of those claimants who are claiming on the basis of chronic pain. He knows the real issue right there, which was before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, deals with the issue of retroactivity. On the one hand, as he knows, the board had enunciated a clear and rather specific policy on the issue of retroactivity. When these cases came before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, and as a result of hearing a number of cases collectively, the appeals tribunal developed another view of retroactivity and the date back to which a claimant should be able to refer in order to mount a valid claim.

I do not think the Leader of the Opposition should think it is unusual that the board would want to look further at the matter, given the fact that the board itself, the corporate board of the workers’ compensation system, had done an analysis and developed one view of retroactivity, and now the appeals tribunal has another.

Mr. B. Rae: What we have is an appeals structure that cannot work on behalf of workers if, every time the board receives a decision it does not like, it says, “We’re not going to recognize that decision, we’re going to overrule that decision and we’re going to stick it to that decision and stick it to the workers who’ve won that battle,” after, in many cases, applying for pensions for several years. Some of those workers have been waiting for a pension for years and years and years. They win at the appeals tribunal and then they still do not get the money. That is the kind of injustice these workers are facing in the province.

Specifically, in a supplementary to the minister, I wonder if he can tell us why he is still so wedded to the idea of turning the compensation system into more of a means-tested welfare system, as was suggested by Professor Weiler, when he knows full well that approach has been rejected by every single injured workers’ group in this province.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would like to deal with the first part of the question of the Leader of the Opposition and agree wholeheartedly with him that if we had a system that had every single decision of the appeals tribunal overturned by the board, we would have a system that would be in complete chaos, but we do not have that kind of system. We have a system where the appeals tribunal deals with hundreds and hundreds of cases. By and large those cases are dealt with expeditiously and resolved, and a determination is made as to whether or not benefits are going to be paid.

There are some areas, a few areas, where very large issues of policy arise. I acknowledge to my friend the Leader of the Opposition that in the case of retroactivity in the area of chronic-pain claims there is a very large issue of retroactivity. The appeals tribunal and the board have studied these matters extensively and have come to different conclusions. That matter is going to have to be resolved.

Mr. B. Rae: In favour of the board.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: No, not in favour.

As to the second part of the question, the board has said it will look at that issue.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister chose not to answer my question. He chose not to answer the question I asked him, which is why he is still married to a concept which was rejected when the Tories tried to foist it on injured workers in 1983. The minister is reviving it in the name of so-called reform.

There are widespread rumours now, very widespread in the injured-worker community, that it is the minister’s intention to force a tradeoff on workers, saying, “We are going to insist that you accept Weiler,” which means turning compensation into a welfare means-tested system, “but we are going to give you a little bit of something on reinstatement and rehabilitation.”

Why is the minister putting injured workers into this position, where they are going to have to come to terms with a proposal on means testing and on income testing and on turning it into a welfare system, which they cannot accept, in exchange for something they have been asking for in terms of simple justice for a long time, that is, the right to reinstatement and rehabilitation. Why not let reinstatement and rehabilitation stand on their own?

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

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not base the initiatives I take on widespread rumour, nor do I pay much attention to widespread rumour.

Mr. B. Rae: I have nothing else to go on. I do my best.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member does pretty well.

I just tell my friend the Leader of the Opposition that in attempting to bring about significant reforms to the workers’ compensation system, I do not think it is appropriate simply to say what that community wants, what another community wants and what a third community wants, because if we take that approach, we can never really undertake reforms that will make the system a better system.

I do not think my friend has any premium on a concern for injured workers. We all have to be concerned to give injured workers a better system. In the reform package that I propose to present to this Legislature in the future, I expect the system we are proposing will be a better system for all the players in the system, including the injured-worker community.

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

Mr. B. Rae: My question is for the Deputy Premier in his role as the midwife of the Massey-Ferguson creation of the Massey Combines Corp. and the Varity Corp.

Along with my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), I attended a demonstration this morning outside the annual meeting of the Varity Corp., attended by 300 or 400 people, many of whom I am sure are constituents of the Treasurer, as they are of the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann). Both those members were sorely missed and were asked about by many of the workers there.

I would like to ask the Treasurer if he can tell us, at the time the Massey Combines Corp. was formed with the approval and participation of the government of Ontario, why the government of Ontario did not ensure that those workers who were retired or who were about to be retired were guaranteed that the benefits they had negotiated over the last 30 years would be protected regardless of what happened to Massey Combines Corp.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I hope the Leader of the Opposition had the presence of mind to remind my constituents that I was attending cabinet this morning and doing my duties as I felt I should do them. Knowing the Leader of the Opposition as well as I do, I feel sure he was prepared to do that.

The question about the restructuring of the old Massey firm into Varity and Massey Combines was a very difficult one at the time, because the alternative was that the whole operation would go into receivership and be lost to the economy of the country and the province, and particularly the city of Brantford. There is no doubt that at the time the review of the reformation of the endeavour was examined very carefully by the officials of government and we felt all the appropriate protections were in place.

Certainly, as Minister of Financial Institutions, it has been my duty to examine the insufficiencies as carefully as I possibly can, and I must say there are some involving hospital payments for people who felt they were properly protected by insurance coverage which turned out to be no coverage at all. That is just one instance which has given us a great deal of difficulty.

It is certainly our intention to see that the surviving portion of the old Massey-Ferguson corporation will bear and assume all the financial responsibilities that are its under the law. My aim in that regard may take some time to be fulfilled, but I understand the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have entered into a suit in this regard, and that may be helpful.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer is going to be on the other side of the lawsuit, so I do not know how helpful he is going to find it. The feeling among the workers involved is that he was at the table and he was the midwife in this abysmal proposition. There is a great feeling among the workers of that part of the world that he shares a responsibility for the fact that they have lost their benefits.

I would like to ask the Treasurer why the government condoned the deal, when the King Street property which, as the Treasurer will know, is worth about $40 million -- and there was another swap with Brantford city with respect to the downtown site for Massey House which was $900,000 plus in cash -- went to Varity Corp., which stayed alive, which was the phoenix that rose from the ashes. All the liabilities, the rights of the employees who had worked for Massey, who had never worked for Varity in their lives and never worked for Massey Combines Corp. in their lives, went to a company which Varity and the government knew full well was shaky from the very beginning.

The question I have for the Treasurer is, why not at least make Varity, which is still there, with Victor Rice making his $300,000 or $400,000 a year and the directors doing just fine, responsible for the retirees rather than a company which everybody knew was shaky from the very time it was set up?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member surely has a short memory. In the days when this restructuring occurred, there were people like myself who were optimistic enough about the farm economy to think that prices would resurge and that Massey Combines might very well have been a continuing and productive aspect of the economy of the province, not only maintaining employment but improving it.

Unfortunately, that was not the case and the farm economy has remained in dismal circumstances. The sales of combines went down year by year to disastrous levels. For a number of reasons, not the least of which was the cost of production at the Brantford plant, it was not possible for it to get other manufacturing processes. The net result was, as the honourable member knows, that the functioning of Massey Combines came to an end and we are in the difficulties he has described.

In reference to this lawsuit, perhaps I was a bit more facetious than I should have been in referring to that, knowing the political proclivities of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: I have no idea what my proclivities have to do with it.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You were playing politics with an important matter.

