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

February 16, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L148 - Thu 16 Feb 1989 / Jeu 16 fév 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTIES PLAN

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PLANT CLOSURE

NATIVE PEOPLE AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

CONTROL OF SMOKING

DERELICT MOTOR VEHICLE SITES

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

LITHUANIA

HANDGUN REPLICAS

COURT RULING

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO TRAINING CORP.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO TRAINING CORP.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PROPERTY SPECULATION

COURT RULING

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS

ANNIVERSARY OF QUEEN ELIZABETH WAY

PLANT CLOSURE

SALARIES OF SUSPENDED POLICE OFFICERS

HAMILTON AIRPORT

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

FALBY CHILDREN’S CENTRE

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

DRUG BENEFITS

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

NATUROPATHY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EXTENDED CARE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING / CRÉDITS, MINISTÈRE DU LOGEMENT (CONTINUED / SUITE)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 11 am.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTIES PLAN

Mrs. Sullivan moved resolution 63:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations should consider strengthening the Ontario new home warranties plan by:

1. Adopting a standard form of agreement of purchase and sale, with rights and obligations of both purchaser and vendor delineated;

2. Introducing an optional extension of the Ontario new home owner warranty to cover minor and major structural defects, to allow warranties to apply for a period of up to two years of the date specified in the possession certificate;

3. Adopting a provision that would:

(

a) permit the purchaser at the time of closing to pay to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program the value of uncompleted work, and deduct the amount so paid from the balance due to the vendor on closing and

(

b) permit the purchaser to authorize the Ontario New Home Warranty Program to make one or more payments to the vendor as unfinished work is completed;

4. Extending the warranty provisions to alterations, deletions, additions or upgrades specified by the purchaser and included in the agreement of purchase and sale;

5. Extending the provisions of the act to include restorations, renovations and additions to existing residential properties.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Halton Centre has moved private member’s notice of motion 63. I will listen to the honourable member for up to 20 minutes. If she wishes to reserve any of that time for the final discussion, that is within order. I will also listen to any other members for up to 10 minutes.

Mrs. Sullivan: This resolution is derived from the experiences of my constituents in a high-growth area who purchase new homes with all of the hopes and expectations that accompany that and it is also derived from the experiences of people in the home building industry itself who face changes in their sector that have kept them scrambling to keep up.

To put the resolution in perspective, I would like to take a moment or two to describe the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. Since its inception as a provincial program in 1977, the Ontario New Home Warranty Program has provided protection for purchasers of every new home built in Ontario. In its 12 years of operation, close to half a million homes have been warranted by the plan.

The program requires that anyone who is selling or building a new home must be registered. It says that every seller of a new home must warrant to the person buying that the home is constructed in a workmanlike manner, is free from defects, is fit for habitation and is constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code.

The act provides further a warranty that the home is free from major structural defects. That includes defects that lead to failures in load-bearing portions of the building and other such serious problems as collapse of joints or roof structures or chemical failure of materials.

The act and its regulations and the practice which has evolved over a period of time are clearly an improvement over the caveat emptor approach. Warranty programs exist in all provinces and in the Yukon Territory. The Ontario program is, however, the only mandatory program in Canada and one of three mandatory programs in the world. In making improvements to the program, Ontario has looked to other jurisdictions, but just as important, it has looked to our own experiences and our own requirements.

The most recent enhancements to the program were introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), and they went into effect in June and August of last year. They addressed needed changes in meeting problems associated with delayed closings, major and minor substitutions of equipment or material, standards of workmanship, after-sale service and incomplete construction. These changes went a long way in helping the purchaser, who faced continuing frustrations in reaching a satisfactory conclusion on the details of buying a new home, and they were welcomed.

The changes were made after consultation with the home building industry, consumer associations and people who work in the administration of the program itself. I think it important to note that there has been a continuing co-operative approach among the key players. It was very clear to all of these participants that changes were needed, and they were made. But problems still exist. While there are rational explanations for the problems -- labour market conditions and sectoral growth -- the explanations do not mask the need for additional action.

Since 1982, we have been in the midst of a sustained building boom in homes in Ontario. Both builders and buyers have been reeling from the shock of that boom, builders because of a continuing shortage of skilled artisans and tradesmen and buyers because their high expectations have often been dashed. We have had too many hopes, too many promises, too much anger and too much frustration.

Many of my constituents have been caught in this cycle. It is largely because of their experiences that I am putting forward very specific suggestions for consideration, but as well, my discussions with home builders, some of whom are also constituents, are part of the recommendations here and reflect some of their concerns.

Like many other industrial sectors which are struggling to attract and keep trained workers, the residential construction industry has been faced with increasing and sustained demand for output. Too often, it has coped with unskilled labour doing skilled jobs in a kind of on-the-job training scenario. The industry itself has recognized and made attempts to deal with this situation by sponsoring forums such as Future Building ‘88, designed to bring information about the industry to young people so they can see it as a legitimate career option.

The industry has also participated in community-college industry programs. By example, in Hamilton, some 100 students were involved over a period of two years. But the industry itself also admits that these efforts frequently are not enough to meet the demands of the marketplace.

The industry identified early some of the problems which were facing consumers as a result of a labour market condition. Difficulties with on-time completions brought late closings. Deficiencies in after-sale service to correct shortcomings were obvious to the industry. If they were obvious to the industry, they were more than obvious to the home buyer, who often could not move into the new home on the appointed date or, if able to move in, had to put up with unfinished or badly finished work and the prospect of workers where a wall should be.

From both sides of the contract, I, who have never occupied a new home, came to learn a great deal. One of the things I learned from industry representatives is that many, if not the majority of people, who are buying new homes do so without legal counsel. Verbal understandings, or misunderstandings, and the pitch of the eager salesman are too often built into conceptions of what the contract of purchase and sale includes or does not include.

The Toronto Home Builders’ Association has drafted a standard agreement of purchase and sale which is used by approximately half of regional new home builders. I asked a group of people in my riding, the Glen Abbey Ratepayers Association, to review the contract from a consumer’s point of view. Many people in the association have had recent experience in buying a new home and signing an agreement to purchase.

I also asked other people who were home buyers who had faced problems with their contracts to consider the merits of a standard contract of purchase and sale. The conclusion was very clear. There is a great deal of interest in a standard agreement of purchase and sale, and a sense that, were it equitable to both buyer and seller, it would be a useful addition to the process of new home purchase.

I noted that many of the observations put forward by the people underlined the need for strengthened communications, by contract if necessary, between buyer and seller. Suggestions for improvement related directly to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program’s addendum to agreement of purchase and sale, which is built into the Toronto Home Builders’ Association standard agreement.

But there were specific other areas noted as well, including extending the buyer’s right to have reasonable opportunities to visit the property during the construction period and a need for specific consultation and agreement on any alteration of the plans or specifications or substitution of materials.

Words used in the Toronto Home Builders’ Association agreement were of some concern. What does “substantially complete” or “reasonably may be occupied” mean to the family who is taking possession of a property if the dwelling is not in truth ready for comfortable occupancy?

From a buyer’s point of view, this kind of communication was not seen simply as a matter of courtesy on behalf of the vendor; it was seen as a vitally important part of the purchaser’s right to know about the progress, quality and standards of what will become his property. If that kind of information cannot be guaranteed by a handshake or an understanding as it might have been in another time, then the conclusion was that it should be written down and made more formal.

My constituents who were purchasers tell me that a standard agreement would be a step forward. The industry says it would be a step forward. The next step then is to produce a standard agreement of purchase and sale applicable throughout the province that is equitable for buyer and for seller. That is my first recommendation for strengthening the program.

My second recommendation relates to the time period of the warranty itself. In Ontario and elsewhere, the warranty takes effect when the purchaser takes possession of the home and a certificate of possession is issued. The certificate is completed only after a joint inspection of the house by the buyer and seller, during which time all observable defects are noted.

That list may be long or it may be short, but what it includes are things that are clear to the eye on a walkabout, and therefore the list tends to underline the obvious. Any other defects in workmanship and materials which are identified by the purchaser over the course of the first year of occupancy must be raised directly with the vendor, who is expected to correct the deficiencies.

In the case of major structural problems, the defects must be identified before the end of the fifth year of occupancy. In 1987, I should point out, Ontario extended the basic warranty period to two years with respect to water penetration in the basement or foundation of a new home.

What purchasers tell me, however, is that on the basic defects a one-year identification period is not enough. The kitchen cupboard may work itself loose from its ceiling join 15 months after occupancy. The weakened carpenter’s glue on the balustrade may not be apparent until a few months after a full season of central heating. The improper fitting of a window or the use of wrong paint on the exterior surface may not become obvious until more than 12 months have passed.

Purchasers have told me that they would like to see an optional extension of the warranty for what are known as minor defects -- which are not at all minor, I should point out, to the new home owner -- to ensure that the identification and correction of defects in workmanship and materials can be warranted for two years following the date of possession.

Their views, I should point out, have been supported by the consumer legislative review project. In its report, the review team has gone further than my constituents and has said that the extension of the warranty provisions for two years should be provided as a matter of course.

Similarly, my recommendation would extend the warranty provisions on major defects for an optional one-year period to six years. The legislative review project has recommended that the period should be extended from the current five-year coverage to a period of eight years after possession.

Whatever time periods are chosen, the essence of the issue is that there is a need for more time and that there are very practical reasons behind the identification of this area as one where change should take place.

Another area where there is a concurrence on the need for fairness between home buyers and home builders, but less of a measure of concurrence on how that fairness should be achieved, relates to the question of holdback on payment on work that is incomplete. Builders recognize that there is not a full measure of equity when the buyer must close the deal and pay in full for work that is not yet complete. They say, however, that if the buyer is allowed to hold back a portion of the payment of the purchase price, there will be an inevitable increase in the cost of the house to cover the costs associated with the holdback.

The purchaser sees the holdback in a different light, however. First, there is a sense that there should not be an obligation to pay for work that is not done or is not done properly. Second, there is a view that if the builder knows that the work will not be paid for until it is done, the work will be done and it will be done in a satisfactory manner.

I am pleased to incorporate in full into my resolution the recommendation which came from the Glen Abbey Ratepayers Association. I think it provides a recognition of both builder and buyer interests and provides a level of comfort to both. It says that the purchaser should be able to withhold moneys due on closing to the seller to the value of the uncompleted work and, in turn, should deposit that amount in trust with the home warranty program. The purchaser can then authorize the program to pay moneys to the seller as work is completed to a satisfactory level.

