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

May 3, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMERCIAL RENT PROTECTION

CONSTRUCTION SITE WASHROOM FACILITIES

COMMERCIAL RENT PROTECTION

CONSTRUCTION SITE WASHROOM FACILITIES

COMMERCIAL RENT PROTECTION

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

PATRICIA STARR INQUIRY

DAVID SMITH

DIABETES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CYCLING SAFETY

THOROLD AND WELLAND STUDENTS

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FARM RADIO NETWORK

SOVIET THEATRE STUDENTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINING INDUSTRY

RIDE PROGRAM

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS

RESPONSES

MINING INDUSTRY

RIDE PROGRAM

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS

RIDE PROGRAM

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD ABUSE

LANDFILL SITES

ASSISTED HOUSING

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MUNICIPAL ELECTION INVESTIGATION

NORTHERN POWER DEVELOPMENT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW

COMMITTEE REPORT

CANADIAN PARAPLEGIC ASSOCIATION

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

PENSION REFORM

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

ASSISTANCE TO RELEASED INMATES

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMERCIAL RENT PROTECTION

Ms Bryden moved resolution 1:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that huge rent increases year after year are constituting a threat to the competitiveness and survival of retail business in commercial strips serving residential neighbourhoods, the government of Ontario should introduce legislation as soon as possible to regulate the rents for such business establishments in order to provide those businesses with protection from gouging landlords comparable to the protection given to tenants of residential rental premises under the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

The Deputy Speaker: According to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes to make her presentation.

Ms Bryden: Mr Speaker, I would like to reserve three minutes of my time for rebuttal.

The Deputy Speaker: The member would already have two minutes at the end. You can use all 10 minutes now, if you want, and automatically you will have two minutes at the end.

Ms Bryden: What I am proposing in my resolution is that the principle of tenant protection be extended to occupiers of commercial premises. Rent regulation for commercial tenancies is essential to protect tenants from landlords who consider only what the traffic will bear. We regulate many other aspects of commercial activity to overcome the excesses of the market economy. For example, we try to stop unfair competition, manipulated stock markets, pollution of the environment and lack of health and safety standards.

We have observed how vulnerable operators of small businesses and retail stores on commercial strips are. These businesses provide a variety of essential services to adjacent neighbourhoods. Many of the operators of these businesses have been a part of their community for many years. Others have been newcomers to Canada who have found that opening a variety or milk store gave them a chance to start on the ladder to economic independence. Such people are at the mercy of landlords who consider only what the traffic will bear and ignore the value of location and ongoing goodwill in the community to a retailer.

Often the landlord is a remote numbered company or a huge real estate firm with no understanding of the tenants’ need for permanency and specialization to meet local needs.

I do not believe that all commercial landlords are unfair, but when circumstances permit abuses, I believe it is the job of legislators to introduce regulation to prevent that. I have in mind such matters as a maximum allowable annual increase, unless landlords can justify to an independent body that higher increases are needed to maintain the property in good repair.

Standard leases are another potential for legislation to eliminate unfair and unreasonable terms in leases. We also need a system of mediation by independent administrators with experience in the commercial rental field, both as landlords and tenants. We need an adequate appeal tribunal from the decisions of such administrators. We need, first, opening of the books by both parties so the mediation is conducted with all the information on both sides. This is done under residential rent review.

We need a prohibition of the pass-through of extra mortgage costs resulting from flips. We must stop tenants from being forced to pay for building owners speculating in buildings. We need a government which will enforce minimum standards of maintenance as part of a rent regulation law. We must also stop landlords from passing on municipal tax increases to tenants and writing this into their leases. It is unfair for commercial landlords to escape paying their share of municipal costs, since they benefit greatly from the services provided by local governments, police and fire protection, subsidized water and sewer services and things of that nature.

In my resolution I am concentrating first on legislation which would help the group most vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous landlords, those operating on commercial strips in cities. I know there is also serious exploitation of tenants of shopping plaza owners because of the nature of the shared-cost leases they sign, but that is a different kind of lease and it would likely require different legislation to protect those tenants.

Tenants on commercial strips are particularly in need of protection because they lack political instruments to lobby for protective laws. Their businessmen’s associations are often weak. Due to the pressure of operating a small retail establishment or service business for ever-lengthening hours, they have little time to organize or to negotiate jointly with big, distant landlords. Moreover, their needs vary with the type of business, so their efforts at self-regulation of hours and competitive practices are fragmented.

Lack of commercial rent regulation leaves them like tenant farmers in underdeveloped countries, who are little more than slaves of greedy landlords who keep increasing rents. The commercial tenants can only keep afloat by opening for longer and longer hours, sometimes 24 hours a day, and employing more and more members of their immediate family and friends, who often moonlight with other jobs.

Lack of provincial regulation of hours of opening and closing makes their lifestyle very stressful. Around-the-clock operation should be regulated to set minimum rules for protecting the safety of night-time workers. We should not add to our policing problems by allowing one person to mind the till alone in night-time hours.

One area in which tenants on commercial strips and other small businesses might find some help would be to explore co-op ownership of commercial premises on a strip. Then the tenants would be able to control their own rents and costs. They could develop common services for their operations, computerization of payroll, tax payments and inventory control. They could share contracts for cleaning and heating services and purchase of supplies.

The provincial government should be promoting this kind of co-op development and making seed grants available for startup of such co-ops. It could also encourage investors to build new commercial premises to lease to co-ops serving a particular area.

I have put my proposal in the form of a resolution today rather than a bill because I am pioneering in this field. The legislative library research service has checked rent regulation laws across Canada. It has found no province has yet ventured into the field of commercial rent regulation, but there is no reason why Ontario should not lead the way in establishing protection for its residents who are being exploited and have little power to fight back.

The library has found that the city of Berkeley in California had a commercial rent control ordinance on its books from 1982 to 1988. Unfortunately, the California State Legislature in 1988 put a ban on such local legislation. I would hope our government would not do the same if a municipality decided it needed rent regulation. After all, the people on the local scene know the situation and we can learn much from the experience of Berkeley, California.

I will urge the government to undertake a study of the whole question of the need for commercial rent regulation. I am also suggesting that the study report be referred to an all-party committee for public hearings and for the development of recommendations for legislative action in this field.

It is time that a caring society moved away from the law of the jungle to a fair system of rent regulation in both the commercial and the residential field. As my colleagues in the New Democratic Party demonstrated yesterday in the debate they initiated on the defects of the present Residential Rent Regulation Act, the government must go back to the drawing board and bring in genuine rent regulation for both residential tenants and commercial tenants.

Increases of over 100%, which are being allowed under the present Residential Rent Regulation Act, must be outlawed. At the same time we must start looking at the need for regulating commercial tenants. I urge all members of the Legislature to consider this exploratory resolution in which we will all learn from having public hearings on this proposal and then we will get the kind of legislation we need.

Mr Sterling: I think it is kind of ironic that today a member of the New Democratic Party, the member for Beaches-Woodbine -- for whom I have a great deal of respect, who has served this Legislature for a long period of time and who, I understand, is not going to seek re-election next time we are called to the polls -- would bring forward a resolution today to include retail stores in the rent review process, when only yesterday another member of the party with which she is associated, the New Democratic Party, had a resolution in this House condemning the government for the rent review legislation which is in place for residential tenancies, saying that the legislation is not working and that the government should scrap it, should go back to the books and start over again.

I find that is a little bit contradictory in terms of what the member is trying to suggest today, that we go beyond residential units and into the business sector in trying to regulate leases between landlords and tenants in that case.

I also can say, in terms of representing our party, that we have a great ideological problem with going into the business community even further than the government is already into the business community. This present government, the Liberal government across the floor, has seen fit to try to introduce more and more regulations around businesses and has introduced more and more taxes for businesses. The employer health tax is the most recent example.