Mr. B. Rae: I tell the Treasurer exactly what I am doing. I take my politics very seriously. When workers get shafted the way they have been shafted by the company involved and when the government has been there and sat back and let all the liabilities go to a company which was in trouble from the very beginning and let all the rich assets go to Varity Corp., which just took off and then went into all the other fields, and the workers end up having to take their loved ones out of a nursing home because they can no longer afford it, something is screwy.

The question I have for the Treasurer is, why would those employees of Massey-Ferguson in this city and in Brantford not be associated with a company which was going to be successful when they retired rather than with a company that was in trouble from the very beginning? Why not at least ensure that they get the benefits and they get those guarantees for as long as they live, and not as long as it is convenient for the government of Ontario?

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

It is a great regret for me -- members may believe it or not, even more for me than for the Leader of the Opposition, who has lately come to this important matter -- that the company went into bankruptcy and we have had to face the difficulties that he has described at the top of his lungs.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier and it relates to a matter in the Premier’s home riding. I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether, in his opinion, the administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital in London is -- and I ask for only his opinion -- a good or a bad administrator.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Everybody in London is absolutely wonderful at everything.

Mr. Brandt: The member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), with the tremendous support she received very recently, would concur with that statement. I appreciate the Premier’s mentioning that.

The reason I raised the question --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: The reason I raised the question, if I might shout over the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who is interjecting without reason at this point, is to ask the Premier whether he concurs with the statement that was made by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) -- who is not here today or I would have addressed the question to her -- that if you have a surplus in a hospital budget, you are by definition a good administrator, the inference being, and the minister did not say this, that if you have a deficit, by definition you have to be a bad administrator.

I would like to put before the Premier the proposition that the hospital in London I have referred to, namely, St. Joe’s, is operating in a deficit, and I wonder if he would like to dissociate himself from the inferences made by the Minister of Health in this regard.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In political life, one has to handle a lot of issues and a lot of people react in strange ways. They draw their own inferences from things that are done here. I cannot account for the inferences the member draws from the minister’s statements, or from mine for that matter. I cannot account for the weird explanations he draws from these things. I say to my friend I can only judge normal behaviour; I cannot judge these abnormal inferences he draws.

Mr. Brandt: There is nothing abnormal about an inference for which I will quote directly from Hansard as it relates to the statement made by the Premier’s appointee to that particular ministry, namely, the Minister of Health. She said very clearly, “I am hearing ... from the good managers who bring in balanced budgets.” That is very clear. I think it is very simple. It is not stretching the logic to assume, therefore, that if you bring in a deficit, you are a bad manager.

I want the Premier to know that we in this party want to dissociate ourselves from that kind of an extreme position on the part of the minister, where if you are able to bring in a surplus in a hospital budget, that makes you a good administrator, and if you bring in a deficit, you are a bad administrator.

Will the Premier indicate that he will review, along with the Treasurer and with the Minister of Health, the very good administrators who, through no fault of their own, are showing up with a deficit? About half the hospitals in this province, I might add, are showing up with a deficit. Will he review those deficits to see if the government can fund some of the needed programs to assure the people of Ontario that hospital beds will not be shut down? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable minister has said in this House on many occasions that she is determined to maintain a level of quality service across this province. The member recognizes the problem, as I do, of hospital deficits. They are being reviewed right across the province and we are putting a premium on good management. Regularly, the member castigates this government for bad management and then he presumes to say that others who are running deficits have good management.

I draw no inference one way or the other in a particular case except to say that there has to be a discipline in the system and it has to be co-ordinated in conjunction with the institutions that exist, be it the district health councils or whatever. We are getting the best advice we can and we are working closely with the hospitals to make sure we guarantee a high level of service across this province, and we are going to do it in a responsible way.

Mr. Brandt: It is difficult to get an answer about whether or not beds will be closed and shut down.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASE STANDARDS PANEL

Mr. Brandt: I will ask my second question of the Minister of Labour. Today, during the injured workers’ rally that was held on the front steps of the Legislature, the minister made some comment with respect to the Industrial Disease Standards Panel and the work that panel is undertaking. With respect to that, is it not a reality that this panel has not met for the past five months, since December 1987?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: During that rally, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), was there, and the leader of the third party, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), was there and I was there, and the crowd was at various stages of receptiveness as each of us spoke.

Part of the reality of being the Minister of Labour is that all the frailties within the system are put upon my shoulders, and I accept that responsibility and the challenges it presents for us as a government. I simply tell my friend from Sarnia that I did not mention the Industrial Disease Standards Panel during my remarks, not because I did not want to but because there was no time and I did not think it was an appropriate context to discuss that.

What I did say at the rally was that workers’ compensation is one side of the issue and occupational disease is another very important part of the issue. I said we have to be doing far more within the government and within the board to understand the nature of occupational disease, so that 30 years down the road we are not being called upon to compensate the workers who are working in our industries today, in 1988.

He raises the question of the meeting

schedule of the Industrial Disease Standards Panel. I simply tell him that we are in the process of appointing a new chairman to that panel. The current chairman, Dr. Ham, has now seen fit to retire and we are in the process of doing that. That group is going to come together very soon and will have a very important part to play in resolving these sorts of issues.

Mr. Brandt: The matter that was raised by the minister at the rally today certainly surrounded the issue of industrial diseases. If I went on to say that he talked about the panel, perhaps I was in error, but certainly he did raise the question of the work being done by the ministry with respect to industrial disease and the concern he had in that respect.

We are also aware that he will be appointing Dr. Stefan Dupré tomorrow to fill the position of Dr. Ham with respect to the chairmanship.

I would ask the minister this question in regard to the concerns that we have about the work being undertaken by this panel: Why would it take him fully six months to find an appointment for that very, very important position; namely, the chairmanship of the Industrial Disease Standards Panel?

Mr. Brandt: We on this side of the House think it is unreasonable, and the circumstances we think are unreasonable are that it would take six months to appoint a chairman to that particular panel -- recognizing the very important work that is being undertaken by that panel with respect to the identification and the recognition of certain industrial diseases that I recognize are very complicated and very difficult from the standpoint of his ministry and the Workers’ Compensation Board and the work they are undertaking to make sure that workers are in fact fairly dealt with by the system in this province.

Can the minister give us the assurance that as a result of these delays of some five to six months that have occurred from the time the last chairman left that position and the new chairman has been appointed -- and the fact that no meetings have been held -- workers will be fairly treated, fairly compensated and looked after in every sense of the word in spite of the delays that have occurred on that particular panel?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If you analyse the lead-in to the final supplementary of the member for Sarnia, you find, of course, the answer to his first supplementary, which was, “Why did it take six months?” In the lead-up to his second supplementary, he described -- and I agree with him completely -- how complex the issues are, how challenging the issues are and how important the issues are for the working people of this province. We live in a highly technological society where very sophisticated substances are used in the workplace.

The reason, of course, and he answers the question himself as to why it takes six months, is that it is very challenging stuff and you just cannot find someone overnight to take on that kind of responsibility. I think the fact we have found not only a successor to Dr. Ham but also a very eminent successor to Dr. Ham answers the final supplementary that he asked, and that is whether we are going to continue our commitment to workers of this province in the area of industrial disease. Of course we are.

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

Mr. Mackenzie: Back to the Deputy Premier, if I can.

The literally hundreds -- and there were more than 200 or 300 -- retirees and their wives who demonstrated at the Downtown Holiday Inn this morning are some of our finest, hardworking and caring citizens. They have made their contribution to this country.