That recommendation makes eminent sense. Both buyer and seller are protected and ill will is lessened because both would have a promise and a guarantee of performance. This would not be the first time that common sense has prevailed in improvements to the home warranty program, but I believe that this recommendation is particularly worth exploring.

Another commonsense recommendation concerns the situation when the purchaser contracts for alterations and changes to the specifications of the model home or model house plan: that those upgrades, deletions or changes would be covered by the warranty program. It seems almost silly to me that if pine floors are standard in the agreement and a purchaser contracts for and is willing to pay for maple floors, for example, that the maple floors would not be covered under the warranty program.

I am told that is so because they would be contractual add-ons, and yet the purchaser should be afforded the same protection for the correct installation of the maple floors as for the pine floors and the equivalent guarantees of quality.

The recommendation to extend the warranty provisions to specified alterations, deletions, additions or upgrades, which are included in the agreement of purchase and sale and which are carried out by the builder, is straightforward.

My last recommendation is less easy to deal with, but I believe it should be on the table. My suggestion is that the warranty program should be extended to include restorations, renovations and additions to existing homes.

Many people in my community and elsewhere have opted not to get into the new home market but to change what they already have to meet changing circumstances. In some cases, families are welcoming grandparents to their homes or they may be seeing the return of married children with their own offspring, or children who have completed their schooling but do not yet have the wherewithal to establish an independent home may be coming back to the parents’ place. Rather than change communities, the choice is to adapt home surroundings to changing demands.

An addition is a realistic alternative. Other families choose to renovate to bring older houses into a more modern phase, and some of us who have been categorized as fools, and I count myself as one, choose to restore historic or near-historic properties.

There is a segment of the building industry that is very skilled and very conscientious in addressing each of these varied requirements, and I would be the first to point out that it rarely encompasses the new home builder who works in a different sector.

One of the strengths of the home warranty program is the registration process and the authority to deregister the nonperformer. Another strength is the warranty that work will be completed in a workmanlike manner, free from defects, constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code and fit for habitation.

Once again, it makes sense that similar rules could apply to another sector of the shelter industry without duplicating the bureaucracy. The experience of the people in the Ontario New Home Warranty Program could well benefit this increasing sector.

The legislative review project has suggested that home improvement sellers should continue to be registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, but points out that they are now classified as itinerant sellers. Why should they not be registered as a segment of the home construction industry?

The review talks about improved contractual disclosure, including the commencement and completion dates, and establishment of penalties if work is not completed on time. The review also recommends a home improvement compensation fund in the event of discontinuance of business or bankruptcy of the home improvement specialist.

To me it is obvious that we have an argument for extension of the Ontario New Home Warranty Program and, further, that we have the experience to make it work. I think that the person who decides to add on or to renovate or restore should have equivalent protection to the person who buys new. Whether from a cost benefit or an efficiency analysis, we should use what we already have that we know works well that has a flexibility that allows adjustment to protect a different sector of consumers.

I hope that members in the House will support these recommendations and that the ministry will consider them. They do not come from a vacuum, but are a result of interventions from people who are buyers and people who are sellers. They make sense to me and I hope that they made sense to my other colleagues in the House as well.

I would like to reserve any remaining time for the conclusion of the debate.

Mr. McCague: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I did not want to interrupt the member for Halton Centre, who is not the subject of the few words I would like to say on a point of order under standing order 71.

We began our proceedings this morning at 11 instead of 10, as would be the norm. The reason that we did not consider a private member’s bill at 10 this morning is not clear to me. I can only speculate as to why there are no Liberal members prepared to take advantage of the private members’ opportunity made available to all backbenchers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Yesterday, on a motion by the member for Fort William (Mrs. McLeod), the acting government House leader at the time, it was ordered by the Legislative Assembly “that, notwithstanding standing orders 2(

a) and 71(b), the House shall meet at 11 am, on Thursday, February 16, 1989, to consider one item of private members’ public business and that, notwithstanding standing order 71(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 63.”

Does the member have another point of order?

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, standing order 71 clearly says that we need two weeks’ notice for private members’ bills and we have no notice whatsoever for next --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I remind all members that we are now using the one hour of available time on these dubious points of order.

Mr. Callahan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member just speaking is, in fact, speaking to the ruling you made. That is out of order. The only right he has is to appeal the ruling of the chair.

The Acting Speaker: The question of notice was dealt with in yesterday’s order, which I quoted.

Mr. Farnan: As the New Democratic Party critic for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and as the member for Cambridge, a community experiencing considerable growth in recent years, I am very concerned about the strengthening of the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. Experience has demonstrated the need for legislation that will provide protection and fairness to new home buyers.

Surely the time is long overdue for the government to seriously address the hazards, risks and uncertainties experienced by home purchasers in Ontario. This is not a new problem. New Democrats have been pressing for consumer protection in this area for many years, and all members of the assembly will attest to the long and vigorous campaign waged by Mel Swart, the recently retired member for Welland-Thorold, to have the government introduce consumer protection legislation for home buyers and home owners.

Indeed, my predecessor as NDP Consumer and Commercial Relations critic even went so far as to draft appropriate legislation and press a succession of Liberal ministers to take effective action.

On December 17, 1986, then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter), announced certain revisions to the new home warranty program and said that these changes, plus tough policing, “will provide the home buyers of this province with the best consumer protection available in Canada today.”

Tell that to the home purchasers who may well be forced into an apartment as they await the construction of their new home. Tell that to the tens of thousands who are forced into similar situations by the failure of the developer-builder to meet completion dates. Tell that to the young couple whose roof leaks, whose drywall crumbles or whose basement is flooded. Tell that to the occupants without a driveway and proper grading and with a garden of rocks.

Tell that to the family that takes possession of its home in desperation, realizes that there are deficiencies in the painting, finishing, trim or brickwork, and then embarks on the often hopeless task of getting the builder to remedy minor or major structural defects or to finish uncompleted work. Tell that to the countless individuals and families who have cut their losses and simply given up in frustration.

Now, two years later, the consumer is still suffering and has little meaningful protection.

We must face the fact that some developer-builders are using unrealistic closing dates as a gimmick to promote sales. This results in less than quality workmanship, as corners are cut in an attempt to meet these unattainable closing dates. This is further compounded by unskilled labourers doing skilled work.

Apprenticeships are not required for carpentry or bricklaying. While it has made available, through community colleges, 20-week training programs in these trades, the government has given no consideration to making these training programs compulsory. It is little wonder that the home purchaser is so often confronted with an unsatisfactory and deficient product as a result of shoddy workmanship.

Another practice involves the developer-builder consciously delaying completion in order to get a higher price from a new buyer if the original one backs off because of the delay.

In all of these circumstances, it is the buyer who loses. I was under the naïve belief that a major function of a consumer minister was to protect consumers against situations like these, yet Consumer and Commercial Relations ministers have rejected legislative action based on the argument that there was only a small segment of the building industry creating problems. Well, only a small segment of motorists drives while impaired. Would the minister suggest that we should not have drunk-driving laws? Of course not.

Why then would the minister refuse to legislate against those who create horrendous problems in new home sales, even if it is only a minority of developer-builders who are guilty? Prevention of these problems is not difficult to achieve. It is the lack of political will on the part of this Liberal government that has permitted them to occur.

I support the general intent of the member for Halton Centre in her desire to strengthen the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. Certainly, it must be mandatory that a standard form of agreement of sale be used. I am also supportive of the recommendations that would withhold from the developer-builder an amount equivalent to the uncompleted work at the time of closing. This money would be paid by the purchaser to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program and would be relayed to the developer-builder in instalments as the unfinished work was completed.

These measures would provide the home purchaser with a considerable degree of protection, which does not exist at the present time. They would give the purchaser some leverage in having outstanding work completed and, at the very least, they would ensure that the purchaser is not paying for work that might never be completed.

However, there is little in this resolution that would penalize a builder-developer for not living up to the terms of the agreement.

In my view, it is not unreasonable that where the builder-developer fails to meet the completion date of an agreement, substantial penalties be paid by the developer-builder to the purchaser, and that where there is a long postponement of completion, the buyer would have the option of cancelling the purchase contract with the down payment refunded and interest and penalties levied against the builder.

An independent panel including consumer representatives would be established with authority to waive part or all of the late-completion penalties, if it was established that the delay was beyond the builder’s control as a result of strikes, unavailability of materials, etc.

Thousands of new home buyers have been severely hurt or seriously inconvenienced by late completions. This is the type of legislation that would guarantee the future protection of consumers in the housing market. Many of the structural defects, both minor and major, are only evidenced after new home owners have lived in their home for some time. It would certainly make a lot of sense to allow warranties to apply for a period of up to two years of the date specified in the possession certificate.

I would go further and suggest that the present guarantee fund of the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, which is currently used to correct certain defaults by builders, should be extended to provide coverage to include home completion. Home purchasers should not have to absorb the costs of renting an apartment while they wait after the completion date to take possession. These costs should be drawn from the guarantee fund, into which the builders would contribute.

The use of such a fund for protecting home purchasers is not unreasonable or unique in any way. There is a travel industry fund to protect travellers and there is a compensation fund to protect motor vehicle buyers from lawsuit or bankruptcy or other failure of the dealer to fulfil purchase contracts. The purchase of a new home is the single greatest expenditure that most people make in a lifetime. Why should that purchase not be protected in a manner similar to purchases of automobiles or travel?

It is significant that the travel industry fund is financed by the agent and travel businesses. The same kind of financing is used for the motor vehicle dealers’ fund. Therefore, the builders, not the customers, should finance the building completion fund as part of the new home warranties plan, even if that means new enrolment fees for them.

Finally, it makes very good sense to extend the warranty provisions to alterations, deletions, additions or upgrades specified by the purchaser and included in the agreement of purchase and sale and to further extend the provisions of the act to include restorations, renovations and additions to existing residential properties.

Given the failure of the Liberal government to seriously address the abuses to which the home-buying consumer is subjected, I commend the member for Halton Centre in bringing forward her resolution. Much of the substance of her resolution has been championed by New Democrats for many years now. It contains many suggestions, promoted by Mel Swart, that would improve the situation of the home buyer and the residential owner and is certainly an improvement on the current situation. It is a good first step.