They introduced a bill in this House over a year ago which I have been fighting, Bill 149, which wants to tell retailers that they no longer have control over who they allow or do not allow in their stores. They tried to amend the Trespass to Property Act for even the little retail stores which the member for Beaches-Woodbine is talking about today. So I think business at the present time has a bellyful of regulation, a bellyful of government and the last thing it wants, in my view, is another interference by the government into its world.

The other thing which the member is not addressing or not thinking of with regard to this resolution is the fact that commercial leases often have a greater number of other variables than residential leases might have. Normally a residential lease only entails the renting of a particular spot in a building and perhaps the addition of a parking spot. In commercial leases, and particularly strip plazas, it is not uncommon for the landlord to strike a deal relating to a share of profits.

It is not uncommon for the landlord to charge for some of the maintenance of the common area; in other words, for instance, asking each tenant in the strip plaza to contribute towards the cost of removing snow in the winter and of taking care of the parking lot during the summer. To try to enter into general regulations to cover all these areas, I would suggest, would be a nightmare in terms of government regulation.

Rent control was brought in in 1975 in this province, during a provincial election, probably hastily conceived, but over the past 15 years when rent control has attempted to protect tenants, I remain to be convinced that it in fact has had that effect over those 15 years. I suggest it would not be the small retailer who would be able to take advantage of increased government regulation, but the larger owners of various shopping malls who could take advantage of any regulations surrounding their particular enterprise.

We have seen this with regard to the residential situation. When the landlord wants to increase the rent, tenants in residential premises get a note which often says, “The government of Ontario has authorized an increase of 6.6% in your rent this year,” or 4.2%, or whatever it is for that particular year. In other words, the landlord uses the government as a crutch to raise the rent.

Quite frankly, right now there is probably a far greater abundance of retail space in the city of Metropolitan Toronto than there are tenants. One need only walk up and down Yonge Street and see virtually every third or fourth store empty at this time. I suggest that if in fact government regulation were involved, those tenants who are occupying stores at the present time would face constant increases, even though at the present time I believe tenants are being offered new leases at lower rents than they enjoyed prior to the renewal.

We have learned, or we hope we have learned from the rest of the world. The rest of the world, and I talk about eastern Europe, is moving away from governments trying to control the economy. Eastern Europe has learned that if government tries to own, control and run business, it does not work. I suggest that the New Democratic Party, as represented perhaps by the member for Beaches-Woodbine -- I expect that it would support her resolution -- is moving in an opposite direction in trying to move more regulation into the business world.

I believe small business must be protected from unscrupulous practices, but I also believe the spirit of business and the whole essence of entrepreneurship requires business persons to make certain decisions and they must live by those decisions. I do not think the entering or the not entering into a lease, the moving of a person’s store, or whether the person decides to sign a five-year lease, a 10-year lease or a two-year lease, should be left up to the government.

I think we will find during the next decade that government will withdraw from as many areas of regulation as it can as the world becomes more complex and we have to deal with more important issues like our environmental issues. We just do not have the time to try to run each and every part of everybody’s lives. By the very essence of business and the people who are in business, they must live and die by some of the decisions they make.

We are satisfied that under the present supply and market system adequate retail space is being provided in Metro Toronto. In fact, probably there is an overabundance of retail space in the Toronto area. That is probably true right across Ontario. I do not think there is any necessity at the present time to interfere in that system, and we as a party would speak most strongly against this kind of move into the regulation of rents for the business sector.

Mr Carrothers: I am pleased to be joining in this debate. I want to indicate at the Outset that I will not be supporting this resolution. I think the member is proposing a solution to a problem that does not exist. To the extent that it may exist, it exists only in some very small portions of the city of Toronto.

My opposition is based, first, on that fact that there is no need for this type of interference in the marketplace; second, as my colleague the member for Carleton has already indicated, I am not sure we could construct a process to control rents in the commercial area; third, and speaking perhaps now in my role as the small business advocate for the province of Ontario, I see no support, even among those whom this resolution is purporting to protect, for this type of interference.

Let me deal with each of those separately. The resolution begins by indicating that the House recognizes that huge rent increases year after year are constituting a threat to retail establishments in commercial plazas in Ontario.

The facts are quite different. The vacancy rate in the Toronto area, if we could use just that as an example, in commercial spaces right now is 8.8%. That is a far cry from the less than 1% that existed in 1975 when rent review was brought in for residential premises. In fact, it is even more interesting that in the downtown Toronto area that vacancy rate may drop to around 3%, but out in the suburban areas of Toronto it then increases above 10%. So as my colleague the member for Carleton has already indicated, there is a great deal of commercial space available; no shortage in the Toronto area.

If we look at the rental increases, since the premise is that there have been huge rent increases, note that in the Toronto area the rent increases have averaged 10%, but if we break that down, again we note that the increases are steeper in downtown Toronto and as you move outwards they get down to 4% or less, less than the rate of inflation.

I can tell members that in my own community I see no shortage of space in our strip plazas for retail establishments. I certainly do not see any shortage as I travel about the province. I think many of the members, if they reflect on their own ridings, will recognize the fact that there does not appear to be any shortage even on that subjective or anecdotal test. I do not think it is appropriate to impose a solution on the entire province of Ontario for a problem that may only exist on certain streets within downtown Toronto.

In addition, I am not sure how you could construct a rent review process for commercial leases. As my colleague the member for Carleton has already indicated, a commercial lease is quite a different animal from a residential lease. A residential lease is a very simple contract: You live in the space and you pay money for being there. Sometimes the only debate is over who is going to mow the lawn, if it is a house, or perhaps who might pay the taxes. But in a commercial lease there is a great deal of variation.

You can take a proportion of your profits as rent, as my colleague the member for Carleton has already indicated, you can be paying part of the common expenses of the commercial space or any number of things. I suspect that any creative lawyer or accountant could devise any number of new ways to extract revenue from a commercial tenant and get around any attempt to regulate rents in the manner that we do for residential tenancies.

Because the member seems to be implying that we should start with reviewing rents or controlling rents in commercial strip plazas, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how we would define that, how we would hive out of the commercial marketplace that type of premise on which to construct a review process. I think we all recognize that perhaps at the extremes it is easy to determine what a commercial strip plaza is.

Obviously the Toronto-Dominion Bank building is not a strip plaza, and we recognize that the stores that exist on the streets of the member’s riding probably are, but what is a shopping centre? It has most of the facets of a strip plaza, the only difference being that the parking is separated from the stores. What about the shopping plazas that are opening up which have parking right in front of the stores? Are those strip plazas? Are we going to control those?

I think it would be very difficult to come up with a definition of precisely what it was you were wanting to control that could not again be got around simply by changing the nature or the design or the structure of the premises.

I mentioned that I do not sense any support in the business community, particularly among the retailers, for this type of move. As I indicated, I am the small business advocate for the province and in that role am often speaking with many small business people around the province, particularly retailers. I have yet to have anyone mention to me the desire for rent controls.

In fact, if we look at the groups that speak for these groups, like for instance the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which purports to have 92,000 members in the small business community, it is on record as opposing any type of rent controls, which includes that in commercial spaces. The Retail Council of Canada and the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, both of which speak for retailers, have no particular position, so they obviously do not even feel there is a problem here. As I have said before, I have not found, except perhaps in the downtown Toronto area, any mention of rents as a problem within our small business community.

As the problem, if it does exist, does seem to be limited to some streets in downtown Toronto, and perhaps particularly it is impacting on stores within the member’s riding, which is a downtown Toronto riding, I would make the observation that commercial spaces and the construction of them are very sensitive to planning and permit-issuing practices of municipalities. Perhaps the difficulty here might be with the city of Toronto itself and the fact that it is not allowing these premises to be created at the rate they need to be.