They worked for Massey all their lives and then, through corporate sleight of hand set up by the Blacks and the Rices and with the Deputy Premier’s approval, they are told by Varity -- a company they have never worked for in their lives -- that their health plans, drug plans, nursing home coverage and in some cases their pensions are no longer theirs after a lifetime working for this company. They have been treated like dirt. They do not deserve it.

Why is the Deputy Premier playing the role of a political apologist or handmaiden to these corporate bloodsuckers and why does he not do something about this situation?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Obviously, it is a matter that the honourable members opposite consider extremely important, as I do. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), being a spokesman for organized labour, must surely be aware that the Canadian Auto Workers, the union, made an agreement and signed an agreement with Massey Combines after the division, on which they were consulted --

Mr. B. Rae: What choice did they have?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: All right. They signed the agreement at that time and turned over the future of their pensions to Massey Combines. All right? I would just say to the members --

Mr. B. Rae: What choice did they have? Just blame the unions, that is your knee-jerk reaction every time.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The Leader of the Opposition, order.

Treasurer, any further comment?

The honourable Leader of the Opposition, in his intemperate outburst, may feel that I am blaming the CAW when in fact it was simply making the best, as he pointed out, of a difficult situation, the same as the government in our attempt to keep those jobs in Brantford and Toronto and to keep the manufacturing capability of this well-respected firm going permanently.

Unfortunately, we and they were not successful, but certainly, when they made an agreement with Massey Combines, part of that agreement was to put the responsibility for the pensions and the other ancillary benefits with the company that employed them.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Rice and the members of the board who were up in that boardroom at that corporate board meeting today at the Holiday Inn were not suffering one bit. Not one single member of top management in those companies has suffered one bit or lost one cent as a result of this.

These workers have lost their very livelihoods, their pension plans, their health plans and their nursing home coverage. They have been to the Deputy Premier and they have been to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and they are not happy with the answers.

From talking to them, the best that I can see they got out of the Deputy Premier was that if people get a bill for a nursing home that is no longer covered and they thought it was, at least he will see that they do not get thrown out of the nursing home. They now have to do a census of all of their people to see if this is happening. Surely he knows that what has happened to these workers is wrong, that it is not right, that it is unfair and that he does have a role to play. What is he going to do about it in this particular case?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would like to say to the honourable member that the Ministry of Financial Institutions is examining carefully, under the pension guarantee plan and other responsibilities which we have, what we can do to see that whatever financing, whatever money is around that might legally accrue to the benefit of the people who have been dispossessed, is made available to them.

I am not answering to Mr. Rice or Conrad Black. I used to use their names in a similar vein, under other circumstances, and, as far as I am concerned, that is really an irrelevancy.

Mr. Wildman: Conrad Black considers you an irrelevancy.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: All right, but as far as we are concerned, the government is seeing that the laws are lived up to the very best that can possibly be put forward. The pension guarantees have already been established, as the honourable member would know.

TRUST COMPANY SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. It is his day.

There was a survey recently by Coopers and Lybrand Consulting Group that looked at service charges in the trust companies and found them generally in line with those of banks.

Given the current consumer concern over bank service charges, what is the minister doing, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), to address that concern in respect to trust companies operating in this province?

Mr. Runciman: It is somewhat passing strange, given the minister’s responsibilities for trust companies under his jurisdiction. It seems to me that is a role that he should be playing, a proactive role rather than a reactive role. The minister happens to be a nice guy most of the time, but I have to say that he has not been doing his job in respect of this portfolio -- and I have been saying that on a number of occasions -- based on the responses he gives to my questions.

Is he prepared to take an active role, sit down with the trust companies and do what is in the best interests of the consumers of this province?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Unfortunately, I cannot return the compliment to the honourable member, but I can say that the matter is and will be under review and we will see what is forthcoming.

GRAIN HANDLING AT THUNDER BAY

Mr. Kozyra: I have a question for the Premier. While the grain shipping industry is booming in Vancouver, many Thunder Bay grain handlers in Canada’s third-largest port are facing another summer of layoffs. Recent reports indicate that Vancouver is already running a million tons of grain ahead of last year’s record-setting pace. Firm commitments from the Canadian Wheat Board ensure sustained large volumes to the western port.

Since eastern grain shipments are vital to the Thunder Bay economy and have a major impact on the entire St. Lawrence Seaway operation, I would like to know what action the government is taking to increase shipments through Thunder Bay and to avert the layoff of more than 100 grain handlers.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member asks a question that has been quite troublesome to this government for some time, and I can assure him that I have corresponded personally with the Prime Minister on this matter. The Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) has been meeting regularly on the matter.

Our concern is that there is some suggestion that Thunder Bay may be dropped in its port status to a residual port and that in fact the current policies discriminate against grain handling through Thunder Bay.

It is a matter of federal responsibility. I cannot myself offer up the solution to my honourable friend, except to say that we are continuing to press the case of the Great Lakes as a major shipping artery, that Thunder Bay can handle grain transportation as cheaply as any other port, and we are trying to encourage policies from the federal government -- even if it subsidizes the farmer; that is fine -- that do not skew the transportation subsidy so that it discriminates against the Great Lakes in shipping lanes and Thunder Bay specifically.

We are concerned about this and have been for some time, and I can tell the member that we will continue to try to persuade the federal government that this is important to the economic wellbeing of the entire country.

Mr. Kozyra: The Premier touched on the residual port status, and the supplementary deals with that. Compounding the problem is a recent plan to ship grain from Churchill, Manitoba, to Sydney, Nova Scotia.

Is the Premier prepared to take action similar to last year’s, when he did write to the Prime Minister when Thunder Bay was threatened with downscaling to residual port status? What action will the Ontario government take to ensure that Thunder Bay, Canada’s third-largest port, gets its fair share of the grain export market?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have been assured by the federal government that it would not be reduced to residual port status.

That being said, it is something that bears monitoring all of the time. We view these developments with some concern, and we want to make sure that the action they come forward with meets some of the rhetoric or the assurances they are giving us.

Again, it is a matter in the federal jurisdiction. I will take this up again with the Minister of Transportation, the one responsible, to make sure we continue to press the case for the viability of the Lakehead grain-handling facilities, as well as the entire Great Lakes system.

HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and it concerns the blob that was found in the St. Clair River some years ago, a blob that the minister, I am sure, will recall was largely composed of perchloroethylene but did contain other carcinogenic chemicals.

Since the blob was found, Dow Chemical has been vacuuming it up and disposing of the residues in its dump sites. But a very serious allegation has been made by employees of Dow Chemical, an allegation that Dow is violating the ministry’s certificate of approval for its La Salle Road dump site and is using that site to dispose of such dangerous toxins as hexachlorobutadiene and hexachlorobenzene, both cancer-causing agents.

Can the minister tell the House what the monitoring by his ministry has shown at this particular dump site and whether he is aware of the allegations that have been made?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the members probably know, at the present time there is a labour dispute going on at Dow, so there has been some additional surveillance of the company on the part of the Ministry of the Environment. While Dow is continuing to operate with employees other than those who are out on strike, including management employees, it has people there who may not be as familiar as the regular workers with what is going on, for instance, in terms of the operation of pollution abatement equipment. For that reason, we are undertaking additional surveillance.

In terms of the question the member directed to me, I would be pleased to look into that. I know that our investigations and enforcement branch, when it receives any information of this kind that comes, for instance, to the Sarnia office, has two people assigned, in addition to the entire office there -- part of that component is two full-time investigations and enforcement officers who investigate as soon as they receive that kind of information.