It is sad that a private member must prod her own government to action when the evidence is so overwhelming that the consumer is in such desperate need of protection in the housing market. However, I am sure New Democrats will see in the member’s presentation of her resolution the dawning of enlightenment on the Liberal benches. We New Democrats have a tradition of promoting innovative and progressive ideas and we rejoice in prodding the Liberal government, however reluctant it might be, to enact legislation that will provide some reasonable degree of protection, fairness and justice for home owners.

If Mel Swart were here today, I think he would say, “We’ve got them moving in the right direction, but let’s keep up the pressure until we get the kind of legislation the home buyers and the home owners of Ontario deserve.”

Mr. McLean: I want to speak briefly on this resolution before us today. However, I find it difficult to participate in a debate when we get such short notice. This House, I understand, is having a very hard time controlling its agenda -- we did not start today until 11 o’clock -- and I find it very demoralizing.

I want to talk about the resolution with regard to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program which we had before the standing committee on the Ombudsman last year, in August, to look in depth with regard to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.

I can tell the members that the objective of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada new home warranty program was “to establish, organize and administer in Ontario a new home warranty program for the benefit of persons who purchase or agree to purchase residential housing from builders who are participants in such program, and in connection therewith, to give warranties, commitments, undertakings and guarantees to such purchasers to protect them against substandard construction, faulty workmanship and materials.”

It was “to promote better understanding and communications between builders and purchasers of new homes”; it was “to provide purchasers of new homes with a forum for complaints and grievances relating to the failure of participating builders to fulfil warranties and guarantees so that such complaints and grievances may be dealt with in an expeditious and equitable manner.”

It also goes on and says: “Once purchasers become owners, they are provided with a one-year warranty on workmanship, a two-year warranty against leakage of the basement and a five-year warranty against major structural defects. Again, if there is a dispute between the builder and the owner, the program will move in, mediate and conciliate at the request of either party and offer a decision as to the benefits a purchaser is to receive. Maximum coverage is $50,000. This is a conciliatory, not an adversarial process. In many instances, program staff help to resolve contentious issues between owners and builders that are not provided for as a part of the plan.”

During the testimony given at the evidence with regard to the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, the member’s colleague the member for Halton North (Mr. Elliot) said, “I would like to add my congratulations and thanks to those who have already said thank you for a very good presentation here.”

The member for Halton North went on: “In glancing quickly through the statistics, as I indicated, this morning I think, the Ontario New Home Warranty Program people should be very pleased with their record to date. It is a very impressive program and I do not think very many people are getting through the cracks in the particular program.” That is coming from the member’s colleague, the member for Halton North.

The member for Halton North also said: “I have found in my experience with the program it is excellent, as you have said, and my concern is twofold. One is that it is so excellent that those squeaky wheels that are really going after restitution of builders are getting more than their fair share.”

He also says: “I am not suggesting that the warranty people go overboard in satisfying the claims unnecessarily, but they have been very accommodating in the experience I have had in this.” He even talked about how well this system that the member wants to amend is working. He said, “. . .but if you discover something like that while doing a renovation in the basement two years after the home was purchased, at the present time, technically it would not be covered.”

Mr. Heron, from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, said: “No, it would be covered. It is covered under the structural warranty.” The member for Halton North said, “So it is up to five years for the structural warranty, “and the witness said, “Yes.” The member said, “Good.”

I would like to indicate that the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy) had indicated that it falls right in line with what I wanted to ask concerning fixing what is not already broken. So the member’s own colleagues are saying what a wonderful program this is that she wants to amend. The Ombudsman’s representative, with whom we were dealing in this program, indicated: “We are here for a couple of reasons.” He said: “In our experience, we do receive a mere handful of complaints a year against the program. Not very many. There are a number of reasons for that. First, as Dr. Hill said in his position paper, the program appears to be working well, because we do not get that many complaints.”

Here we have a member who has a resolution to amend the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, which her colleagues say is a wonderful plan. I will be listening carefully today and I hope the member for Halton North participates in this debate to compliment further how well the program is working so that perhaps some of the comments that he made in committee may be verified.

I am a strong believer in the home warranty program that is in place. I think it does an excellent job, as has been indicated, and perhaps the member for Halton Centre should be looking at one or two amendments with regard to the numbers of years that are involved. I find her resolution with regard to the new home warranty program rather interesting.

Mr. Offer: It is my pleasure to join the debate on this resolution of the member for Halton Centre and to congratulate her on a very important resolution.

This resolution is important in two ways. It is important because it puts forward specific proposals for consideration; I want to deal with those proposals in some detail later on. Second, it also sends out a very clear message that the Ontario New Home Warranty Program is one which is constantly changing, constantly needing analysis, a re-examination, to make certain that it meets the needs of the persons it was designed to protect.

I think this resolution, because it comes to grips with and addresses those two very important points, is one which should be supported by all members of this Legislature.

I have had occasion to view in many ways at first hand the workings of the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, what was originally known as the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada. When one deals with the program, we must be very clear that we are not criticizing the builders or the building industry.

The builders and the building industry are there to construct homes and to sell those homes in accordance with an agreement of purchase and sale, and generally that is indeed exactly what happens. However, there are occasions when the purchasers of new homes do require extra protection -- protection from some builders who, because of financial reasons, are unable or unwilling to complete homes. That is what this program is designed to address.

I would like to step back in time in dealing with the history of this program, because its history indeed is not terribly long. This program came into force first, I believe, in 1976-77. Before the existence of a formal warranty program, many builders offered one-year warranties to their own customers.

In 1976 HUDAC’s new home warranty program was implemented in Ontario by the Ontario council of HUDAC, which is now called the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. This was a voluntary program and it was established in May 1976.

The Ontario New Home Warranty Program became provincial law on December 31, 1976, which superseded the voluntary type of plan. Since its inception on January 1, 1977, this program has provided protection for every new home built for sale in Ontario, a total of somewhat more than 480,000 homes. Let’s be certain that this particular program is self-funding. It does not cost the taxpayers any money. It is, and we must be very clear about it, the only mandatory home warranty program in Canada; indeed, one of only three in the world.

So we are talking about a very specific, unique form of protection given to the purchasers of new homes in Ontario. I have been given some information that the program, since its inception, has paid out almost $32 million in claims to home purchasers.

This warranty program is administered by a board of directors composed generally of eight members nominated by the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, and one representative from each of the Ontario division of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, mortgage lenders, mortgage insurers, municipalities, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the manufactured housing industry.

Not only is this program dealing with the protection given to new home purchasers, it also has another function which is, in many areas, to educate and inform consumers of their rights to protection and also to educate builders in order to improve the standard of home construction in Ontario. So this program is not just protection given to purchasers of new homes, but it also is a very important program in terms of educating the public at large.

Outside of the specifics of this resolution is the message that the program must constantly undergo a re-examination and a reanalysis. I am a member in an area which is growing dramatically, not only industrially and commercially, but certainly residentially. I have seen examples of this program working. I have seen examples in some cases where a particular individual has had a whole home rebricked. That protection was allowed under the program.

However, I have also seen examples where the program has not provided protection -- indeed, cases of people who contracted to buy a home and, prior to completion of the transaction, the builder went bankrupt and they were left without any real remedy. I believe this resolution is important because it does re-examine and reanalyse whether the program is continuing to meet the needs of the people for whom it was designed.

I would like to deal with some of the specifics of this resolution because I think these are very well thought out improvements to the program. The first I would like to talk about is the adopting of a standard form of agreement of purchase and sale with rights and obligations of both purchaser and vendor delineated.

I guess in this type of an issue you really have two countervailing factors. Number one, people who buy new homes, whether it is in an active or a less active real estate market, generally do not seek legal advice prior to signing the agreement. They generally do not seek legal advice before what is for most people the single largest purchase they will ever make in their lives. I think that is an important fact to keep in mind. On the other hand, one must wonder whether a standard form agreement of purchase and sale will promote their seeking such legal advice prior to entering into an agreement.

I think such a standard agreement of purchase and sale will not in many ways promote people to seek lawyers.

Finally, I would like to talk about the optional extension of the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. I remember when the program was first introduced, there were generally two forms and two time limits. There was a five-year time limit for a major structural defect and a one-year time period given for a minor structural defect. With respect to the major structural defect, the five-year limit is still in existence. With respect to the minor structural defect, it still applies in all cases except to water leakage in a basement. That has been extended by one year to two years.

I believe very much that the member for Halton Centre has really captured an increased protection that should be given to the purchaser in terms of extending at least the minor protection on an optional basis a further year. Many times, the time period in which you complete the transaction really presents a difficulty in uncovering any defects within one year. I think the proposal made by the member for Halton Centre is one that should be taken into consideration very seriously. I would like to compliment the member on a very important resolution that will protect, in a very strong way, members of the purchasing public.

Mr. Pollock: There are a few things I would like to put on the record.

One of them, in regard to this particular resolution, is the fact that I have served on the standing committee on the Ombudsman with the government members, and in the 1988 report, Dr. Hill recommended expanded jurisdiction. We have had several meetings on expanded jurisdiction. Those recommendations included expanded jurisdiction over the children’s aid societies, hospital boards and the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. We have had these people come before our committee and make comments.

As my good colleague the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) just mentioned, some of the government members spoke in favour of what was in place right at the present time and felt that the Ontario Home Warranty Program was working reasonably well. In discussing this at different times on the committee, I have to admit I did not get a feeling from government members on whether or not they wanted expanded jurisdiction over the Ontario New Home Warranty Program by the Office of the Ombudsman. That still seems to be in limbo.

I really believe they are not going to go for expanded jurisdiction over the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. In a way, I would tend to agree with them for the simple reason that this is not funded in any way by the government; it is funded totally by the builders. Therefore, I tend to agree with them that we should not go for expanded jurisdiction in this case.

We are still discussing expanded jurisdiction as far as hospital boards and the children’s aid societies are concerned. They are getting some funding from the government. In fact, in some cases it is up to 80 per cent.

So this whole resolution seems to be a bit of a red herring, to take away from whether we give expanded jurisdiction to the Ombudsman or not. It is a concern to me. It is a little like the resolution we had last week when the member for Northumberland (Mrs. Fawcett) asked the Ministry of Natural Resources to put legislation in place banning all-terrain vehicles and dirt bikes. They have the authority to do that right now, so it is along the same line as that particular resolution.