If there is any solution, or if there is a solution for the member’s constituents, it may well lie with some streamlining or some greater level of activity in the city of Toronto itself in order to permit more of these premises to exist in her riding. It seems to me from any indication I have, both looking at the figures across this province, as I have indicated, or speaking to business people across this province, if there is a problem in this area, it is limited to downtown Toronto.

In

summary, as I indicated, I will not be supporting this resolution. I do not think there is any need for it. I do not think that, even if you wanted to move into this area, you could construct a review process that would adequately or properly protect commercial tenants. I think there would be too many ways to get around that by virtue of the fact that commercial leases are so varied one from the other.

Finally, I do not sense and have not heard, and if I look at the official positions of the spokespeople for the small business community, particularly the retail community, I do not see any support or demand for this type of move in the province of Ontario. For all of those reasons, I will not be supporting this resolution.

Mr Morin-Strom: I am pleased to stand in support of my colleague’s resolution before the Legislature today.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine has distinguished herself over the years in her fighting for the interests of those constituents in her riding and for those constituents across the province who are facing difficulties in facing up to the powerful interests of government and the private sector.

In this case, we are looking at the desire to do something about those small family-operated businesses that have been put at a tremendous disadvantage in competing in the marketplace in Ontario in recent years. It used to be that the family-operated corner store was a hallmark of small-town Ontario as well as a vital element of neighbourhoods in the bigger cities, including the city of Toronto. More and more, it has become difficult for the small business, the family-operated business, to survive in today’s marketplace.

Certainly the government has been of little assistance in supporting the small business sector, as the government continues to put its emphasis on the larger corporate enterprises. The relationship between this government, this Liberal government, and the development industry in particular has been well established and has been the subject of serious investigation. Unfortunately, this government has stifled those investigations and in fact brought them to a halt as a result of its mishandling of the Starr investigation, the inadequacies of the terms of reference for that investigation and the resulting Supreme Court decision.

It is incumbent upon this government to look at the treatment of the small business sector by the development industry, and this government’s involvement in supporting the major developers surely must be related to its opposition to this particular resolution.

We know that, more and more, the opportunity for small family businesses to be able to exist in Ontario is dependent upon their being able to contract with the kinds of commercial strip operations on streets and neighbourhoods of the larger communities that this resolution addresses. The type of monopoly situation that individual developers are able to obtain in a given neighbourhood by buying up the commercial space and then forcing tenants to be subject to negotiation in a David and Goliath type of relationship surely leaves those family businesses vulnerable.

The member has not presented here a detailed package of legislation, but instead has proposed, I think very wisely at this point, a resolution which would state the intent of this House that such legislation should come forward and this government should be embarking on a process to ensure that family-operated businesses have the opportunity to get fair and reasonable access to rental space and that the government of Ontario step in to regulate those operations so that the treatment of the family-operated business would be a fair one in the marketplace.

We do regulate as a province many aspects of commercial activity to overcome the excesses of the market economy. There are regulations even on larger businesses when one looks at the stock market. We have regulations on health and safety. We have regulations on unfair competition. The one group that lacks the power to negotiate fairly is the smaller retailers on small commercial strips. They are very often at the mercy of their landlords, who can charge exorbitant rates, and they are left vulnerable when new lease agreements come up.

When a family-operated business has established itself in an area and has developed a reputation and a clientele, surely it is not fair that the landlord should be able to arbitrarily increase those rents at the end of a lease to exorbitant levels and take away all opportunity for that family to be able to operate a business that would be profitable and enable them to support themselves in the business that they have developed over the years.

Unfortunately, when it comes to small business operations, this government has not provided the support that it should have. We still have effective tax rates which are much higher for the small business sector than for large corporations. We have had a government that has done nothing about the most serious problem facing small business, and that is the current high interest rate policy and the general mistreatment of the small business sector by our large banks here in Canada.

Surely this is an area where some government regulation should come forward that would be to the benefit of family-oriented businesses and would give them the opportunity to continue to operate in the interests of local communities, providing services that they have over the years, and give the opportunity for new immigrants particularly coming into various areas of the province who have had experience in operating their own family enterprises elsewhere to bring that experience and be able to enter into their own operations, start up their own businesses and provide new services in communities right across this province.

I would ask members of this Legislature to look very closely at what has been proposed here. Surely we can support some government regulation that will provide some protection for this vital small business community.

Mr Charlton: The government members here today seem to be much like the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- with their eyes closed.

We have reached a stage in Ontario where we have to decide what we want our future to be. Each of us who grew up in this province has watched the nature of small business in this province change dramatically over the course of the last 30 years. If what we want is to eventually see the virtual death and disappearance of truly independent small business, if what we want to see is the total, absolute domination of the small business sector by chains and franchises, then we can continue to keep our eyes closed. We can continue to keep our heads in the sand and ignore the problems that exist out there in the small business community.

This resolution by the member for Beaches-Woodbine is about independent small business. It is about, as has been suggested, strip stores, strip malls, commercial streets, if you like, like College Street here or like Concession Street in my own riding in Hamilton.

On streets like that, you see cycles of real estate activity, the same as we do throughout the rest of the real estate market. You see speculation occur. You see down cycles when the street is not very popular. You see upgrades occur. Some businesses survive those cycles; others do not.

Usually those that survive the down cycles are those small businesses that not only attract customers from outside the community but those small businesses that genuinely serve the community where that commercial street exists. They are the ones that survive the down cycles when that street is not a very popular commercial area. But those are the very same small businesses that get gobbled up as a result of real estate speculation and dramatic rent increases as a result of the rehabilitation of a commercial area.

We often hear comments when the government is announcing particular programs to assist small business about the high rate of business failure for small businesses.

It is interesting, though, that we do not have any significant studies of the real causes of those business failures, and if you sit down and spend some time talking, as I have over the course of the last couple of years, to businesses that are closing, especially in strip situations like the ones dealt with in this resolution, you find that although it may not be the total cause, in many cases significant rent increases as the result of the redevelopment of an area, regardless of whether there has been a redevelopment of a particular property or not, often play a major

part in the business closing.

As I suggested when I started my comments, we in this province can either keep our heads in the sand and ignore what is happening to truly independent small business in Ontario, or we can start to do some of the things that really support independent small business. If we really want to choose to have nothing left in the small business sector but chains and franchises, if we truly do not appreciate anything that is really independent, so be it, but let’s stand up and say so instead of saying we support the small, independent family business but ignoring the plight of those businesses and ensuring their eventual demise.

This resolution is just a small part of an attempt to start dealing with the questions that affect those who in the small business sector represent those comparable to the poor and the unfortunate we try to deal with in the housing sector when we talk about rent review or rent control and when we talk about affordable housing and non-profit housing.

The truly family-operated small independent business is the small business at the low end of the economic ladder, and we have to either decide we have given up on any future for them, which I am not prepared yet to do, or start to sit down and look at the things that seriously impact on them, like uncontrolled rent increases, and attempt to deal with the questions that will help those businesses survive.

I hope that members will support this resolution. As my colleague from Sault Ste Marie said, it is a resolution that expresses the intent of this House to try to assist small independent business around the question of rent and we would like to see the passage of this resolution so that there can be some work done on this problem by the government, an area around which it has never done any serious work or analysis to determine the true and full extent of the impact that rents have on small business.

Mr Velshi: I was not scheduled to be speaking here today, but I thought, given the extra time that is available, I might as well put my two cents’ worth into the debate.

At the outset, I have to say that I am opposed to this resolution. The only thing I like about this resolution is that yesterday the opposition party spent half a day speaking against the rent review process that is in place in Ontario, how bad it was and how terrible it was.