Of course, our ministry will take whatever actions are appropriate in terms of charging, if it is necessary to press charges, or whatever other action is necessary. I appreciate the member raising the issue in the Legislature.

Mrs. Grier: I welcome those assurances but I have to say to the minister that the allegations which have come to me have nothing to do with the labour dispute at the plant. It is laboratory workers at that plant who have done their own testing and have found up to 500 parts per million of toxic chlorinated organics in samples of the waste going to the La Salle Road dump and have been so concerned that they have warned the truck drivers not to carry what in fact they have been asked to cart to that dump.

Can the minister commit his ministry to immediate testing of the dump, not only in the lab but also at the dump itself, and an investigation of what is happening in the lab? Will he also give us his assurance that he will indeed prosecute if he finds that Dow has in any way violated the certificate of approval which is very specific and which precludes any dumping of organic chemicals at the La Salle Road dump?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member can rest assured that all of those things can happen because it is our policy, under the new statutes which the member was part of, bringing in the new penalties legislation which was passed in December 1986, to utilize all of the provisions of that legislation which deal, as she knows, not only with penalties but with other ways of dealing with those particular problems in terms of investigations and so on. She also knows that we are in the process of increasing the number of investigations and enforcement branch staff available.

I would be happy to have a full investigation take place as these allegations are brought to my attention and we will undertake whatever actions are necessary. Always, when our investigations and enforcement branch determines that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and to lay charges, we are in the position to do that. We gather information from as many people as possible. It is always very helpful when the people in the plant come forward to provide that kind of information.

The member herself does a service by raising this kind of question in the Legislature and she has my full assurance that we will undertake as many of those activities as possible to ensure that this problem is overcome.

COUNSELLING SERVICE

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Changing Ways, the only London agency that provides remedial counselling for wife batterers, is facing shutdown. In 1986, the government made the commitment to end family violence. Prevention is the key to the government’s campaign against family violence. Yesterday, the government announced a $600,000 advertising campaign in part to prevent sexual assault and family violence.

Changing Ways is the only service of its kind in London. If it is shut down, judges will lack the sentencing option of counselling. The alternatives are costly and ineffective: jail, probation and fines. Is the minister committed to the promise he made two years ago and will he support this program?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We are very much committed to the promise we made. My colleague’s announcement yesterday was part of a preventive program, which all members of this House have long indicated has to be part of our total package. Therefore, it is not appropriate to compare a preventive program with a curative program, as we are in this case.

I would point out to the honourable member that when I assumed responsibility for this ministry there were no funds at all, absolutely none, allocated to community preventive counselling, whether it was for the battered woman or her children or the offender. In 1985, the first year for which I was responsible, we put $1.2 million into that program. This past year, we have had $3.6 million in that program. That is about three times as much, and there is an additional amount of money going in this year. There has been a very significant increase.

With respect specifically to Changing Ways, that has been a three-way partnership all the way along. My colleague the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) has been responsible for those offenders who are referred by the courts and he has repeated that he will continue to be responsible for those. My ministry, along with the United Way, has been responsible for the voluntary admissions to the program.

Mrs. Cunningham: Curative programs and prevention programs, when it comes to family violence, as the minister has often stated himself, are equally important.

Here we have another 1986 promise, at that time supported by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who was the minister responsible for women’s issues and who cared about women’s issues at that time. One would think reducing the incidence of family violence is still important to the Attorney General and his government.

Programs are very important, much more important than advertising campaigns. The minister should not simply accuse us of asking him to spend more money. He and the Minister of Correctional Services should get their act together.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Mrs. Cunningham: What specific reasons, therefore, should I give to the citizens of London for the minister’s nonsupport and ultimate closing down of Changing Ways?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Our responsibility as a government is to allocate the resources we have as fairly and as broadly as we possibly can. The member will be aware of the fact that, prior to our forming the government, there were no resources there at all. We have multiplied those resources every single year.

My understanding is that the financial problems of Changing Ways at the present time are not due to a reduction in funding from my ministry. In fact, our funding has been increased. The funding from my colleague in Correctional Services has been increased. The problem is the way in which they are applying for continuing funding from the United Way.

I was advised recently that they had not even made a formal, proper application to United Way until yesterday, I think it was. I think it is reasonable for that process to continue. We are a participant in the program. We have been and we will continue to be, but we cannot be responsible for all of their funding resources. Like anyone else, we are a sharer.

YUGOSLAVIAN FILM FESTIVAL

Mr. Sola: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Presently, a Yugoslavian film festival is being held at the Ontario Science Centre’s film theatre. This festival has triggered a great deal of concern among Canadians of Croatian descent. People from throughout Ontario, from ridings represented by all three parties here, have contacted me to express their concern and anger over the manner in which their community is depicted in the films shown during the festival. They feel this is an example of hatemongering against their ethnic group.

In light of this, I would like assurances from the minister that the government of Ontario had no involvement in sponsoring, promoting or financing this festival.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I believe the issue the member has raised is a very sensitive, very important and critical issue to members of the Croatian community. He and I have discussed it. The Ontario Film Institute is a department of the Ontario Science Centre and the film theatre is the screening device by which films are shown. The Ontario Arts Council has an arm’s-length policy and so does the Ontario Film Institute. I suggest to the member, and I would certainly be more than willing to help him in his representation, that he make representation to the boards of both the Ontario Science Centre and the film institute.

In addition, what I am more than willing to do is to discuss with my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) the relationship, if any, of the screening of sensitive films such as the ones he has in question under his effort -- it is a joint effort -- to revise the Theatres Act. I certainly feel, as the member does, that any misrepresentation of the truth is something we should all be aware of and do something to avoid if at all possible.

Mr. Sola: In a written response, the ministry has stated that the film festival is supposed to “reflect the linguistic and cultural communities of Metro Toronto.” The Croatian community of Metro and all of Ontario rejects the inference that the subject matter presented in these films reflects the essence of its culture or its language. The films seem to reflect more the diabolical musings of a pathological mind, than the cultural experience of a people.

Throughout the films of the director Lourdan Zafranovic there is a direct and repeated association between Croatia and violence. Ontario’s policy of multiculturalism and “celebration of the diversity of our cultures” has nothing in common with the themes portrayed in these films. Therefore, neither Canada nor Ontario should have any connection, however remote, with an event such as this one --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Sola: -- which uses an ethnic minority for target practice in hate mongering. What can the Croatian community do to clear its name and how can a similar situation be prevented from recurring for any minority living in Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: As I indicated to the member, I would be more than willing to accompany him and arrange a meeting with the science centre and the film institute. I think one of the solutions would be to ask members of the Croatian community if they have a set of films which would portray, in their own words and their own artistic expression, the truth of the matter.

In addition, the member should know that the Ontario Film Institute is currently being reviewed by our ministry and I am sure the board of both the science centre and the film institute will take this matter into consideration. The member and I, I hope, will be meeting later and we can talk about some very positive action which he can then communicate to his community.

PREMIER’S ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. It is about apartheid in South Africa and the government’s policy in that regard. I wonder if the Premier can tell us why he is scheduled to be opening the conference entitled the Outdoor Advertising Association of Canada, when this association’s four-day conference will have a day particularly related to South Africa. It will have delegates and executives from South Africa and one of the topics to be discussed is, “Outdoor advertising controlled in legislation in South Africa.”