I think we all know that even if the Ombudsman took over expanded jurisdiction, he cannot enforce anything. He can investigate and write a report on it, but he really cannot enforce it.

We have two chances at the present time, one to bring in legislation with regard to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program and another one to update it, so before too long, they should have all the holes plugged and have a good program in place.

I do not have an awful lot of fault to find with the present home warranty program. I just wonder how far back we can go in investigating things. We could also run into a situation where people will do something to the property, to the structure. For instance, they could remove a support post and cause some problems to the building, and that is not the builder’s fault. It is pretty hard to prove who did what and when. This creates a lot of investigation and a lot of problems.

I do not believe we can solve all the problems with the home warranty program. I just want to put a few of those things on the record. I would ask the member for Halton Centre to comment briefly on what she thinks should take place as far as extended jurisdiction of the Ombudsman is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: I will listen to the member for Halton Centre for the final two minutes.

Mrs. Sullivan: I am interested in the remarks of my colleagues the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan), the member for Simcoe East and the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) relating to the program itself, and comments made by the member for Simcoe East relating to statements of the member for Halton North in the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

I think it is very clear that the Ontario New Home Warranty Program is a good program. That does not necessarily say we should not have an opportunity to make it a better program. Many people in my riding, like people in Cambridge, like people in Mississauga North, like people in many other areas of the province, have indeed been served and have had no problems that could not be solved outside the circumstances of the warranty program. However, many other of my constituents, like constituents in other places, have had serious problems that could not be solved within the current bounds of the program.

That is why I have put these very specific recommendations forward. I could have included other ones as well.

I believe the program should be strengthened. The history of activity in the program and change to the program in the past has been one of flexibility. It has been characterized by a flexible approach, by changes which are made to meet the needs of the times and the needs of economic and other influences in the industry.

One of the other things that has been very clear is that as changes have been made to the program to strengthen it in the past, there has been a very strong co-operation among the industry, consumer and warranty program people.

I believe these recommendations that have been put forward make sense. They are a result of interventions from people who are buyers and who are sellers and I would appreciate the support of my colleagues in the House in ensuring that they reach the attention of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Farnan: Yesterday, Inglis Ltd. announced the shutdown of its Toronto plant within a year, and a restructuring that will see the loss of 60 jobs in Cambridge and 25 jobs in Montmagny, Quebec.

New Democrats and trade unions predicted the consequences of the free trade agreement in the appliance industry.

As the member for Cambridge, a major concern for me is that displaced Cambridge workers should be treated fairly. In discussing the benefits that these displaced workers might expect with John Utter, the Inglis director of corporate industrial relations, he indicated that the company would be discussing severance arrangements with union representatives. These severance packages, he suggested, would apply only to the Toronto employees involved in the shutdown situation, but not to the Cambridge employees who are involved in a layoff due to decreased work orders.

The argument for treating the Cambridge workers in the same manner as the Toronto employees is obvious. All are employed by the same company. The decision to shut down the Toronto plant results in the loss of jobs for Inglis Cambridge employees who produce dishwasher parts for the Toronto operation. It appears to me that basic justice demands that the Cambridge employees should receive the same severance package as the Toronto workers negotiated between Inglis and the union in the months ahead.

Surely it must be obvious that one company shutting down an operation that is supplied parts by a sister company ought to treat all of the displaced employees in a uniformly fair manner.

NATIVE PEOPLE AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Eves: Yesterday, the Assembly of First Nations told Ontario’s Race Relations and Policing Task Force that racism is alive and well in Canada with respect to the treatment of native people and called for a wide examination of the problems facing the native people in their dealings with the justice system.

Our party echoes those concerns. It was only two days ago that my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) joined with the Native Peoples Justice Review Committee in calling for a full public inquiry on the issue of native justice in Ontario.

I was dismayed to note that the day they demonstrated here at Queen’s Park, no government representative was available to speak to the native people. They protested the sentence of two years less a day given to Joseph Constantineau for committing an indignity to the dead body of Virginia Nootchtai from the Whitefish Lake Indian reserve. Ontarians should be appalled not only by this heinous crime but as well by a justice system which appears to be unequal in its treatment of our native population.

The recently announced provincial task force to study justice services among aboriginal communities is not what is needed. We do not need another task force. What we do need is a full public inquiry such as the government of Manitoba is presently undertaking. The time for study is over; the time for action is now.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Ms. Hart: I rise today to commend the staff and students at Leaside High School in my riding of York East for their efforts to promote nonsmoking at school. Sixty pairs of students consisting of a smoker and a nonsmoking buddy entered a contest to quit and win. The contest, which was sponsored by the East York health unit and the Leaside High School student council, required students to remain nonsmokers for one month. Thirty quitters and their buddies qualified for prizes donated by the Leaside business community.

Winners of the draw for the grand prize, a pair of mountain bikes donated by the student council, were April Marshall and Caroline Visentin. April told me that although she used to play sports regularly, she could not keep up the pace when she smoked, so she stopped playing. Within one month of becoming a nonsmoker again, April was able to rejoin the school soccer team.

The quit-and-win contest was just one event in a two-month smoking cessation program at Leaside High School. Other events included a nonsmoking week, classroom presentations and a skit entitled Seven Minutes, because every cigarette takes seven minutes away from your life.

I hope that the other high schools across Ontario will follow Leaside’s excellent example and encourage students to stop smoking or, better yet, never to start.

DERELICT MOTOR VEHICLE SITES

Mrs. Grier: In 1979, the Ministry of the Environment ended its responsibility for licensing, regulation and monitoring of derelict motor vehicle sites, leaving the responsibility to each municipality. Soon afterward, the then Ministry of Transportation and Communications announced that it would no longer regulate the appearance of auto wrecking operations. Municipalities now have complete responsibility for these sites. What municipalities do not have are the resources or the expertise to monitor and inspect such operations. Many of the smaller municipalities do not even have full-time bylaw inspectors.

In addition, there is often confusion about when a derelict motor vehicle site, a municipal responsibility, becomes a salvage and scrap yard, which is still under provincial jurisdiction.

The Ministry of the Environment’s abdication of its responsibilities for derelict motor vehicle sites is completely unacceptable, given the variety of environmental problems associated with these operations. Neighbours consider them eyesores and are worried about potential contamination of water sources from oil and old batteries.

Last year, I wrote to municipalities across the province to find out how widespread the problem was and to ask them how best to regulate auto wrecking yards. The response was overwhelmingly in favour of the Ministry of the Environment resuming responsibility. Municipalities complained about their inability to regulate these businesses and about how slow the ministry was to respond to their concerns.

I urge the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to resume responsibility for derelict motor vehicle sites to ensure that adequate protection of the environment is provided and that legislation is uniform.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs. Marland: My statement today is, in fact, a very sad story. It is about the McConnell family. There are two daughters in this family: Maria, aged 21, and Theresa, aged 19. Both of these girls in this family were born with microcephaly, smaller heads. Both the girls have epilepsy and progressive ataxia. Both these girls have been in wheelchairs for 10 years. They are able to wheel themselves around, but of course they need help with being lifted in and out of those wheelchairs. They obviously need help with their personal hygiene.

Their mother, Mrs. McConnell, has taken care of both these girls all their lives without any assistance from any government. The saddest part of all is that Mrs. McConnell has cancer. Mrs. McConnell has been trying for five years to get a residential setting for both of her daughters. Obviously, it is imperative that these girls stay together. They have been together all their lives. How sad it is when applications to organizations such as Participation House in Brantford or Participation House in Markham, tell them that Maria and Theresa are too low-functioning compared to other people in those residences and that they are too low a priority to be accepted.

If this Liberal government can look after normal kids in grades 1 and 2 across this province, surely it can look after the special needs of this family.

LITHUANIA

Mr. Fleet: Today is of special importance to the members of our Lithuanian community in Ontario. February 16, 1989, is the 71st anniversary of the restoration of independence in Lithuania following the First World War.

This anniversary is especially significant as only recently have the language, flag and anthem of the Lithuanian people received official recognition by the government in their homeland. In Toronto, St. Catharines and communities all across Ontario, flags will be raised to commemorate this day and to herald the advent of freedoms finally re-emerging in Lithuania itself.

All Ontarians are free to retain their cultural heritage and to share it with others. We encourage and celebrate the strengths of multiculturalism, as well as the exercise of many political and personal freedoms. Since the turn of the century, people who came from Lithuania have richly contributed to the development of our province and to our shared ideals of freedom.

Let us honour that commitment to freedom and the contribution of all Ontarians of Lithuanian heritage. I ask all members to acknowledge the community representatives with us today in the members’ gallery: Joana Kuras, Herbert Stepaitis, Dainius Vaidila and Angelica Sungaila. Thank you very much for your contribution.

HANDGUN REPLICAS

Mr. Farnan: In today’s Toronto Sun we read that Toronto’s emergency task force was called out after a 14-year-old boy’s replica gun was mistaken for the real thing. The ETF set up a command post outside a Pizza Hut restaurant. Upon arrest, they found the replica gun was modelled after a nine-millimetre automatic handgun.

“You could have an ugly ending,’ Peel Sergeant Doug Turner said. ‘The youth thinks he’s handing over the weapon; the police officer thinks it’s real and then you’ve got your split-second timing.’”

Is it not time the government brought in legislation modelled on my private member’s bill, Bill 145? Fifty-six different police commissions and police brotherhoods have passed resolutions supporting Bill 145, which demonstrates the seriousness with which police officers and commissioners consider this issue and the broadly based support for Bill 145. The government should not wait until we have another fatality.

COURT RULING

Mr. Jackson: I rise on a point of privilege. For many months now, the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) and I have been in touch with a group called Mothers on Trial, which is an advocacy support and lobby group for women dealing with support and custody issues within the court system. Oftentimes, members of the group bring to our attention issues of a personal nature arising from specific actions and motions now before the courts. These women are turning to members of this Legislature because, from personal experience, they see the need for judicial reform in the area of family law.

A leading member of the group is Ms. Christina Benson. On May 27, 1987, the Honourable G. Thomas Walsh, senior justice of the family law division, Supreme Court of Ontario, issued an order which tells Ms. Benson that she is “expressly prohibited from writing or contacting any party in respect of this action.”

Mr. Speaker, this order purports to prevent Ms. Benson from contacting members of this Legislature, including me, about her troubles with the family law system. I am rising on a point of privilege to ask you whether this court order is of any force and effect in so far as it attempts to prohibit communication between Ms. Benson and members of this Legislature.