Mr Dietsch: That was yesterday.

Mr Velshi: That was yesterday. But today the member for Beaches-Woodbine states in her resolution that we should provide small businesses with “protection from gouging landlords comparable to the protection given to tenants of residential rental premises under the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.” Perhaps that is the only thing I can agree with here in this resolution, that the residential rent act is doing something good, and I think the NDP members have to accept that.

One problem is that the member for Beaches-Woodbines seems to feel that Toronto is the centre of the universe, that everything that is happening here happens everywhere else. Toronto is not even the centre of Ontario, if I may say so. If you look at the smaller towns and villages in Ontario, drive by and it is really depressing to see that in every block of shops there are three or four stores that are vacant with “To Rent” signs on them.

When you look at the strip plazas in these little towns -- most of these strip plazas do not have large Eaton Centres in smaller towns and in cities across this province -- at the end of one strip plaza you probably have a large anchor store, the Dominion type of a store. If we give protection to these tenants, is the member for Beaches-Woodbine suggesting that we give protection to these large anchor stores, the very stores that they have been fighting against in terms of price increases of food stuffs?

I think it would be a mistake even to discuss this question of protecting the tenants of smaller stores, because the only places where we have larger stores in strip plazas are out of the main centres of Ontario, of Toronto. We would be protecting those very same people whom she is planning on not protecting for the rest of the time that she is here.

I say that even in Kingston, a fairly large city, you drive through the town and you find empty stores there. So whom are we trying to protect there? Even the landlords in the smaller places are not big, big landlords like we have in Metro Toronto. They are small, family people also.

I think it is important to know that everything that happens in Metro Toronto is not what happens in the smaller areas of Ontario. Quite often I see members from the opposition parties standing up talking about northern Ontario and eastern Ontario not getting sufficient support from us. Here, the very thing that the member for Beaches-Woodbine is trying to do is going to negate the very statements they make in terms of supporting the north and eastern Ontario. For that reason, I think perhaps the member for Beaches-Woodbine should think twice before bringing in such a resolution, which is going to hurt the very people that she intends protecting.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Cureatz): Casting my eyes about and seeing no further participation in the debate, I would like to bring all members’ attention to the fact that the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine has approximately a minute left of her party’s allocation of time, her own two minutes for windup comments, plus a further -- I look to the table -- five minutes approximately left in terms of what has been accumulated between the third party and the governing party. That being the case, do I have unanimous consent to allow the honourable member to use up all the necessary time until the next order of business?

Agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine, then, until approximately 11 o’clock.

Ms Bryden: I thank the other members for giving unanimous consent to enable me to use the remaining time. Since each of the other parties was able to find only one speaker, I am surprised that they reject the guts of my resolution, which is that we should have a study of the question and find out whether there really is a problem out there and whether small business is suffering from abuses.

I have certainly heard of many cases where small businesses were forced out of their long-term locations, either by the increases in rent, the combination of increases in rent and passing on taxes or the failure to maintain adequate maintenance to keep the building operational. But we do not really know what the situation is, and that is all I am asking for, a study by an all-party committee with public hearings to find out where the problems are.

I know there are abuses. As I say, I have met retailers and small businesses, not only on the Danforth but in all parts of my riding, with problems of this sort, being forced out of locations that have been not only permanent, in the sense that they built up a community business, but have also suited the particular special needs of that community.

What is wrong with the members who have spoken finding out about this situation is that all of the three who spoke against this cited only hearsay, as to there was no problem. They were burying their heads in the sand, saying there is no problem. They have not looked. I think this is the reason why we should recommend to the government that it go ahead and find out what the abuses are and look at its obligation to see that those abuses are eliminated.

We all know that it is a David and Goliath situation in most rent negotiations between landlords and tenants, that there is no mediation service for commercial tenants and that they are simply at the mercy of the landlords. The landlords are often remote people. They are numbered companies, they are high-priced real estate agencies with multitudes of properties throughout the city and managers to try to get the greatest amount of money out of the tenants.

They know the tenants are weak and they know that, even though there are vacant stores, they are not suitable for a business that has been there for many years carrying on its service to the community. It is really a question of protecting many small businesses and retailers who are located in cities mainly, trying to service neighbourhoods and trying to carry on the activities that those neighbourhoods really cherish.

I feel that the speakers from the other parties are showing their ignorance of the problem and are not willing to have public hearings and an all-party committee to get recommendations from the people who are affected so that we can decide whether this is a subject for a government to consider regulating commercial rent.

Some of the members have mentioned that yesterday’s debate in the House on the New Democratic Party opposition day motion was on the subject of residential rent review. We were criticizing that the present residential rent review has many, many defects in it. Actually, it is a product of both the Conservative and Liberal governments, arrived at after a long series of discussions and meetings between the landlords, tenants and other groups.

But we have had three years’ experience with it now -- it came in in 1986 -- and we have found that it is absolutely not the answer to residential rent regulation in this province. That is why we made it the subject of an opposition day motion and debated it all afternoon yesterday.

I will say that our party voted against that 1986 act for residential rent regulation because we felt it was inadequate then, that it was too loaded in the sense of favouring the landlords over the tenants. History has proved, in the last three years, that it is loaded for landlords and against tenants. It still allows the pass-through of mortgage costs when a flip occurs over a very short period. Then when that period is up, there may be another flip, and again there will be a big change in mortgage and other costs and there will be additional costs loaded on to the existing tenants.

Then if the landlord decides he wants to renovate, as he is allowed to do under the present act with no restriction on how much renovation he can decide he should put in, and with no restriction on how much tenants should pay for those renovations or how quickly he should be able to charge them through, and no definition of really what a renovation is, we found that landlords are just driving trucks through the present act.

I am not advocating that the present Residential Rent Regulation Act be a model for commercial rent regulation. I am suggesting that we need a committee to find out what is the proper model and that we need action by the existing Liberal government to show that it is aware there are abuses in the residential field and that it is ready to clean up that act and bring in new legislation in the residential field as well.

They must amend the legislation that has been allowing increases to landlords of over 100 per cent, sometimes 200 per cent. This is simply no protection to tenants. They must stop requiring tenants to pay for renovations they do not want, and they must prevent tenants from paying over and over again for new renovations or being forced out by the increases in their rents resulting from the extra costs of unwanted renovations.

We found that there is a great need for

definitions in the new residential act and that the appeal process is inadequate. Many tenants’ groups have organized, hired lawyers and tried to make their case as to why they should be allowed to have a cap put on any increases. There already is, we know, an allowable increase each year. It was 4.7% last year, I think, or maybe 4.6%, but that allowable increase should be our form of rent regulation.

It has been arrived at by the ministry as a reasonable increase in costs, on the average, that the market seems to indicate, but it has been entirely ignored by the action of landlords in using those clauses in the act where they can pass through costs that should not be passed through, because those costs arise mainly from land speculation.

The tenants also should be protected from huge increases in rents because there is no other place for most of them to go. ‘That is due to the actions Of the landlords in flipping buildings, attempting to renovate buildings or attempting to get vacant possession of buildings, often by very unscrupulous and sometimes illegal activities. It used to be known as blockbusting and now it appears to be apartment-vacating tactics.

Certainly I am not condoning the present Residential Rent Regulation Act, even though it is mentioned in my resolution as the present situation. What I am saying is that we need to look at new legislation for both residential and commercial tenancies and that we also need to study the question. I am really shocked that the members of this House are not prepared to consider a study, that they say, “We don’t know if it’s a problem anywhere except Metropolitan Toronto.” We had speakers from our party, from Sault Ste Marie and from Hamilton, who know the same problems are existing there, the same exploitation of commercial tenants.