I wonder if the Premier is sincere in Ontario’s policy of advocating a boycott of goods that originate in South Africa, which is supposed to be the position of this government. We passed a resolution last week moved by his colleague the member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi) on the question of the boycott of South Africa. Can the Premier tell us why he is endorsing this conference by opening it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no idea what the member is talking about. If that is true, I am not going.

Mr. B. Rae: I will send over the

article to him. Perhaps he does not know that, “A spokesman for Mr. Peterson’s office, Guy Côté, said yesterday that the Premier is scheduled to give a welcoming speech to the delegates on June 13, and there are no plans to bow out.” That is contained in today’s Globe and Mail.

I have received many phone calls subsequent to the news of this conference being held. The president of the Outdoor Advertising Association of Canada said: “There might be a group opposed to the killing of kangaroos, and they might demonstrate because Australia is also coming. The whole thing has absolutely no political overtones to it at all.”

The Premier is down as speaking to this conference. He is down as somebody who is scheduled to present his greetings to the conference. It is being held at L’Hotel. There are many people who are profoundly offended by the participation of delegates from Canada at this convention. I ask the Premier why he is scheduled to speak at this convention.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, I speak at many things every week and I bring greetings to people who are coming here.

If the Leader of the Opposition is in fact accurate -- and I did not know about those things on the agenda -- I am not going.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister knows that the farm debt load has not changed appreciably in the last three years and that borrowing costs remain high. Can the minister explain why there was absolutely no notice given to farmers, farm organizations or even financial institutions that the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program benefits would be cut by 60 per cent this year, in spite of the biggest tax grab ever in the most recent budget?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As usual, the honourable member is wrong in what he says. Not only was a press release sent out back in 1986, but the brochure states very clearly that the OFFIRR program was a scheduled program and that it was to terminate after three years, although I must say it will have gone four years due to the fact that when we first formed the government, I introduced the initial OFFIRR program. Then I introduced the OFFIRR Plus program, which was a scheduled three-year program, outlined very clearly in the brochure that farmers received, and outlined very clearly in the press release that was sent out at the time we introduced the OFFIRR Plus program.

Mr. Villeneuve: The minister may be right. However, in events leading up to September 10 of last year, not one mention was made that the OFFIRR would be cut by 60 per cent.

On average, the net farm income -- and the minister knows this -- is about $21,000 for Ontario farmers, and it has been down in the last number of years, particularly for grain producers. Can the minister tell these producers what help they can expect, if any, after the biggest tax grab in the budget? What help can our farmers expect in replacement of the 60 per cent reduction in OFFIRR?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: When the honourable member asks these questions about the agricultural budget, he must do it with so much tongue in check that it is a wonder he has not bitten it off.

This government and this ministry has introduced, since we formed the government three years ago, well over 80 new programs for the farmers. We have increased the agricultural budget by 86 per cent since we took over from those critters over there. We have taken the old Tory budget from $324 million up to $563 million.

I have spoken to many farmers in the honourable member’s riding who have come up to me and have said that they have never seen a ministry introduce more meaningful programs than the Ministry of Agriculture and Food over the last three years. I do not know what farmers the member is talking to.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In the interest of the House perhaps proceeding more effectively, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture and Food could raise his voice a little bit. It is very difficult to hear him on this side.

Mr. Speaker: I am certain that he can.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, which might be of interest to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

In his statement last week in conjunction with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) regarding Temagami and the parks, the Minister of Natural Resources made a great deal out of the fact that he was following the June 1978 blue book, which states -- I do not know whether he is aware of this – “The master planning and development and management policies set out in this document are without prejudice to, and may be superseded by, any settlements of claims made between the Ontario government and the Indian bands in Ontario”

If this is the case and he is following this policy, is not time of the essence in resolving the Teme-Augama Anishnabai claim in the Temagami area so that we will actually know what is going on there with the land in question?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This question should more properly be put to the Attorney General, and I so redirect.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, the band under Chief Potts has commenced legal proceedings and its action has been tried and dismissed. They have appealed the matter, as they are entitled to do, to the Court of Appeal and that appeal is pending. I think it has been arranged by the court to be heard early next year.

During the pendency of that appeal a year ago, we made an offer in the neighbourhood of $30 million to settle the band’s claim, half of which was to be paid by the federal government and could be taken in either cash or in crown land.

The settlement proposal, which we hoped would be the basis for negotiations -- it was an opening proposal -- was rejected by the band because it wanted to complete its appeal first.

I understand that but I think it is a misfortune because I think it possible we could have made a settlement. In any event, I hasten to tell my honourable friend that that is the history. If the band wants to reopen negotiations with us at any time, they have only to say the word.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the Attorney General’s answer. Is he aware that Chief Potts has indicated that he is prepared to negotiate if there are no preset conditions? Also, the band has initiated an occupation of the Red Squirrel Road extension today and has indicated that it will stay on the road until the fall, if necessary, to prevent construction. If this is the case, would it not be advantageous and appropriate for the provincial government to make contact with the band and with Chief Potts to try to initiate new negotiations rather than waiting for the court action?

Hon. Mr. Scott: We made protracted efforts to get negotiations going. The last word I have from Chief Potts, for whom I have very high personal regard, was that they would not be prepared to meet with us and negotiate this land claim, notwithstanding our eagerness to do so. If my honourable friend is right and Chief Potts now wishes to negotiate, I am certain we will hear from him in due course. When I do, the member can rest assured that we will be glad to enter into those negotiations.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. We have been receiving complaints from the people of the Marathon-Thunder Bay area this year with respect to the deterioration of road conditions to an extent that it is considered to be a dangerous situation. Can the minister tell us what he has done to correct this situation and how much money he intends to spend this year in reconstruction of parts of Highway 17 and Highway 11 in that area?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: We are aware, because of high water levels, of substantial breakup of the pavement on Highway 17, particularly in the area of Hemlo where there are added and heavier trucks as a result of the mines there. Substantial design work is required to be done. Some remedial work will be done this year and substantial rebuilding and reconstruction is scheduled for early next year.

PETITIONS

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and, in particular, the Minister of Labour:

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

“That the minimum wage cover all workers in Ontario without exception and that the minimum wage in Ontario be adjusted with inflation to ensure that all working people can support their families with a standard of living that is above the poverty line.”

This petition has been signed by approximately 800 residents of Sault Ste. Marie. I have affixed my signature to it as well. I strongly support it and hope the government will act on it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: I have a petition signed by 12 constituents of Etobicoke-Rexdale.

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercialization of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have signed the petition.

TRITIUM

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas one billionth of a gram of tritium can cause cancer; and

“Whereas the transport of heavy water containing tritium could be eliminated by building additional removal facilities at the Pickering and Bruce nuclear plants; and

“Whereas tritium can contribute to nuclear weapons if exported;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, oppose the transport of heavy water containing tritium and the export of pure tritium.

This petition contains 323 signatures of people from Oshawa, Bowmanville, Ajax and Whitby, and I am pleased to affix my name thereto as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT

Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill Pr52,

An Act respecting the City of Etobicoke.

Motion agreed to.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill 146,

An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: The bill amends the Landlord and Tenant Act to give tenants of residential units or residential complexes the right on a first refusal basis to purchase the unit or complex when the landlord proposes to sell it, demolish it or otherwise change its use. Tenants of residential complexes are required to assign the right to purchase to a nonprofit corporation, the members of which are tenants of the residential complex, a nonprofit housing corporation or a nonprofit co-operative housing project.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS / TROISIÈME LECTURE

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Les motions de troisième lecture des projets de loi suivants sont adoptées:

Bill 116,

An Act respecting the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund;

Projet de loi 116, Loi concemant le Fonds du patrimoine du Nord de l’Ontario;

Bill 117,

An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved third reading of Bill 125,

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education.