Beauchesne, in

section 16 of the fifth edition, defines the privileges of this House as “rights which are ‘absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.’ They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members.”

You yourself, Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on June 10, 1986, at page 1297 of Hansard, explained privilege as follows:

“Parliamentary privilege relates to the rights and immunities that belong to Parliament, its members and others, which are essential for the operation of parliament. These rights and immunities allow the Legislature to meet and carry out its proper constitutional role, members to discharge their responsibilities to their constituents, and others properly involved in the parliamentary process to carry out their duties and responsibilities without obstruction or fear of prosecution.”

I think it is clear that one of the most essential rights we have is the right to communicate freely with the public. Without the right to hear their grievances, or listen to their concerns, we simply cannot function as elected representatives of the public.

Ms. Benson has several legitimate grievances. Yesterday, we read about her as the woman in the Globe and Mail who lost custody of her child because she has gone to a shelter for battered women. Yet here she is being told: “You will be found guilty of contempt of court and you will go to jail if you so much as breathe a word of this to anyone -- even to an elected MPP.”

First, I remind you that the right to address grievances to this House is enshrined in our standing order 31. Yet this court order would even prevent Ms. Benson from signing or sending a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

In further support of my point of privilege, I would like to refer to several authorities which make it clear that the right of members to communicate with the public -- and I refer to two-way communication -- cannot be impeded.

Erskine May states on pages 167 and 168 of the 20th edition that “the special position of a person providing information to a member for the exercise of his parliamentary duties has been regarded by the courts as enjoying qualified privilege at law... .Administrative action has also been taken to preserve the liberty of the electorate in communicating with members of Parliament.”

Looking in both Erskine May and Beauchesne, we can find at least four precedents which make it clear that the right to communicate freely with MPs and MPPs cannot be breached, and that when it is breached, it gives rise to a question of privilege.

These previous rulings include the following: first, where British servicemen have an absolute right to communicate with their MPs, so long as they do not disclose state secrets; second, a government department cannot disclose to third parties the contents of a letter sent by an MP’s constituent; third, in 1974 the wiretapping of a Canadian MP’s office was determined to be a prima facie matter of privilege, but the MP never proceeded further with his complaint; and finally, the censorship of incoming mail and phone calls to MPs was raised as a matter of privilege in 1942, but was defended by the Prime Minister as necessary to wartime security.

I suggest that by attempting to prevent Ms. Benson from taking her case to members of this House, Mr. Justice Walsh has breached the privileges of all members, but especially those of us who have been providing her with advice and assistance.

I understand that standing order 19(d)(7) prevents any MPP from discussing an issue that is before the courts and “where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Speaker that further reference would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding.”

This section, in my view, only reinforces my arguments. This standing order makes it clear that it is the Speaker and the Speaker alone who decides whether we can discuss specific legal issues in this chamber. Mr. Speaker, if Ms. Benson complains to me, you have the authority to decide whether I can talk about the issue in this House; but that power belongs to you, not anyone outside this chamber, be he a judge or anyone else.

It seems clear to me that it is a breach of privilege to tell MPPs that they are no longer allowed to hear from particular constituents. After all, representing the public is at the very heart of our role. I like to think of the Legislature as a court of last resort in Ontario, and if citizens cannot turn to us, where can they go? No outside party, not even the courts, can take this right away.

I refer finally to Wade and Phillips, in their text on constitutional law on page 124, for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. It says, “Parliament has always held the view that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be discussed and adjudicated in that House and not elsewhere; and that the existence of a privilege depends upon it being declared by the high court of Parliament to be part of the ancient law and custom of Parliament.”

Finally, a member is obliged to rise on a point of privilege as soon as it arises. I regret that I did not learn of this court order until this morning, so this has been my first opportunity. Mr. Speaker, you must determine whether or not I have raised a prima facie case and, if you do so, sir, I am prepared to raise the appropriate motion.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to respond briefly to the point. I think the members of our caucus accept the general proposition that has been stated at such length by the honourable member.

As you consider it, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful if you took into account the reasons for the order that the Honourable Mr. Justice Walsh has given, as I am sure you would want to do, before the ruling that you make is in fact made.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the member for Burlington South and to the Attorney General. I certainly will take into consideration the suggestions made. I would like to ask the indulgence of the House while I study the point of privilege raised by the member for Burlington South. I will, at my first convenience, report my decision to the House.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO TRAINING CORP.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Last spring, I announced the creation of the Ontario Training Corp. The OTC is Canada’s first public corporation with a mandate to work with the private sector to increase workplace training.

Today, I wish to inform members of this House that the Ontario Training Corp. guidelines are now completed for its two investment funds, the training materials fund and the training technology fund. The corporation will now be accepting and processing proposals that will support the development and commercialization of new training materials and technologies for the Ontario workplace. There will be $3.2 million available for the investment funds.

The training materials fund invests in workplace training products, including manuals, interactive computer programs and instructional videos; for example, a basic chemistry course for mill and refinery workers in the mining industry.

The training technology fund invests in applications of emerging technologies for workplace training purposes. These new workplace training products will be state of the art, using new technologies such as authoring software, videodisc and CD-ROM.

All proposals to the investment funds must be commercially viable and must be useful to a wide range of potential customers.

The investment funds will generate partnerships between the Ontario Training Corp. and private sector innovators that will bring new training materials and technologies into the marketplace. This will help Ontario’s training industry to become a leader and will stimulate training within Ontario’s workplaces.

As well, the corporation offers a skills bank that will provide an inventory of all existing training programs, materials and services in Ontario, and it is also encouraging new ways to train up-to-date trainers for the marketplace.

Through this and other initiatives, the OTC and this government will continue to build a strong training culture. When Ontario business and industry routinely invest in on-the-job training, we will see the results in a heightened productivity of Ontario’s economy. Establishing a training culture will enable us to meet the labour market adjustment challenges posed by new technology, changing demographics and new global trading patterns.

I want to congratulate Sandra Birkenmayer, president of the Ontario Training Corp., and David Lewis, chairman of the board, on the release of these important guidelines. I also want to acknowledge the vital support of the labour movement for the efforts of the Ontario Training Corp.

The new investment funds and the OTC itself continue to be an outstanding example of partnership among government, business and labour. I look forward to communicating further OTC initiatives in the coming months.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO TRAINING CORP.

Mr. Farnan: We on this side of the House welcome any effort, no matter how small, that will improve our competitive edge. As we address the challenges of the future, I think we must all realize that the tools, the technologies and the methods that make industrialized nations competitive in the marketplace of the future are available to all nations and that what is going to make the difference in giving us a competitive edge in the world of tomorrow will be to be competitive in the quality of our trained and skilled personnel.

There have been some initiatives from this ministry that we can commend. I think the industrial training committees are an initiative we can commend. This particular initiative is, again, something we can commend and applaud. But when we look at the amount of dollars being invested in the initiative to develop the potential of the skills that will make us competitive in the world of the future, $3.2 million is a paltry amount of money indeed. We have to be realistic. If we are to compete at the razor’s edge of the competitive industrial world, $3.2 million is a drop in the bucket and certainly will leave us far behind in the pack.

Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction, a small, baby step but a step, and we have to commend the government on that. There must be real investment in this before we can make any meaningful progress. I hope the minister is fighting in cabinet for real funding for his area, because without that funding we are going to lose our place as a potential industrial leader.

We are trying the co-operative approach and we can commend the volunteer effort, but at some stage the minister has to look at the possibility and the potential of making apprenticeships obligatory. We have in place some formulas in which we have apprenticeship to journeymen and skilled tradesmen. That is fine, there should be these formulas in place; but if the private sector is not co-operating and training apprentices to keep us competitive, and if we continue to go to the United Kingdom and abroad to bring trained employees to work in the factories and the plants of Ontario, then it is clearly indicative that his ministry and this government is failing.

The reality of the matter, as I talk to the business leaders in Cambridge and in Ontario, is that they are saying to us, “We don’t have skilled workers.” It requires, clearly, leadership on the part of the government. There has to be something of an obligatory nature in the apprenticeship program. There has to be more flexibility to allow smaller firms to hire apprentices under rules that are not as stringent as those for firms of a larger nature.

Putting the minister’s announcement in the House today in context, it is a very small but positive gesture towards skills development. We can accept that; but I feel the minister must stand here making that announcement with some embarrassment, because he knows as well as anybody in this House what the real need of the future industry of Ontario is. The real need of the industry is skilled labour.

With $3.2 million in additional funds, the minister is not going to make an impact of any significance on the need we have for skilled labour. If he looks at the routes New Democrats have been pointing out in introducing some form of obligatory apprenticeship and in providing greater flexibility, then doing these other things helps it along.

In conclusion, I would add that there should be a commendation and recognition of those volunteers who are assisting his ministry in improving apprenticeship training as it stands at the moment.

Mr. Cousens: In responding to the statement of the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) today, I have to agree with one thing in his presentation: the desire to increase workplace training. Yet I wonder why it is that this very minister has not addressed some of the ways he could really go about doing something to increase the quality and quantity of people in the workplace to meet the needs of our growing industry in Ontario. I have four recommendations for the minister that come out of his presentation.

1. Increase the ratio of apprentices who can work with tradespeople. In the electrical industry, where there are three apprentices for one electrician, why does he not increase that to five apprentices to one electrician? Go through the different industries where there is a specific need for new trainees where he can then expand and build upon the apprenticeship training program. That is one thing the minister could be doing, working with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and other ministries to try to make that happen.

2. I am surprised that his ministry has not done a detailed analysis and forecasting model of where the needs are in Ontario, so that the community colleges and other institutions of training are turning out the right kind of individual to be trained for the kind of needs that exist in different parts of industry. Do something in developing a model of the requirements for Ontario. He has not done that. That is not part of his agenda right now. I wish that would be part of his program.

3. Is it not time that his ministry established a closer liaison between community colleges, universities and educational institutions with labour and with industry so that there is a dialogue that goes on between both the ministry and industry?

I know the York Technology Association has been very close to Seneca College, York University and the University of Toronto in trying to develop that working model where industry and educators are working more closely together. That is not happening in the minister’s program anywhere; if it is, it is not something that is being directed, supported, financed, underwritten, guided and inspired by him or his ministry.