In my own riding l had a non-profit advocacy group for Italian-speaking residents -- there are a good number of them in my riding -- which had operated in the same premises, providing counsel on workers’ compensation, pensions, disabilities, taxes and all that sort of thing for Italian-speaking people. They were forced out of their Danforth Avenue location, where they had been for many years, by a two-month notice of a tripling of their rent. It took them six months to find another place to move to. They had to put their furniture into storage and suspend operations.

They finally found a place with double the rent that they were paying before, or more than double, but there is no other place they can find if they wish to keep on operating. At the same time, their grants from the bodies that support them -- city, Metro, federal and provincial grants for a very valuable service to the Italian-speaking community -- have not been increased to allow for the three-time increase in their rent anywhere in the area that they serve.

We are hurting non-profit groups like that. We are hurting small businesses that have been in the area for years and have performed a very important function in those areas and provide variety for people who shop.

CONSTRUCTION SITE WASHROOM FACILITIES

Ms Oddie Munro moved resolution 43:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the current practice of the construction industry regarding the provision of sanitary and toilet facilities for construction workers is outdated, the Ministry of Labour should make appropriate amendments to regulation 691 of RRO 1980 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to upgrade the minimum requirements for sanitary and toilet facilities on construction sites, and in particular should amend the regulations to require employers to provide flush toilets and hand-washing facilities (including soap and running water) at all construction sites and to provide separate facilities for each sex at sites where mate and female workers are present.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to advise the member that she has allocated to her an X amount of time, of which she might want to reserve some portion besides the two minutes available to her for winding up.

Ms Oddie Munro: To the viewing audience, and perhaps to some members of the Legislature, it may come as a shock to learn that in one of the largest revenue-generating and employment sectors in this province, the construction sector, workers are being denied the basic right accorded workers in other sectors: the right to provision of appropriate minimum requirement for washroom facilities, the right to running hot and cold water, the right to flush toilets, the right to soap, the right to separated and protected units based on accepted hygiene and operating practices and including the provision for separate facilities for men and women.

The needed legislative provision is within the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as an amendment to regulation 691 of RRO 1980 with

section 89 recognized as being a minimal standard.

The struggle to obtain provisions has been on the agenda of the building trades for many years, most notably following the introduction of RRO 1980. The originator of formal recommendations from a local union to the provincial Ministry of Labour was in fact the Hamilton-Brantford Ontario Building and Construction Trades council.

In a letter dated 10 March 1987 to the then Minister of Labour, Fred Wilson, business manager, Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, Local 67, Hamilton, speaking on behalf of the Hamilton-Brantford building trades council, detailed concerns for the health of construction workers occasioned by the use of outdated sanitary facilities, including lack of washup facilities. In that letter he requested an investigative visit of a major construction site to view first hand existing and substandard facilities.

This visit, by a medical consultant of the ministry, took place in April 1987 at the request of construction health and safety branch. Advice on this report included comments confirming the possible spread of enteric pathogens and the need for appropriate hygiene, including soap and running water, and the observation that such minimal standards were not available. An observation that the site in question was not satisfactory in terms of cleanliness and sanitary conditions followed.

Similar informal actions were taken by the trades in the Brantford-Hamilton area during 1988. On 25 February 1989, the health and sanitation committee of the Hamilton-Brantford Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, chaired by Mr Wilson, submitted to the Hamilton-Brantford construction trades annual meeting a resolution that the council approach the Hamilton-Wentworth labour-management health and safety committee to forward its concerns to the Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee as they related to washroom facilities and that the labour-management committee lobby the provincial government to amend

section 89 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act regulation for construction projects.

Detailed guidelines governing the number of units per workers, requirements for flush toilets, wash basins, urinals, separate facilities, access to work site, protection of the worker, lighting, toilet paper, disinfectant, toilet seat and covers, heat and ventilation were also included. In addition, where workplace hazardous materials information system class products were used washroom facilities meeting the requirements of the applicable material safety data sheets were to be provided.

This resolution was passed unanimously during the 1988 and 1989 annual meeting. Such resolutions were subsequently submitted and passed at the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario annual meetings.

The Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee, a joint committee, in consultation with the construction health and safety branch, Ministry of Labour, has been in receipt of the resolution and proposed amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act and regs since that time and is currently working on a proposed amendment and guideline.

Labour, management and the Ministry of Labour all feel that it is timely, given the major reform in Bill 208, to include such amendments under that legislation. However, there has been some concern expressed by management, consisting of employer representatives and members of the construction associations of Ontario, that the amendment for universal minimum requirements may not be practicable given the wide range of construction sectors, differences in size of project, location, labour movement, specialization and diversification. I certainly urge the committee to work towards speedy resolution so that it in fact can be incorporated in legislation brought to the House.

With us today in the member’s east gallery is Tom Casey, business manager of the Hamilton-Brantford building trades council, and Fred Wilson, vice-president of council and business manager, Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, Hamilton. Their presence here today during a time of provincial labour negotiations in the construction building trades is testimony to the importance of this resolution, which I acknowledge as having been framed with their consultation and advice.

As an aside, I should also mention that the building trades have included in their collective agreement the amending legislation in process.

Over the years, individual worker complaints have not been treated seriously. They have been regarded as insignificant, as a joke. Equally, arguments against the provision of flush toilets relating to the lack of sanitary sewers to connect to or the competitive nature of the industry reflect a lack of priority and seriousness which can only be resolved through amendment to the legislation. Research and development is scarce, but it does exist.

In contrast, the occupational health and safety regulations for industrial work sites have clearly delineated guidelines. Construction sites, however, do not. Even more ludicrous, construction projects on industrial sites are not even accorded the same conditions and facilities.

Surely in today’s increasingly advanced technological society, with flush toilets being in existence for well over two centuries and with the construction sector responsible for the shape of our cities, roads and waterfront, we should have the know-how to connect already serviced sites to washroom units. Johnny-on-the-Spots on megabuck projects are an example of basic values and knowledge being ignored or denied.

The next time members drive by a construction site they should think about the workers, the seasonal conditions, the spread of disease, the transfer to family members and the possible deaths from accumulated and long-time exposure to unhealthy conditions. They should think about chemical toilets and what we can do about it. For once, let’s see an amendment without Workers’ Compensation Board evidence, without numbers of deaths or chronic illness and without the need for pulling workers off job sites in protest. In short, let’s hope the provincial labour-management amendment speaking to the need is passed in this Legislature.

I know I will run out of time, but I will refer to research evidence. Social mores -- and certainly construction workers are no different than others -- have often felt it not important enough or not macho enough to fight for, given the importance of job retention. The lack of sanitary facilities has become part of what one had to accept. Only recently have trades councils and local unions started to insist that change be made with no recrimination and no prejudice intended, just basic hygiene and health rights, prevention of disease for workers.

The body of evidence and study on the incidence of industrial disease on construction sites, epidemiological impact or acquisition by family members is largely non-existent due to the lack of benchmark cases submitted to and decisions rendered by occupational health and safety committees, industrial disease panels or WCB.

The reasons for this vary, but can be attributed to the heretofore cyclical or seasonal nature of construction, ie, the shorter length of time on a given project versus long-term employment on a single industrial site. In addition, the complex nature and specialization of work on construction sites has made it difficult to track work-relatedness within categories. There are in fact at least 10 clearly distinguishable categories of job sites: industrial, institutional, high-rise and low-rise, commercial, residential, public works, demolition, renovation, diving, tunnelling and work in compressed air environments.

Common sense combined with knowledge of occupational health and safety legislation, public health guidelines, etc, as applied to the food service, hospital, manufacturing, industrial and corporate sector suggest discrimination against construction workers in failing to provide flush toilets and running water, soap, disinfectant, disposable towels, washup facilities and separate facilities for male and female.