Mr. Jackson: I wish to say a few words before the final approval of Bill 125. It is ironic that we close this debate and move towards approval of this bill with so many loopholes still left open in the bill.

Members of the House should be aware that the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and myself together introduced more than a dozen amendments in committee last Wednesday which would have at least partly addressed some of the shortcomings of this piece of legislation. Most of them were solidly defeated by Liberal members of the committee that examined Bill 125.

For the benefit of the members present today, I would like to briefly comment on the issues our party tried to resolve in that committee concerning this bill. One of the major concerns the Progressive Conservative Party had was with the minister’s apparent unwillingness to live up to the intention of representation by population equitably in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

While the member for Scarborough West’s amendment to

section 24 was a step in the direction of providing some sort of equity between the number of electors represented by separate school trustees and the number represented by public school trustees, the fact is that separate school trustees in Metro Toronto are responsible for many more electors than are their public sector counterparts. In some instances, they are responsible for as much as 60 per cent more representation.

I strongly believe that now the decision has been made to move to representation by population, the populations should be equalized in both sectors. It is for this reason that my party tabled an amendment which would equalize the population sizes between public and separate school trustees.

I was disappointed to learn that the Metropolitan Separate School Board was not offered the opportunity to have direct input on the specifics of Bill 125. But to be fair, even with the groups that were contacted for input, some of their comments and concerns were ignored.

When our party introduced an amendment that would have effectively allowed for the franchise of cottagers in the “electoral group” definition, we did so for a number of good reasons. First and foremost, the exclusion of cottagers will mean that significant areas of jurisdictions of school boards will now be without adequate trustee representation.

Second, while the move to representation by population is worthy, it has been pursued, at least to some extent, to the detriment of another form of equity, namely, that cottagers who pay municipal school taxes will now have no say in the use of those tax dollars. I am pleased that the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) made very strong and cogent arguments, both publicly and before other members of this House. Again, unfortunately, the Liberal and New Democratic members of the committee voted against the owners of cottage properties and the ratepayers of cottage properties in this province.

A third significant amendment put forward by our party would have pushed this legislation closer to its democratic ideal. While the member for Scarborough West’s amendment to provide for an Ontario Municipal Board appeal mechanism is worth while, it does not provide the right for individual citizens to appeal board decisions with respect to board size, so what we really have is a kind of half right of appeal, where citizens can appeal clerk decisions but they cannot appeal board decisions.

Fourth, I have some concerns with the arbitrary nature of this legislation, as well. It was interesting to hear the comments of the member for Ottawa-Rideau (Mrs. O’Neill) last week when my party introduced an amendment that would have allowed boards to change their size by a simple majority, as opposed to the two-thirds requirement outlined in this legislation.

The member told the committee that the reason this amendment should not pass was that the decision to change the size of a board was much too important to be made by a simple majority. Being a former trustee, the member should recognize that many boards make million-dollar budget decisions with simple majority votes. Also, she should know that the boards do have bylaw rights to deal with internal decisions and in the event they saw two thirds as necessary, they could probably pass a bylaw to that effect at some point in the future.

The point is that school boards do not need Mowat Block lawyers making their rightful policy decisions. The minister should recognize that trustees are also elected and responsible public officials. But I am not surprised that the minister and his parliamentary assistant did not recognize the competence of school board trustees in the matter of Bill 125.

When our party introduced an amendment that would have ensured that municipal clerks were not saddled with the responsibilities of dividing up electoral trustee boundaries, a responsibility the clerks themselves told the minister they did not want, the Liberal majority on the committee soundly defeated the recommendations of the municipal clerks of Ontario. Just as boards can make their decisions in terms of board size, so too they decide on matters now in the hands of the municipal clerks.

For the record, my party supports the principle of representation by population in the election of school board officials, but only when the transition to such a system is handled smoothly and thoughtfully.

The minister should be aware that the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections very worthwhile recommendations of not making changes affecting municipal elections beyond January 15 in an election year has been violated. Hence, the process has not been handled with either concern for the affected parties and the general public or in an expeditious manner.

In short, this legislation should be postponed until the 1991 election so that the proper time can be given for consultation, and more important, so that members of this House and school boards across the province are not forced to deal with this faulty piece of legislation. Otherwise, Bill 125 is going to be the Ministry of Education’s version of the rent review legislative disaster known as Bill 51.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to make a few comments; I was not able to be here on Monday to talk a little more about this bill.

I would like to echo a few of the comments by the member for Burlington South only in terms of concerns about the process that has been undertaken here around the production of this bill and how much better it might have been if we had had a slower and more measured look at this legislation.

I am pleased, however, with the accommodation of the minister on a number of matters, especially the matter which was very important to me of an appeal mechanism for individuals to dispute the distribution of seats, ultimately before the Ontario Municipal Board if necessary, and not to preclude that kind of appeal, as in the initial legislation. I was pleased he was willing to entertain that amendment.

I think it is a little regrettable, again because of the time frame, that a separate amendment postponing the proclamation of this particular

section until after the election had to be introduced, because there is a great concern that perhaps the whole process of the election this fall could be undermined because of the tight time frame we are under if the appeal mechanism were to go through at this point.

There is one small matter -- or it may seem like a small matter to the members here in the south -- that was not dealt with by the minister that I would like to draw attention to again, and that is the concern that in certain districts in northern Ontario, not many of them but in the northwest notably and on Manitoulin Island, there are situations where there are schools run by the public boards of education that have in fact a majority, in some cases a very large majority, of Indian students in those schools. In our present law, under the Education Act, there is a maximum of two representatives of the Indian band to be appointed to any board in Ontario.

I moved an amendment in the course of the committee hearings to suggest that increasing that number, if more than 50 per cent of the students were Indian, to four representatives of the band, would be an appropriate kind of step, reflecting again this notion of the population basis of our decisions now around the running of schools.

Unfortunately, this was a new idea which, thrown up in terms of a committee, is sometimes a little difficult for people to grab on to and to see as a fairly good interim step. By the time the bill has come back to us for third reading, it has not been possible for the government to check with those bands as to whether or not that would be seen to be an appropriate step to take at this time.

I would have hoped that it might have been and that this kind of representation would be seen by those bands, but that has not been the case.

The other strikingly difficult issue for me that was not accepted by the ministry, and we did not have a long debate about it in the committee hearings, was the matter of mandating open meetings of the boards of education to discuss this redistribution of their seats. We were trying to get through the amendments being proposed as quickly as possible, and when this was presented by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) we did not have a great deal of time to discuss the merits of this.

It strikes me that when we talk about changing the way the school boards are elected to increase the democratization by accepting representation by population, one of the things we should have done was to guarantee that no school board in the province could undertake a redistribution of its seats in private, because under the present legislation it would be possible for such a board to make its redistribution plans by private meeting of committee of the whole, and the public could be excluded from the process.

I thought it was a very helpful amendment that was proposed and I regret that was not acceptable to the minister. The minister’s position on this is that these are duly elected boards which can make these kinds of decisions themselves, that we should not mandate this to them and that they are ultimately responsible to their electors. While we were not able to make these arguments in great detail in committee, I would just suggest that we have any number of ample precedents by which we demand of councils and boards of education that certain aspects of their processes be handled in public. This would have been an excellent one to have added to that number.