Finally, I do not think the Minister of Skills Development has even read the Premier’s Council report, Competing in the New Global Economy. Recommendation 13 of the report has a comprehensive people strategy. It says, “The Premier’s Council should work with appropriate areas of government to develop a comprehensive people strategy that would address vital education, training and labour market policy issues as an integral part of the council’s next agenda.”

I am convinced that this minister and this ministry are not aware of what is in the Premier’s Council report, because it has come forward with some solid recommendations. What he is doing is just meddling and playing around with the system and not coming up with a comprehensive plan. The Premier’s Council has said methods need to be found to increase “the amount and quality of training in industry through incentives or a regulatory framework.”

It has said nothing about the kinds of things that he is innovating right now. What he is doing is viable and it is good, but why does he not get on to some of the recommendations in the Premier’s Council report that really have something to do with the long-term needs of the province?

I venture to say that the Minister of Skills Development is not on the Premier’s Council. He should be. He should be speaking to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and telling him that he wants to take

part in it, that he has something to offer, and if he sat around that table --

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am on the Premier’s Council.

Mr. Cousens: Are you on it now?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I’m on it.

Mr. Cousens: You are not. I didn’t see your name in the front. They missed your name. Mr. Speaker, they missed his name.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Read the book.

Mr. Cousens: Hey, I missed it. It’s alphabetical. His name is first on the list. I apologize. The minister had better attend the meetings. It’s time he started getting involved and understanding what they’re trying to say, because he is not practising what they’re suggesting.

Recommendation 13 calls upon this minister to do something. I wish he would read the report. Recommendation 13 has an awful lot to do with what this minister is doing. I am convinced he has not begun to do the job that the Premier’s Council wants him to do.

I will close with a slight apology. I am sorry I did not see his name at the top. I am proud that he is there, so he should start thinking about it and doing something about it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Kormos: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. I am referring, of course, to senior citizens. Seniors, even those with the best of driving records, are going to suffer substantial hikes in insurance rates. The report from the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board that was released on Monday makes note of that more than once.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) says that the government might step in to help. Will the minister please tell seniors in the province how much of a buffer they will get when their rates skyrocket to $923 from the really already high premium of $776, an increase of almost 20 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not sure of the exact location of those numbers. I presume that is for Metropolitan Toronto seniors perhaps, I am not sure. But the honourable gentleman would want to quote for the benefit of seniors around the province that there are other areas outside of Metro in which there will be substantial decreases on the basis of the figures that were also released and that have been worked out by the board.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that he ought not to be so provocative in the way he addresses the issue. There is no question that there will be some adjustment required in the market, but in this particular situation I am advised that the effect on seniors across the province will be somewhere around one per cent. That being the case, it is not going to be what he is trying to make it seem, that for every senior in the province there is going to be a tremendously huge increase.

I think he owes it to the people to be particularly careful to indicate that across the province there will be decreases as well as a result of the territorial structure under the plan as it has been set out. That is important.

Mr. Kormos: That is fine. Let us talk about seniors in Scarborough, because they are the ones who, the board report indicates, are going to suffer hikes of almost 20 per cent. On behalf of those seniors -- we will talk about the ones in urban centres -- is the 19 per cent hike really fair? It is not fair for those seniors; it is not just; it is not reasonable. Why cannot those seniors who are going to suffer the 19 per cent increases be treated fairly and reasonably? Will the government order a phasing in? Will the government order a cap with respect to those seniors in large urban centres?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member will want to know, as the seniors of the province will want to know, that there will be filings of rates coming about in the 30 days following the Monday introduction of this new rate structure. We will be looking at the rates as they are filed by the companies. One of the advantages that the people will have is that the board will be making available a comparative list of rates which are available through various companies.

I would think we would want to be very careful in following the logic which this honourable gentleman would like to foist upon the people of Ontario, by letting people infer from what he says that all seniors are going to have very high increases. That is not what is indicated. He would want to be quite clear that there are places where there will be decreases and I can tell the honourable gentleman that I am interested in looking at what happens when the rates are filed by the various companies.

The member should know that is happening and I think he should tell the people of the province that is happening. In addition, there will be comparative lists of rates among the companies so that all consumers, whether senior or otherwise, will be able to shop with some degree of certainty and understanding about the marketplace.

Mr. Kormos: What I can tell the members is that seniors do not consider fair either a premium of $922 -- because that is what is proposed, albeit as the maximum for seniors in urban centres like Scarborough -- or the existing premium of $776, and that is what a 65-year-old driver with a 40-year clean driving record is paying and will pay.

In Regina, the very same driver will pay $448, 51 per cent less. In Winnipeg, the very same driver will pay no more than $510, 45 per cent less. In Vancouver, no more than $658 --

Mr. Speaker: Are you asking the minister if he agrees with those figures, or do you have a question?

Mr. Kormos: I have a question. The rates are anywhere from 30 to 51 per cent less for that very same driver in western provinces. When will the minister tell the seniors in the province the whole story: that fair, affordable auto insurance premiums are going to take place only when there is a public auto insurance plan in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Again the honourable gentleman is being very provocative because, of course, there is a whole series of initiatives which this government has introduced and he has failed to recognize in speaking about the marketplace in Ontario; a series of items which include items like tort reform, the opportunities available through driver education, highway safety and other things which all add up to deal with the critical issue, whether we are under a public or private form of supply of auto insurance, and that is the loss costs which are accumulating as a result of driving risks which are aggravated by the number of cars and other things.

That gentleman would want to know that the people of the province are assured that we are taking every opportunity to effect a decrease in loss costs by examining ways in which those can be reduced. That is what we are doing, and they include a series of initiatives about which we have made announcements in this House and about which we will be making further announcements. I can tell the honourable gentleman that he will want to explain fully that those initiatives are being taken by a caring government in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: The headline in the Toronto Star says a great deal about this government’s attitude.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. Laughren: My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer knows that since his government came to power in 1985, the price of new homes in Metropolitan Toronto has increased by 146 per cent and the price of resale homes by 135 per cent. In more than a dozen communities in this province, the rate of increase has been more than 100 per cent.

Can the Treasurer please tell us what is so unreasonable about our proposal that Ontario impose a land speculation tax that would impose a 100 per cent capital gains tax on the gains for nonresidential homes and land sold in the first 12 months and 75 per cent capital gains tax on land and buildings that are sold in the second 12 months? What is so unreasonable about that proposal?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not find that unreasonable, but I would like to point out to the honourable member that the policies of this government have expanded the rate of the provision of housing in this municipality and elsewhere across the province at a tremendous rate.

At the same time, we have to recognize that people everywhere in the world and everywhere in Canada and everywhere in Ontario are attracted to this fine Metro area as a place to raise families and make a living, and we feel that the dislocation associated with the honourable member’s proposal is not at this time balanced by the advantages that are so apparent to him.

I indicated yesterday that, as we come within two or three months of a budget, all sorts of alternatives dealing with the needs of the community are under review. The honourable member would be aware that, as usual, the recommendations he makes in this House as budget critic are always considered seriously.

Mr. Laughren: On Monday we raised in this House the question of the problem of inflation in the price of detached homes, on Tuesday we raised the question of the cost of apartments, and yesterday we brought to the Treasurer’s attention, because he did not seem to understand, that this was a province-wide problem not restricted to Metro.

For two years now we have been trying to get the Treasurer to bring in this speculation tax and he has done absolutely nothing to deal with the question of speculation on land and homes. I ask the Treasurer, very simply, will he step aside and let someone else who will do something about land speculation fill the position of Treasurer?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The answer to the question, naturally, is no. I would sooner the Premier (Mr. Peterson) be here to answer on my behalf, but since he is not, I will have to do it myself.

The honourable member did initiate a series of questions earlier this week. Yesterday he indicated that Brantford, Ontario, I believe it was, a city I know very well, had the highest rate of increase of prices in the housing market; at least this was average increase.

I thought, so the record would not go uncorrected, that he should know the increase in one year -- very high indeed -- in the Toronto area was 25 per cent. In Sudbury, for reasons that are apparent, it was 18.3 per cent. In the Brantford region, the area which he thought was the highest, it was 24.1 per cent, which is not the highest.

In order for the record to be complete, the member should be aware that the increase in the average resale in Brantford was from $87,717 in January 1988 to $108,868 in December 1988. It is quite apparent that Brantford and Brant county and that marvellous part of Ontario are probably the most desirable places that could possibly be considered by any family --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Laughren: I guess it is expecting too much for someone in the Treasurer’ s position or the Premier’s position to understand what the escalation in the price of houses has done to ordinary people in Ontario, not just in Metro either.

The Treasurer has refused to do anything about the speculation on land, absolutely anything. He has said no every single time we have raised the question, despite the fact that in 1974, when a land speculation tax was imposed in Ontario, the escalation in the price of the sale of homes in Metro, for example, which the Treasurer likes to talk about, decreased from a 30 per cent rate to nine per cent in one year after the imposition of that land speculation tax.

I would like to ask the Treasurer, since he seems to have absolutely no solution to this problem, could he tell us why in the world, instead of sitting on no policies at all, he will not at least step aside, resign and let someone take that position who will do something about it?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The simplistic approach taken by the honourable member --

Mr. Laughren: It worked before.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: -- has no role at all in a rational solution to a problem that is associated with the tremendous rate of growth of this community.

If the honourable member, as budget critic, had reviewed the statistics that are readily available to him, he would know that the rate of economic growth in Toronto has been greater than almost any other community in the western world.

Mr. Laughren: So what? Talk about Ontario.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This surely is one of the apparent reasons for the kind of problem that he raises on a day-by-day basis.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the member would also know that the people in this province are better housed than in communities anywhere else in Canada. In fact, the number of people who have moved into their own homes in the last few years has been at a rate faster than at any time in our history.

I think this is a matter that should concern the member when he tries to bring forward his alternatives in a fair and equitable way rather than on the basis that he apparently uses.

Mr. Laughren: What a wonderful bunch. I hope you all own your own homes now. You people must all have your own homes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South would like to ask a question, if the member for Nickel Belt would allow it.

COURT RULING

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Attorney General. The minister will be aware that in yesterday’s Globe and Mail there was an

article about Christina Benson, who is a victim of domestic violence. She has been living at Nellie’s Hostel for Women on Broadview Avenue in Toronto.