In contrast, hygiene in the school setting, in offices, restaurants and homes is stressed and accepted by those involved. Even Dear Abby stresses that washing one’s hands after using rest rooms and before eating is acceptable and done. Mothers constantly and consistently tell their children not to eat food unless they wash their hands and not to touch their mouths or faces or other parts of their bodies if they have an illness. Good old-fashioned soap has proven to be much more effective than chemical wipes.

So research methodology does exist for examining the incidence of disease, as I mentioned before, for the latency, the incubation period and the compound risk factors, such as individuals’ differences in health, immunology, etc, but there is, once again, lack of data. Regulations do not clearly apply and precedents for procedures in filling a claim out for compensation are not yet set. None the less, evidence is accumulated, and I will refer to that after I give other members a chance to speak.

I would urge members to take

part in the discussion. I would like to officially recognize the resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Hamilton East and I am sure he will be speaking to the issue. I am looking forward to listening to the suggestions of the House. Again, I am confident and hopeful that the Ministry of Labour and the joint management committee listen to what is going on under this particular hour of business.

Mr Mackenzie: I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the resolution that has been moved by the member for Hamilton Centre. I think there are a number of things that should be said.

First off, the labour movement, the construction trades have been pushing for more adequate washroom and toilet facilities for better than 10 years, and they have been pushing hard. It would appear that in the last four to five years they have further stepped up the campaign and have made a number of presentations arguing their case. I know also it has been discussed by the labour-management committee. Indeed, I believe they will be bringing down a number of specific recommendations shortly.

The only fault I have with the resolution of the member for Hamilton Centre is that it is general enough that it will only take minimum improvements in the present standards to comply, to use her words. “To upgrade the minimum requirements for sanitary and toilet facilities on construction sites, and in particular should amend the regulations to require employers to provide flush toilets and hand-washing facilities.”

The one positive improvement in the member’s resolution is the provision of separate facilities at sites where both male and female workers are present. At the moment, that does not include too many sites, according to my information, but I think it is a positive step.

The reason that I obviously liked my own resolution is that it more clearly spelled out the minimum standards that are necessary. It is based on a resolution that was passed at the convention of the building trades and forwarded to me by the provincial building trades council. My resolution, simply stated, says:

“That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the current regulations covering hygiene on construction sites are outdated and in need of amendment; that requirements for the provision of toilet and washroom facilities should be fully reflected in the regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (sections 89 and 90); and that the requirements should be both practical and workable, result in the improvement of job-site working conditions, and hence improve productivity on construction job sites in the province.

“1. The owner-constructor-project manager shall provide toilet and washing facilities on all construction sites in accordance with the following: (

a) where there are 15 or more workers on a project for a minimum period of one month, the facilities shall include one flush (non-chemical) toilet and one urinal and one basin; and (

b) for each additional 30 workers or part thereof, an additional flush toilet, urinal and washbasin shall be added to facilities.

“2. The costs borne by the owner-constructor-project manager in meeting the responsibilities of sections 89 and 90 cannot be transferred to other subcontractors-forces on the project.

“3. The owner-constructor-project manager shall have the option of providing the necessary facilities via access to facilities existing or adjacent to the work site; via temporary fixed facilities constructed on the site; or via mobile units, conditional on site services being available.”

Before I read the short balance of my particular resolution, I might say that the costs are not exorbitant, according to information I have. The technology has existed for some time. Trailer units with generators, water heaters and up-to-date and comfortable facilities are available and some contractors are already using them. I am told that they are used but I am not sure if it is all sites. Eastern Construction and Foundation are but two examples.

It should also be pointed out that the need for the facilities is only as long as or until they can move to the facilities that may be onsite in the particular construction project. Unfortunately, some major construction outfits are still getting away with the Johnny-on-the-Spots, and even more disgusting, the low-boys, which do not have much favour with workers on construction sites.

I think the balance of my resolution also clearly outlines a more positive direction:

“4. On high-rise projects, the necessary facilities should be made available on every fourth floor.

“5. The toilet facilities provided shall he equipped as follows: (

a) within easy access of work sites: (

h) built so that the occupant is shielded from view and protected from weather and falling objects; (

c) provided with natural or artificial lighting: (

d) provided with sufficient toilet paper and disinfectant; (

e) kept in a clean and sanitary condition; (

f) supplied with toilet seats and covers; (

g) heated to a minimum of 18 degrees C; (

h) suitably ventilated.

“6. Basins provided shall have as a minimum standard (

a) hot and cold running water, (

b) soap or hand cleaner, (

c) hand towels.”

There is an additional

section that I think is vital to this particular resolution:

“90(1). (

a) Where WHMIS-class products are present on the job site, washing facilities meeting the requirements of the applicable material safety data sheets shall be provided. (

b) If showers (with the exception of safety showers) are required, they shall have as a minimum standard (

a) hot and cold running water, (

b) soap or hand cleaner, (

c) paper towels or individual hand towels.”

I might say that a resolution being passed which would spell out the standards required would be one that I, and I think most construction workers, would be much more comfortable with than a resolution that does little more than say that we want to improve the minimum standards that currently exist.

However, my colleagues and I, as I indicated earlier, will be supporting the resolution of the government member. We have learned, unfortunately, that this government moves very slowly and with tiny steps when it comes to improvements in labour legislation in Ontario.

The question that has to be asked is why they have taken so long on something that could be done so easily, so quickly and really so cheaply. Who has resisted the improvements? Not the workers; that is obvious. They have been better than 10 years pushing for these relatively simple-to-accomplish changes in the facilities that they have on a construction site.

Who then has been the holdup? I might point out that this government itself has also now been in power for five years and that ties in with the accelerated push that has been conducted by the construction industry to try and achieve the facilities that they need.

Finally, and I think this is a real concern of workers, when will the new regulations be in place and will they be enforced? The record of enforcement of this government, whether it is health and safety, employment standards or a number of provisions of the labour legislation in Ontario, is not a good one. Heaven forbid that I even raise it, but should this government be fortunate enough to get a majority in another election, will we even see the legislation and the enforcement? We had a number of other promises that have not been carried through.

Let’s hope that we do see these regulations and I hope that they are adequate and not just an improvement in minimal standards -- coming down, even if they come down as recommendations from the joint labour-management committee, and being put in place, and being put in place before we have an election call. That is the minimum that we hope for in this House, and it is because of that hope and desire that we will be supporting the resolution as it currently exists.

Mr Sterling: I have some difficulty in understanding why a resolution like this has to come to the Legislature for debate during private members’ hour. I would have thought that a decision like this, if economically sound, would have followed the normal course and a regulation would have been passed by the government to improve these kinds of facilities on construction sites.

As a civil engineer who worked on a number of construction sites before returning to school some time ago, I can attest to the problem that is raised by the member, and I suppose it is a serious problem for a number of workers in this province. We in this party have no difficulty in supporting the resolution. Unfortunately, we are not presented with any statistics as to the increased costs that would be incurred in construction in general across the province in providing these facilities.

I am not aware of the technical ability to provide this and the overall trouble with installing these kinds of facilities on construction sites, but I would have thought that kind of information and those facts would have been brought to a committee and that the Ministry of Labour would then take the appropriate action. I just find it hard, when we heading into an election, to understand that this kind of an issue would be at the top of the list for the member for Hamilton Centre. Perhaps it is of more interest in her constituency than it is in mine.

At any rate, I think it is really a matter to be decided not by legislators on this floor, but in fact that a government that is acting responsibly would have taken care of this without having it brought to the floor by one of its own government members.

Mrs O’Neill: I am pleased to rise this morning to participate in the debate on the resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre regarding the provision of sanitary and toilet facilities for construction workers in Ontario, facilities that will ensure that all persons working on construction sites have access to hygienic washroom facilities.