That being said, I think it is one of those cases which is a little rare for a member of the opposition, that even in the case of a majority government, where the opposition numbers cannot guarantee any kind of motion put by an opposition member, we did succeed in getting through a number of amendments which have made this slightly better legislation than was proposed.

In termination, I would say that if we had more time for reflection, I think this legislation could have been an awful lot more suitable than it is, even with those few amendments that we were successful in bringing forward.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Just very briefly, this bill has had a very lengthy history. Its origins actually come from recommendations made by trustees in this province dating back to 1978, so I am not at all surprised by the comments of the member for Burlington South, given his party’s proclivity for procrastination on matters as important as this that affect very clearly and very specifically the basic principles of local governance.

The member also made some reference to the issue of double representation for those people in this province who are fortunate enough to own more than one place of residence. At the same time, he indicates his party fundamentally supports the principles of the bill, and yet I cannot think of anything that would more clearly violate those principles of representation by population, as opposed to representation by wealth, than an amendment that would in fact count those people in this province, who own more than one residence, twice for the purpose of school board elections.

In conclusion, I want to make reference to the comments of the member for Scarborough West, particularly relative to a suggested amendment with regard to native representation on boards of education. At the time that amendment came forward, I indicated it was a matter that can and should be considered, but only in consultation with those directly affected, and it was a matter that could and certainly would be addressed in further reviews of the Education Act.

I would like to thank the members of the standing committee on social development for their co-operation and their input. I do think this is a significant step forward in terms of local governance in this province, and I am delighted to see that this bill will in fact receive passage in plenty of time for everyone to make preparations for the forthcoming municipal elections.

Motion agreed to.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT

Hon. Mr. Wong moved second reading of Bill 82,

An Act respecting Energy Efficiency.

Hon. Mr. Wong: As outlined in the speech from the throne in November 1987, the government is committed to new measures to encourage greater energy efficiency and conservation in Ontario. Last December the government introduced Bill 82, the Energy Efficiency Act. Today I am pleased to be introducing a motion in the House for second reading of the bill.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind members of the intent of the act. The Energy Efficiency Act is a logical extension of this government’s energy policy, a policy based on the cornerstone of energy efficiency and conservation. The act is an example of how Ontario is taking the Canadian lead in promoting more efficient uses of energy. The act is designed to do two things.

First, it will enable the government to introduce regulations to ensure that major appliances and other energy-using products sold in Ontario are tested for energy efficiency using acceptable and recognized procedures.

Second, the act will allow the government to introduce minimum standards of energy efficiency for these products, which include appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, clothes dryers and home heating equipment.

This legislation will provide Ontario with many benefits. Having it in place will ensure that consumers can be confident that the appliances they buy are energy efficient.

Since first reading of this bill last December, I have been pleased with the positive reaction of many groups, including utilities, manufacturers and consumer representatives. In a recent letter to me, the Consumers’ Association of Canada applauded “the provisions for a program to develop standards for measuring performance, certifying and labelling of equipment.” The president of the association welcomed the bill’s calling for the setting of minimum efficiency standards. She called the bill a major step forward in protecting consumer interests.

Another letter of support came from Ralph Nicol, chairman of the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association, which represents Ontario’s 315 municipal electric utilities.

My staff has also advised me that the principles and concepts of this bill have met with support from representatives of the Canadian appliance manufacturing industry, and I am pleased to be able to advise the House that we have also had strong support from Ontario Hydro.

As some members may know, the United States introduced similar legislation in March of last year. The US legislation covers 13 categories of appliances and heating and cooling equipment manufactured in or imported into the United States, and there is a significant amount of trade between Ontario and the United States in these products.

Ontario’s Energy Efficiency Act will ensure that consumers have a wide range of efficient products from which to choose. It will provide our appliance manufacturers with a level playing field. Early passage of the act will give them enough lead time to adjust their products in order to remain competitive. The act will also mean that Ontario will not become a dumping ground for inefficient American appliances.

In the long run, I believe the Energy Efficiency Act will lead to significant improvements in the overall efficiency of major appliances throughout the province.

With this act in place and with the government’s continued commitment to energy conservation and efficiency, I am confident that Ontario’s energy future will continue to be secure. With a solid energy foundation, we can ensure that Ontario’s future economy will be strong.

Mr. Charlton: It gives me pleasure to rise and start out my comments by saying that I and my colleagues will be supporting Bill 82. The bill basically sets out a reasonably good framework, mechanisms for inspection and penalties for noncompliance in terms of establishing energy efficiency standards for appliances in Ontario.

Having said that, there are a number of comments I would like to make that I do not think jibe precisely with the introductory comments which the minister has made. I understand the minister’s desire to have his ministry take credit for the leadership which this piece of legislation reflects. On the other hand, although he was not the minister at the time, and I grant him that understanding, neither the Ministry of Energy nor Ontario Hydro during the course of the select committee hearings two years ago provided any leadership on the issue of appliance efficiency standards.

Hydro played a very sceptical role throughout and the ministry unfortunately could provide us with little or no positive instruction about how to approach this question. The committee in fact had to get most of its assistance from outside presenters and expert witnesses whom the committee paid.

That speaks to two of the things that come to mind as a result of this bill. One is that if the Ministry of Energy had in fact really been providing the leadership on this issue, we would not have had to wait a year and a half to see the bill introduced in the House. Again, I grant to the minister the fact that the bill was introduced fairly quickly after his appointment last fall, but as I said at the outset, this piece of legislation is a framework. It does not even contain the efficiency standards. This framework could have been put in place fairly quickly two years ago, after the select committee on energy recommended that this be done.

My other comments relate more specifically to the legislation and how this piece of legislation will operate. As I have said, Bill 82 sets out a structure, a framework under which we will impose appliance efficiency standards. It also sets out how we will monitor that through inspections and so on, and it sets out penalties for noncompliance. The bill does not deal directly with the question of efficiency standards, only how they will be set. The regulations, therefore, will make or break this piece of legislation.

I guess what I am saying is that it is fair for the minister to stand up and say that he believes this is a positive piece of legislation, and I concur that at this point I also believe it is a positive piece of legislation, but if it is not followed up with the most appropriate work in terms of defining the efficiency standards in the regulations, then the legislation itself will mean little or nothing.

In addition to that, and I have discussed this privately with the minister, if we do not also create an automatic review mechanism to ensure that whatever efficiency standards we put into the regulations initially are reviewed and updated on a regular basis, it will be a one-shot step in the right direction and then we will likely founder, like we have done on so many other pieces of legislation, waiting another 20 years to review those standards again.

I am suggesting it is extremely important that in the regulations we create a mechanism which will cause an automatic review of the standards that are initially set, on a regular basis and in some kind of public forum, so that we can understand more clearly each step of technological improvement which is occurring and so that we can ensure that the standards we are updating from time to time are the best and the most useful in terms of energy efficiency in Ontario.

Having said all of that, I applaud the minister for finally ensuring that this legislation comes forward for discussion and for vote on second reading. I hope the minister can assure us as well that the bill will move very quickly through second and third readings so that we can get on with the implementation of standards, because as the minister has suggested, we are still going to have to go through a period of adjustment while the industry in this country gets itself in shape to comply with whatever standards are imposed by the regulations.

Mr. Runciman: I want to indicate at the outset that my party will also be supporting the bill. I do not have any real criticisms of the legislation. I pose a number of questions that I would hope the minister might respond to.