The minister will also be aware that Ms. Benson has lost custody of her nine-year-old son Gabriel because Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne says that living at this shelter is “not in the child’s best interest.” Does the minister agree with this decision and, if not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Scott: First of all, I do not think my honourable friend has read the decision of Mr. Justice Osborne or he would not make the observation he did in the House or the observation he has made in this news release, which seems to be the focus of his attention, where he says that Christina Benson recently lost custody of her nine-year-old son because she is living at Nellie’s.

As the honourable member will come to realize when he reads the decision, the trial judge in this protracted matrimonial dispute had to make a selection between what he regarded as a stable domestic environment and living in a hotel or hostel. He made no pejorative judgement about one or the other; he simply had to make a comparison between them in terms of the stability of the child. He also considered a raft of other factors that are traditionally taken into account when the interest of the child is at stake. Of course, he has made his order, which is subject to appeal in the normal fashion.

Mr. Jackson: The Attorney General will be aware that the matter I raised with the Speaker some 12 minutes ago had more to do with the censoring of this citizen’s access to any member of this Legislature. That was Mr. Justice Walsh. The matters I am raising before the Attorney General are matters with respect to Mr. Justice Osborne.

This matter does create a dangerous --

Mr. Black: You didn’t listen, Cam.

Interjections.

Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, it may be a constituent of the members opposite I am trying to raise the question about, and with their indulgence I would like to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the member’s assistance.

Mr. Jackson: This does create somewhat of a dangerous precedent, given the fact that women who are experiencing domestic violence must choose between proceeding to a shelter and leaving that situation of domestic violence, or perhaps leaving their children behind and then proceeding to a safe hostel. It seems unfair that this judgement would create an image in the minds of those battered women in regard to the status of their children once they enter a shelter.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Jackson: Does the Attorney General not agree that this is a bad precedent for victims of wife assault and their children, and will he give his government’s commitment that no woman will lose her child merely because she has been forced into an interval or transition home by an abusive spouse?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member knows that in these custody cases, and this case has raged vigorously for at least four years in the courts, the judge is obliged by law to consider solely the interests of the child. I do not believe that any honourable member present would want any other standard to be considered.

In making a determination of what is in the interests of the child, the judge has to consider, where it is appropriate, the stability of the environment, the location of the parents and a wide variety of other factors. He did that in this case, and anyone dissatisfied by the order can of course appeal his order and have it re-examined. But it would be wrong to say, as has been said elsewhere, that he deprived this mother of custody because she was living at Nellie’s. He commented on a wide variety of factors.

It seems to me his observation about the stability of the proposed home on the one hand and Nellie’s on the other would have been the same if Nellie’s was the Royal York Hotel. He was speaking of finding a stable environment that would best serve the interests of the child. As everybody understands, that is what is to be determined. The child is not regarded by the court as to be bounced from one side to the other to protect the interest of either parent.

Mr. Jackson: Twice before in this House I have raised with the Attorney General the issue of the attitude of judges. The Attorney General’s response to me in the House is that the autonomy of judges makes it impossible to interfere in order to educate judges or to sensitize them to issues involving women who are victims of rape or domestic violence.

In this case, Justice Osborne seems to have said that Ms. Benson cannot obtain custody of her son until she moves into a stable, permanent shelter. Yet the type of roof over a woman’s head has nothing to do with the kind of parent she will make.

If the Attorney General agrees that this case presents an attitudinal problem on the part of our judiciary, what steps can his government take to ensure that judges are more sensitive to the plight of abused women like Ms. Benson?

Hon. Mr. Scott: There are no doubt cases that reveal the attitudinal problem my friend has referred to, and I have had occasion to comment on them from time to time and to consider with him steps that can be taken. When this judgement is read, however, I do not think it reveals the attitudinal problem to which my friend refers. He is seeking a platform, but regrettably it is not to be found in this case. In this case --

Mr. Jackson: Both you and I are aware of this case, Ian. For two years you were women’s advocate for your government and did nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not know if the honourable member wants to get another supplementary in, or does he want me to respond?

Mr. Jackson: You are helping me by responding. I appreciate the additional response.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If my honourable friend will take just a moment -- it will not take much longer -- to read what the judge had to say, he might focus on the fact that the court quite properly does not consider this a dispute between parents which is to be resolved in the interest of one parent or the other but regards it, as I am sure all honourable members would, as a determination to be made on an interim basis for a stable environment for the child.

If the member looks at the five or six factors Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne referred to, I think the judgement will be deprived of the kind of inherent bias my learned friend seems to suggest is found in it. It can be appealed. Legal aid facilities are available for that purpose and that is the appropriate forum for reviewing it. Regrettably, it cannot be made a platform for my friend’s political purposes.

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

Mr. Sterling: My question is to the Attorney General as well. Two days ago we debated Bill 149, the Trespass to Property Amendment Act. At that time I raised concerns with respect to a property owner’s apparent diminished right to control the environment of his or her premises if this act was passed.

Earlier this week we learned of problems faced by merchants in the Scarborough Town Centre with respect to marauding gangs of youths and actions of intimidation and violence perpetrated on patrons and merchants by these youths; $2.50 Tuesday now doubles as fight night, quite the entertainment bargain. How is Bill 149 going to assist merchants in dealing with these violent situations?

Hon. Mr. Scott: First of all, as the honourable member knows, the bill does not restrict in any significant way the capacity of mall owners or other property owners to control the use of their premises. They may post reasonable rules and they may give notices. What the bill essentially requires, or insists on, which is surely a protection that everybody would seek, is that you cannot be banned from a public place without some reason being given for that ban. That is all the bill does.

As the honourable member will know, of course, mall owners and others have recourse to the police in the normal way and can exercise all the rights of a landlord in protecting their property and maintaining order in connection with it.

Mr. Sterling: I would quite disagree with the minister’s

interpretation of his own bill. Let me outline the scenario that the minister has put forward in Bill 149, if it in fact passes in its present form.

A street-smart gang enters an establishment like the Scarborough mall. The merchant or the security guard must give gang members notice of what activities are not allowed. Suppose they violate this posted rule. Then the security guard must give them written notice of the violated rule and also advise the street-smart gang members of what their defence might be to this allegation. If the street-smart gang members object to the notice and continue to persist, they can do so, as long as they give notice of their defence to the security guard or the particular owner, until the matter is resolved in the court.

Is this going to de-escalate the confrontation which is now taking place?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think the answer to the honourable member is: “Return to Go. Do not collect $100.” If he reads the bill, the honourable member will see that is not the way it is designed to work. It is perfectly possible for a landlord who finds a citizen or members of a gang on the premises who are in the course of either committing some antisocial behaviour or breaching any reasonable posted rule of the establishment to give them notice, orally or in writing, that they will be required to leave. If the law is being broken the police can be summoned for that purpose.

The purpose, of course, of the written notice that is later required is to ensure that the citizen who is put out will have an opportunity to contest the grounds on which he is removed from the property.

Mr. Sterling: Of course, the Attorney General does not mention that the alleged trespasser can return the next day or the next hour with a notice that the conduct complained of did not occur, that in fact he did not breach a rule that was supposedly posted. This will therefore lead to a confrontation between the merchant or the security guard trying to maintain a level of public order and a street-smart gang which can, and in fact will know what this law says; it will lead to further confrontation.

In light of the fact that without this law as it is now proposed in this House there is a significant problem with regard to security control in large shopping malls, will the minister now consider withdrawing this ill-conceived bill at this time in order to allow there to be a semblance of public order in our shopping malls across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I suggest to the honourable member that he take his lead from the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), whose moderate, thoughtful response to government bills is always of great help to the ministry. It seems to me that any minister is anxious that an intelligent, thoughtful criticism be made of his legislation in order to make it better, and we are grateful to have that.

But why does the honourable member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), whose seat is safe at least for a couple of years, want to alarm everybody about completely imaginary concerns? It does no good whatever and in all probability nobody is paying attention to him.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, can I rise to correct the record?

Mr. Speaker: A point of personal explanation, yes.

Hon. Mr. Scott: In the answer given to the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) today, I suggested that no one was listening to him. On reflection, I think that is a little ungenerous and I want to apologize to him. He is my critic and I listen to him attentively.

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment who made a major announcement this morning to the media. I regret he did not see fit to make a statement in the House, but I am glad he has at least come so we can ask him some questions about it. His announcement that he was going to ban chlorofluorocarbons is a welcome one. It would have been nice to have been able to say congratulations for once, but I can do that now. At the same time, I want to ask some questions about the timing of that announcement.

The minister, I am sure, will recall that in December 1987 his own air resources branch recommended to the management committee of his ministry that Ontario take steps to reduce CFC emissions. When I raised the issue in this House in June, the minister was very defensive and gave me one of his usual nonanswers that indicated nothing was going to happen. I now find that just at the time I raised the issue, the ministry was considering an application by a company called Techni-Therm Inc. to build a new foam insulation plant in Cornwall that would use CFCs.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mrs. Grier: Can the minister explain this? Does he not feel it is contradictory to announce today the banning of CFCs, when last August he approved construction of a plant that came into operation in November and that is not going to comply with the legislation?

Mr. Speaker: Minister, you might have a brief response.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Everybody has to comply with the legislation. First of all, I should thank the member for her kindness in making a complimentary remark. I know she is always very fair in her assessment of any of the initiatives that are taken in this House. I appreciate the fair and constructive criticism she provides.

The fact of the matter is no matter who is operating plants in Ontario, they must comply with the rules and regulations that have been set out, which will come under the umbrella of the amendments to the legislation.

I want to tell the member that what is happening out there in the industry at the present time is that people are literally scrambling to find alternatives: first, to find CFCs that have less potential for depleting the ozone; second, to find ways of recapturing and recycling them; and third, to find alternative products. In fact, they are seeing those kinds of changes, partly because of consumer demand, partly because of impending government regulation and partly, I think, just because of a large public concern out there that is being assisted by scientific knowledge being shared with the population of this country and other jurisdictions,.

I expect that these companies, as they set up operations in Ontario, will modify those operations. They will of course have to modify them because they will have to meet the requirements of the regulations.

Mrs. Grier: The minister seems to have missed the point of my question. Knowing industry was seeking to modify its operations and knowing there are substitutes available to make foam insulation, why did his ministry in August of last year approve construction of a plant that is a joint venture by Domtar, which started to operate in November, which is using CFCs for which Domtar acknowledges it will not be able to find an alternative for another three or four years?