I first became interested in this issue as a result of a letter I received from a very dedicated woman in my riding, Lee Farnworth, who is the co-ordinator of technology and trade programs for women at Algonquin College in Ottawa. Therefore, I am most surprised that the member for Carleton does not find this item of interest in his riding.

I will quote briefly from Ms Farnworth’s letter:

“It is time for improvement to toilet facilities on construction sites. Flush toilets, urinals and washbasins are not unreasonable demands. Indeed, these should be available to all employees in all places of work. Proper locks and regular inspection of toilet facilities would ensure that all who use such facilities could look forward to decent conditions. These are improvements that are timely and will go a long way towards providing a less hostile environment to women entering the construction trades.”

That was the plea of Ms Farnworth. It is my belief and hope that flush toilets and hot water for hand-washing provisions to facilitate personal comfort and privacy should be mandatory on all work sites of Ontario’s workforce.

As well as providing these facilities for hand washing, there is the issue of minimum standards of maintenance and cleanliness. Provisions must be made for maintaining facilities in a sanitary and safe condition at all times.

Although changes of this nature are of benefit to all workers on construction sites, they are particularly relevant to women. Between 1975 and 1985, there was a 64% increase in the number of women in construction work across this province. Women now make up over 10% of those employed in the construction industry. The provision of these facilities on construction sites would require an amendment to

section 89 of the regulations for construction projects.

I believe that present-day technology would make it not only possible but indeed uncomplicated to provide vastly improved sanitary facilities throughout Ontario’s construction industry. This practice is not unknown. As Pope John Paul II made his way across our country in 1984, adequate sanitary facilities were established at each site and in fact hospital emergency room environments were in each location, with all facilities for sterilization and intensive lighting, everything necessary for first-class first aid service. The technology is there. What we need now is the political will to use it for the workers of this province.

The will is there. The Ontario women’s directorate and the Ministry of Labour are both concerned about this issue and, as has been mentioned, the Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee is at this present moment considering all of these issues. The dialogue between labour and management at this time will hopefully result in amendments to legislation that will provide facilities which address the needs of male and female workers in the construction industry.

At present. the main issue under discussion is the provision of flush toilets and washing facilities on the sites. Whether to have separate toilets for women is an issue that has not yet been addressed. I strongly believe this is an issue that must be addressed. The current practices in the construction industry with regard to provision of sanitary and toilet facilities are clearly outdated. The lack of separate facilities for women creates a less than comfortable and convenient environment, and this tends to prevent women from entering this area of employment.

I believe these issues need to be addressed and I thank the member for Hamilton Centre for bringing for ward her progressive resolution.

Mr Charlton: I too rise in support of the resolution of the member for Hamilton Centre. It concerns me somewhat, though, that the member for Hamilton Centre had to bring the resolution forward in the first place. It also concerns me somewhat that the member’s resolution focuses on raising minimum standards rather than setting out in specific terms the kinds of facilities that are required to provide people working in construction with some basic human hygienic dignity.

I was pleased to hear the member for Ottawa-Rideau in her comments refer to substantially upgrading washroom facilities. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily reflected in this resolution. However, it is time that we moved forward. This government, a government which has been in office for five years, a government which likes to applaud itself for some of the things it claims to have done, has found itself unable to move on something so simple, so basic and so straightforward as proper hygienic toilet facilities on construction sites.

The member for Ottawa-Rideau also focused on the question of separate facilities for men and women. We heard just the other day the Attorney General trying to applaud himself around the pay equity legislation, which resulted from an accord that the Liberal government signed with this party, not from any individual initiative by the Liberal government in Ontario; pay equity legislation, which is as sadly lacking as are the regulations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act around questions like washroom facilities on construction sites.

But as we move to address, and we are not there yet, the questions of real equality between men and women in the workforce, simple matters like separate washroom facilities become so important both in terms of basic human dignity and as symbols of a real understanding of what it is we are trying to accomplish in the workplaces across this province, whether they be construction sites or industrial plants or offices in office towers.

This resolution we have before us today is one that should be supported, but it is a resolution which reflects a matter that this government should be ashamed of not having addressed over the course of the last five years, a matter which is so simple and basic to human dignity that it is just absolutely unbelievable that we have to be dealing with a simple resolution here, a resolution which, although we likely will all support it today, mandates no one to do anything with regard to improving washroom facilities on construction sites.

It is imperative that the Liberal members who stood in this House to support this resolution and the Liberal members who stand to vote in favour of it today impress on the Minister of Labour and his colleagues in the cabinet that the passage of this resolution by itself means nothing if the cabinet and the government as a whole do not take what the member for the Ottawa-Rideau referred to as the political will that is required to change the regulations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and make the intent of this resolution a reality for the people who work in the construction industry in the province of Ontario.

The construction trades have been lobbying for changes in this respect for well over 10 years. They have put on major efforts over the course of the last four or five to see basic changes in the availability of and separation of washroom facilities on construction sites, and the government of the Premier has failed to respond.

The member for Hamilton Centre has had to come here with a resolution today because of that failure to listen and respond on the part of the Liberal government of this province. It is time the Liberal members spoke loudly and clearly to the members of the executive council so that we can see regulations in place that will provide decent washroom facilities and separate washroom facilities for men and women on construction sites before this House adjourns at the end of June.

The Deputy Speaker: I have been told that the members of the third party want to donate their time to whoever wants to continue.

Mr Dietsch: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on the resolution brought forward by my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre, a subject which I know she has pursued vigorously. This is also a topic that we heard about when we were travelling the province with the recent public hearings on Bill 208, a bill which seeks to overhaul the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

It is clear, as the resolution states, that there is a need to upgrade and improve the existing regulations. I support the process and approach that was adopted to deal with this matter: labour and management working together to arrive at a satisfactory agreement. This approach is in accord with the tenets of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the amendments to the act which are embodied in Bill 208. I believe it is important to highlight, and I would like to remind members of, those basic tenets of occupational health and safety that the bill is designed to strengthen and enhance.

First, and above all else, the bill provides opportunities for workplace partnership. Together employers and employees are the most effective team we have to improve health and safety on the shop floor, in the office and more particularly on the work site. Second, for this involvement to be meaningful, people must have proper training and education in health and safety practices so they can recognize workplace risks. Next, beyond recognizing risks, people must also be empowered with the rights and the responsibilities so that they can act when they see conditions that place them at risk.

Finally, those rights and responsibilities must be exercised in an appropriate manner. The workplace parties must be obliged by the law to ensure responsible behaviour. The system must include elements of accountability. Those are the basic tenets of Bill 208 which apply to the workplace parties.

Bill 208 will establish many more joint health and safety committees in the workplace, and for the first time, joint health and safety committees will be established on construction sites. The establishment of a formal mechanism such as a committee, or in some instances a health and safety representative, will go a long way to ensuring that basic requirements, such as the regulation now before this House, can be acted upon. I am pleased that there has been labour-management co-operation in the matter brought forward by my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre.

At a meeting I attended recently the Hamilton-Brantford trades council also raised the issue. In my investigation I have found that officials at the Ministry of Labour are aware of the concerns regarding toilets and washing facilities on construction projects. The ministry has been actively involved with the provincial labour-management health and safety committees and also in consultation with various associations, committees and other industry-related groups in formulating possible alternatives which could be used in the pending amendments to the present construction regulation. It is my hope that we can together bring this quickly to a satisfactory conclusion.

In fact, a draft proposal of an amendment to

section 89 of the regulations was presented to the provincial labour-management committee yesterday, 2 May. It addresses two of the major concerns raised in the resolution by the member for Hamilton Centre, flush toilets and washing facilities. It is only through the continued process of labour and management working cooperatively together, as exemplified in the principles of Bill 208, that we will be able to continue to make improvements in the workplace, and that, I think, is a goal we can all work towards.