He mentioned the comparable legislation in the United States and indicated that it applied to 13 areas. Just looking at the legislation, this covers 14. I am wondering which one is different in terms of the Ontario jurisdiction versus the US and what implications that might have for cross-border traffic.

Obviously, the minister indicated when he made reference to the cross-border trade and the US legislation, and I am assuming that the Energy Efficiency Act is precisely comparable to the legislation in the US, that there are no significant differences or any differences that may indeed create difficulties in terms of cross-border traffic.

I would like to know also what the implications of this act are in terms of other jurisdictions within Canada. Are all the other Canadian jurisdictions enacting comparable legislation or are we going to be faced with some difficulties, which are certainly not unusual for this country in terms of interprovincial trade and the construction of artificial barriers to discourage trade between provinces?

Perhaps I am inferring too much from the tone of the minister’s remark when he mentioned, “We have the support of Ontario Hydro.” He sounded almost thankful for that. I can have some sympathy with that, based on the crown corporation’s submission to the Ontario Energy Board with respect to free trade, which is in direct contradiction to the position taken by the government. I can see that perhaps at least in one small issue he has the support of Ontario Hydro, the largest crown corporation in this province.

Thankful for small blessings, perhaps; I do not know. I guess we have been encouraging him and his government not to take a cap-in-hand approach with respect to that utility. I would like to really know what it means for this piece of legislation to have the support of Ontario Hydro. What was he indicating to the House when he made that comment? What are the implications of having it or not having it?

Finally, we would like to know what the cost implications of this legislation might be. I am assuming the minister and the ministry have taken a look at what the implications might be for producers and consumers. We would also like to know what the implications might be in terms of the taxpayers, and I am thinking especially in respect to the authority given by the bill for the minister to designate inspectors for the purpose of the act.

Are we talking about a number of permanent employees, new civil servants who are going to be coming on board in the ministry? If so, what are we talking about in terms of numbers, full-time and part-time, and what are the implications in terms of cost to the ministry?

Obviously, when we are introducing any new legislation, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the government has reviewed the implications of that particular piece of legislation.

I would appreciate the minister’s response to those points of concern and again indicate our support for the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Wong: First of all, I would like to say that I appreciate the co-operative and constructive comments that have been made by the members from the two parties who have spoken this afternoon.

In response to the specific points that have been raised within that co-operative spirit, I would like to say that on the subject of the efficiency standards and how important it is to get the actual specifications and standards in place following this framework of legislation, I totally agree with that, as minister, and remind all parties who are interested in this legislation that the standards will be set in a consultative process with manufacturers, with various consumer groups and with the standards setting organizations. In other words, there will be full consultation to make sure that such standards are made in a practical manner, as opposed to a theoretical manner.

With respect to the suggestion that some kind of automatic review mechanism be put into place to make sure that, as modern advancement and changes take place in the manufacturing of appliances, the efficiency standards are up to date with the times, that would appear to be a reasonable suggestion and I would certainly take that under advisement.

With respect to the comment about the difference between the new Ontario legislation and the US legislation, I have the two lists here and I would be more than pleased to send over the two lists to the honourable member. One category that we have is number 14, which is a catch-all, prescribed appliances and products, which I think makes our act perhaps a little more complete, because there may be some appliances to which we wish to apply these new efficiency standards above and beyond the ones that have been specified above in numbers 1 to 13, inclusive. I would be more than pleased to provide this information to the member who asked.

With respect to cross-border trade, depending on which appliance we are talking about, the percentage could be significant. In the case of some appliances, perhaps 15 or 20 per cent of the output of a particular plant in the United States might be devoted to the Canadian and also to the Ontario market. We are knowledgeable and, let us say, cognizant of this fact.

What is important here, I think, is to make sure we have timely passage of our legislation so that at the time the US legislation is in place, ours will have been in place effectively at the same time to avoid, as I say, the so-called dumping of inferior products, products that do not meet our standards, in the future.

With respect to other jurisdictions in Canada, it is my understanding that Ontario is currently the province that has shown some leadership and lead with respect to this kind of legislation and that other provinces are in various stages of considering similar legislation. In addition, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the people at the federal level are also watching very closely and carefully what we are doing here because this is something we should be looking at for all of Canada.

With respect to the remark concerning Ontario Hydro, I was simply making the point that in terms of the clear policy directions of this government in the energy field, this government made clear in the throne speech, and since then in various public announcements, consultations and discussions with that corporation, that this was the direction we felt the government and the province should be heading in. Rather than receiving, let’s say, a negative reaction and a lack of co-operation, I am simply pleased to report that we have been getting a response from Hydro that is consistent with government policy and directives.

With respect to the cost implications, I have a dollar figure here pertaining to fiscal 1988 of $550,000. I cannot tell the member at this time exactly how that breaks down, but that helps to provide an order of magnitude.

On the further question of the number of people who will be employed by the passage of this legislation, it is my understanding that we are anticipating perhaps five or fewer inspectors, but I will certainly be in touch with the honourable member who asked the question should the facts be different or should that number be clarified.

I guess the other thing I would like to say is that when we talk about taxpayers and consumers, I think the important thing to remember is that when we have more energy-efficient appliances, appliances that meet our standards, there may be a few extra dollars that are paid out for these better appliances. However, if, for example, an additional $20 was paid out for this better appliance, the energy savings would result in a payback or recovery of that extra investment, usually over a few years. After that, of course, all additional annual savings would be an ultimate benefit in dollar terms to the consumer. From a financial standpoint, it certainly makes a lot of sense.

I would like to add to what I said a moment ago with respect to what other governments in Canada are doing. I have a note here from my staff that at the present time, no other provincial governments have taken this kind of action. Ontario accounts for nearly half of the total Canadian market and produces more than half of the appliances. Also, a reminder to myself and to honourable members: The federal government has the Energuide program in place, which provides energy efficiency labels for six appliances, specifically refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, dryers, dishwashers and ranges.

In conclusion, let me say that this may not have been a totally comprehensive and complete answer to the questions that have been raised. I know that we will have time, as we move towards final passage of this legislation, but in closing I would like to say once again that I appreciate the constructive comments that have been made by members opposite. I look forward to working together in order that we can make this a good piece of legislation for Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

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

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Hon. Mr. Ward: In February of this year, I announced in this House that the 1988 grant regulations would include the updating of equalization factors for the calculation of municipal apportionments.

As members will know, school boards are currently financed by a grant contribution from the province coupled with a local contribution or apportionment from the municipality or municipalities supporting the board. Each municipality within the jurisdiction of a given school board has its own unique assessment system, and for this reason it is necessary to adjust differing assessment bases to a common level so that school board costs can be shared fairly and equitably.

As I stated in February, this common or equalized assessment has, until this year, been based on an equalization factor that adjusted local assessments to their 1969 values. As a result, equalization factors have not fairly reflected economic changes that have occurred since 1970.

To correct this situation, we have begun the process of updating of equalization factors so as to ensure a fairer distribution of education taxes among ratepayers in different municipalities. In order to minimize the impact of this process in any one year, we have begun a phase-in of the new factors. This year, we have moved one fifth of the way towards adopting current property values as a basis for apportionments. We have also provided a five per cent cap on the tax impact for any municipality in any given year.

Bill 100 accompanies our updating of the equalization factors. Clearly, in moving to the use of current factors, we must provide municipalities wit