Does he not think it is a contradiction to work towards eliminating CFCs, while at the same time his ministry is approving plants that are using CFCs when they could find alternatives? He is trying to have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is like, I guess, bringing an automobile on that must meet requirements. For instance, there may be new automobiles that come on each year. They are going to have to meet new requirements under regulations that change each year. As these companies come on stream, they are simply going to have to meet the regulations of Ontario.

I indicated clearly a timetable, that when there were substitute products that were available, for instance, we would convert to the other products because we want to ensure that everybody plays under the same rules. In fact, I think the deadlines we have set out have been very realistic and responsible and are certainly ambitious deadlines. I expect jurisdictions right across this country will follow the leadership of Ontario in this regard.

What we did, as the member knows, and this has been our policy, was to consult widely with the industry, with environmental groups, with scientists and with technical people, to determine what would be the best possible mode of operation, the best possible program we could bring forward.

I think you will find that objective observers will see this as a significant step forward. We hope to build upon this through the regulations the enabling legislation will allow us to bring forward. Any new company, regardless of where it is or when it came on stream, will have to meet our regulations.

Mrs. Marland: My question is also for the Minister of the Environment. Today he announced this phasing-out of the use of chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, and Halons over the next 10 years. The first phase of this program will be to ban the use of CFCs in aerosols and foam packaging by July 1 of this year.

I am concerned with the practical enforcement of this ban. It may be easy enough for consumers to identify food products that have CFCs contained in them because it is mandatory for food products to list their contents; however, there are many other products such as bug sprays, medicinal sprays and household cleaners that are not required to list their propellant contents. Does the ministry have a comprehensive list of all the CFC users and producers? If not, how will it possibly enforce this featherweight solution to this heavyweight problem?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I find it amusing, first of all, that the member would use that terminology in view of the fact that we have been the jurisdiction that has taken the first action in Canada. We are probably one of the leading jurisdictions in the world in this regard. It does not mean we will be the only one. There will be lots of others that will be on stream. We think there is going to be a good group of people that will get together from various countries to undertake the same action.

As to the details, I know we can get hung up on practicalities, but if I had got hung up on practicalities with other programs I have brought forward, of course, we would never have seen a program.

I think the member makes a legitimate comment when she says public education and knowledge are going to be essential components of this. I want to assure her we have a number of these substances that we are aware of at the present time, and we will be adding to that list. By the deadline we have set that information will be available to people. The member makes, I think, a very legitimate comment when she says that kind of information has to be available to the manufacturers, the people in business and the public at large. I want to assure her that information will be available.

Mrs. Marland: The minister says he is not hung up about practicalities. He makes an announcement that he is going to ban something by July 1 and the practical reality is he does not know how he going to do it. How can he do it if he does not have a list of the products that have those contents? What is he going to do? Is he going to go into stores and pick up the cans and say, “Maybe this has it, but we don’t know, so we’ll ban it”? This is more than practicality; it is reality we are dealing with on this issue.

It certainly reads very well in the minister’s announcement, but in fact, even on that issue alone, we are talking about a 100 per cent problem and an eight per cent solution. This is only eight per cent he is dealing with on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mrs. Marland: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister is making this statement today, and I understand later on introducing the bill, I want to know if he can tell this House how he is going to enforce any of his statements, when obviously no real thought has gone into this announcement before today.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have heard two versions of this now. One is that we did not move quickly enough and probably gave it too much thought. Here is another now, that we have not given it enough thought and we have moved too quickly or something. I cannot figure out exactly what it is, except to say that we did wide consultation with representatives of the environmental community who have shown leadership and interest in this subject. We consulted representatives of the industry widely, because they are the people who can tell us about a lot of those products.

Where you used to get resistance in years gone by, those people want to respond to consumer demand. They have to respond to regulation and legislation. They have to respond to the scientific knowledge that is brought forward. We will have such a list. A wide number of those products are known today and with further consultation we will expand the list.

I think the member will see it as a very practical, reasonable, aggressive, far-reaching -- what is another word I can use?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Visionary.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I heard “visionary” -- announcement today. I was glad the member was at the press conference today. I appreciated her interest and I appreciate the interest of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier).

ANNIVERSARY OF QUEEN ELIZABETH WAY

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Recently, I met with John Sherk who had sent the minister a letter concerning suggestions for the commemorative event in honour of the 50th anniversary of the Queen Elizabeth Way, which as he knows will take place in June of this year.

I am aware there has been considerable dialogue with members of his ministry to consider such options as a re-creation of the original dedication ceremony, perhaps including such special arrangements as some of the original cars or other antique cars that could be used in such a celebration. Can the minister please provide me and the House with an update on what progress has been made with regard to the organization of such an event as this?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I thank the member for St. Catharines-Brock for his question. I particularly thank him for his interest and his sense of history with respect to this particular highway. As members would be aware, it is not simply another highway within our provincial network, but is the first major freeway in Ontario, on which many of our other roads, highways and interchanges, here and around the world, have been modelled. It really was the forerunner of the great network we have here in the province.

I appreciate the member’s interest in bringing this to the House’s attention, with this being the 50th anniversary, having had the King and Queen here in 1939 to open it. We have established a committee within our ministry and we are looking to see what we can do, without creating a traffic jam, to recognize and honour the 50th anniversary of this very important highway.

Mr. Dietsch: The minister will know it is exceptionally important to take into consideration all the expertise we have that surrounds this Legislature, in the people of the province. Will the minister tell this House whether he would invite participation from beyond this provincial government? For example, will local communities and businesses have an opportunity to contribute to this celebration?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think it is a very interesting and very wise proposal the member is making. In most of the projects that we engage in across the province, given the nature of this ministry, we invite public participation, but generally of a somewhat different nature.

I offer him, to pass on to his local residents, the good people of the St. Catharines area, the opportunity. I think we should invite the school children at various levels. Certainly, the business community should be involved. I suggest some of the service clubs in the area might also wish to play a role. We would welcome that input and look forward to continued dialogue with the member.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Back in October 1986, the former president of Inglis, Robert Collins-Wright, told the Inglis workers that free trade posed a threat to their jobs. Testimony before a committee of this House investigating free trade clearly indicated that the appliance industry would be one of the first casualties. New Democrats told this government on many occasions that jobs would be lost and legislation was needed to protect workers and to retrain those workers. Indeed, we extracted a promise from him that he would respond.

That is a promise his government has broken. What will he do now for the better than 500 Inglïs workers, so many of whom are older and difficult-to-place workers?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: A number of things are under way already. The member for Hamilton East refers, of course, to the announcement by the management of Inglis that a facility is going to close. It affects some 650 jobs in Toronto plus, as I understand it, 85 jobs in Cambridge and 25 jobs in Montmagny.

I want to tell my friend the member for Hamilton East that a number of things are going to be put into place: an employment adjustment committee comprising the company, and of course the trade union, along with both the provincial government and the federal government. In addition to that, I understand representatives of the United Steelworkers of America will be undertaking negotiations with the company for an appropriate package of benefits consistent with, and I would expect and hope above and beyond that called for in the Employment Standards Act to be given to the workers.

There has been some degree of emphasis put on the fact that the plant is 109 years old and is manufacturing a product that is 30 years old in its design. I am not sure those are the relevant statistics. I think the relevant statistic is that there are some 700 workers here who need the assistance of this government, of their union and of the federal government. I hope the mechanisms we put in place are going to respond to the needs of those older workers, and in fact all the workers in the plant.

Mr. Mackenzie: I wonder if the minister has taken a little broader look at it. First, does he recognize that the jobs in production will be going to the US? Imports to Canada will increase. Local production will disappear. Both federal and provincial grants to this company failed to modernize the plant. A site selection committee, supposed to scout the province for a new site, was just another corporate ploy to appease the workers. Or is this another Goodyear?

Whirlpool, which only had a 40 per cent interest in this plant three years ago, now has a 72 per cent interest, certainly not an arm’s-length relationship. Is this the best this government can offer by way of an industrial and labour strategy to protect workers and jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not have any information whatever on whether there was a committee looking for an alternative plant. Nor can I comment specifically: it would be too difficult in this particular case to analyse the impact of the free trade agreement.

I just want to say to my friend the member for Hamilton East and to other members of the House that I think this party and this government argued that issue as forcefully and as effectively as any party at any level did during the course of the last federal election. Certainly, we have a particular vulnerability, which our Premier (Mr. Peterson) talked about during the recent federal election campaign.

The honourable member’s question in supplementary is, what is this government doing to deal with issues of labour adjustment? I have already pointed to some of the programs. I should mention again the Transitions program that my good friend and colleague the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) is managing, and the fact that within the employment adjustment branch we are organizing our affairs so we can intervene as early as possible to ensure that a worker who looks at the prospect of losing one job has at the earliest possible moment an opportunity to begin work in another job that pays equally well and provides the same sorts of benefits.

SALARIES OF SUSPENDED POLICE OFFICERS

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Solicitor General. The minister will be aware of a story in today’s Toronto Star that reports she will be introducing a new Ontario Police Act in April or May. The report suggests that the new act would make it harder for police officers who have been suspended from the force to receive full pay, that in fact their pay would be cut off three to six months after their suspension.

This means an officer who has a criminal charge laid against him could be without a job three to six months later, before having his day in court. This would put police officers at the mercy of the criminals they deal with. Will the minister assure the House that officers will not be docked pay before judgement is rendered on charges against them?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am happy to assure the member for Leeds-Grenville that the Police Act, which is being worked on, is being worked on very carefully and that no changes being introduced in the Police Act will take effect until it is thoroughly discussed within the community.

This report is full of information that is not properly based. I do not know exactly where this information came from, but I believe the member should not overreact to a newspaper

article that has so many strange statements in it.

Mr. Runciman: I hope the Star reporters noted that.

In any event, the Solicitor General should be concerned with respect to the fact that she has not allayed the concerns among police officers right across this province. It is an indication of her insensitivity to the morale of police forces in this province. She does not hesitate to hit the rubber chicken circuit to present plaques, but when it comes to taking courageous stands in support of police against vocal pressure groups or the assaults of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), she is nowhere to be seen.

Will the Solicitor General assure the House today that her proposed Police Act will not cut off the salaries of suspended police officers before they have their day in court -- a simple question -- yes or no?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to assure the member for Leeds-Grenville that the people who are meeting on the Police Act have my confidence, as indeed I have their confidence, whether as a result of rubber chicken or not. We are working together very closely and cooperatively, and I ca