I know this issue has been on the table for a considerable period of time. I also know that the member for Hamilton Centre has vigorously pursued this avenue of settlement for this very important issue. I urge the members of this House to support her about this plight, to bring about healthier, safer workplaces and a better working relationship with those in the construction industry.

Mr Fleet: I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in support of this resolution and to congratulate the member for Hamilton Centre on her efforts in bringing this forward. I know it is a matter where people who have not had experience or have not had a chance to have some kind of contact with people in the construction industry might well not appreciate fully the importance of this resolution.

I had the benefit of sitting on the standing committee on resources development when we had Bill 208 before us to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as my colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock has been relating. I was particularly moved by a number of the presentations that were made by workers about the conditions they had, and not only by the lack of sanitary facilities in places where there were some kind of facilities. I remember particularly in a mining situation that calling it a facility was being generous because it was really not usable in my view at all.

In construction sites, there was the complete absence and the very practical daily difficulty this produces for workers. It is not only unfair. It is simply unnecessary.

In an ideal world, we would be able to provide and we should almost always be able to provide flush toilets and hot water for employees in the construction industry. I tried to imagine in what circumstances that might not be possible. Is there any? There may be some where it would be difficult, I thought.

Perhaps in the case of constructing a road, it may be very difficult for an employer to provide a traditional flush toilet and running water, but even in that area, I understand that it is possible to rent commercially portable toilet units that have a washbasin with water in a holding tank so that you can still, in a very practical, economical way, provide for a hand-washing facility. It should simply be mandatory at all sites.

Certainly flush toilets and hot water should be mandatory in any places where they can at all reasonably be provided. Again I stress that in the vast majority of cases, it seems to me this would be the case in an economical way. It is a reasonable health standard, as well as a sense of a safety standard that we ought to be concerned about. Certainly the related aspect of sanitary conditions is important and the regulations must be kept up-to-date to ensure we are doing the utmost to make sure that people are operating in safe and healthy workplaces.

There is of course another very important aspect to this resolution that I think would be important to every member of this Legislature and to all the people who are watching or who may read of this debate; that is, the focus the member has placed, quite properly, on ensuring that facilities are available in a fair and equal way to both men and women. Of course, some years ago there were not many women who were working in the construction industry on job sites. That has changed. It is important that we note not only the fact that changes have been taking place, but that this kind of change is a desirable change, that there are not limits to what kinds of work women can do.

It is a non-traditional job category without question, but the members and the public might be surprised to know that there are now some 28,000 women employed in the construction industry in Ontario. It is up dramatically. As we have heard from another of my colleagues, the member for Ottawa-Rideau, the number of women in construction is up some 64% between 1975 and 1985.

Increasingly, if we are to make sure women have the ability to enjoy freedom of occupation in a sense, the ability to be employed wherever they have the interest and the ability to perform, which in essence is in all fields, then we have to make sure that we are going to amend the other kinds of regulations that impact on the way they carry out their work.

There was a settlement reached in 1988 involving a female worker for Stelco and it dealt with the question of providing a washroom facility in an industrial setting. It was a settlement that was worked out through the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I understand that in that case the woman had to walk a long way to a washroom in a trailer. Her male co-workers had facilities that were onsite. The length of time that it took her placed her in an impossible position because it put her in contravention with the provisions of the Operating Engineers Act, which she was obliged to comply with.

The commission said, and ultimately in the settlement Stelco acknowledged that it simply was not an acceptable arrangement.

It is time now to acknowledge the steps that have been taken by my colleague and to say we want to expand into the construction site situation and to note as well that women are entitled to be free of harassment and to have equal facilities.

The Deputy Speaker: I note there are 11 minutes and some time left from the third party to be used up by members. What is the wish of the House? Do any members wish to speak?

Does the member for Hamilton Centre request that time? Is there agreement of the House? Agreed.

Ms Oddie Munro: I certainly have appreciated listening to the responses and concerns expressed by various speakers. I would like to take the time allotted to me to focus on details of the resolutions and recommendations put forward by the Hamilton-Brantford, Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council. I think that was one of the concerns. I referred to it obliquely in my original comments, but because of time could not fill them out. Secondly, I would like to reflect on some of the health data.

As I said earlier, there is a scarcity of evidence from a research and development point on industrial disease in the construction sector. I gave the reasons for some of the hesitation or for people simply not taking it seriously enough.

I would like to read to members comments from Maurice Shapiro as he talks about disease transmittal from failure to clean the hands after defecating or skin diseases relating from poor body cleansing, in which he means a worker not having access to facilities to wash his hands, and the best way in which to wash your hands and clean them is with good old soap and water.

He said: “There are health problems relating to personal hygiene practices that occur in industry exclusively. Such problems are related to ingestion of chemical toxins or disease-producing organisms, and to local skin, conjunctival and mucous membrane inflammation due to sensitivity or direct irritative action of industrial chemicals. Uncleanliness, ie, the lack of access to facilities, is probably the most important predisposing cause of occupational dermatitis. Lack of cleanliness in the working environment exposes the worker to large doses of external irritants.

Personal uncleanliness not only does the same, but also permits external irritants to remain in prolonged contact with the skin. Workers wearing or carrying to their homes their dirty work clothes may even cause dermatitis in other members of the family who come in contact with soiled clothes, or even among unsuspecting workers who clean them. Safeguards such as protective creams help, but personal hygiene is a necessity.”

“Where the employee is in a situation to be exposed to toxic materials or corrosive materials, if he is a food handler or a materials handler and then eats, for example, the need for optimum, clean, well-lighted and well-ventilated washing and locker facilities becomes even more imperative.

“From the point of view of protecting the health of the individual employee and minimizing the possibility of his transmitting infection to others, toilet and washroom facilities should be easily cleanable, adequate in size and number, accessible, maintained and fit with the personal hygiene habits of employees in industry, or the industry itself will suffer.”

I would like to respond to the comment from the member for Carleton when he asked why I would bring to the attention of the House the concerns of construction workers for adequate washroom facilities. He may feel better when I tell him that there are 300,000 workers in the province of Ontario who currently are working in conditions that are less than satisfactory, and less than satisfactory when compared with other sectors.

I feel that with even one worker working in those conditions, it is worth while to any member bringing any issue before this House. I also take cognisance of the advice of members of the assembly to ask the Ministry of Labour and the joint management-labour committee to push the amendment forward, so that indeed the minimum requirements of

section 89 can be maintained and even upgraded.

When we talk about minimum upgrading or minimum regulations, we mean simply that. What this means in the context of the ongoing discussion currently in place with the joint labour-management committee, hopefully to be put into the amendment, is that indeed other improvements greater than minimal will in fact take place.

I would like to refer to the details that have already been alluded to by the member for Hamilton East and which I referred to in my introductory statement. When we take a look at the 25 February 1989 resolution submitted by the health and sanitation committee to the Ontario building and construction trades, we see that in addition to the resolutions, of which there were two and I mentioned them, in fact the details are worked out, including provisions for every 15 or more workers.

The time period is specified. It also takes into account some of the concerns that separate facilities are provided for each gender, that toilet and washroom facilities be within easy access of working sites and built so that the occupant is shielded from view, with protection from weather and falling objects. They should be provided with natural or artificial lighting, kept in a clean and sanitary condition, supplied with toilet seats and covers, heated to a minimum of 18 degrees Centigrade and suitably ventilated.

Basins also have minimum standards. I suppose ongoing discussion between labour and management will mean those minimum standards will be strictly minimum, hot and cold running water, soap, paper towels or individual hand towels, and if it is felt necessary to have showers on site, they should have hot and cold running water, soap or hand cleaner and paper towels or individual hand towels. Again, there is the provision that where WHMIS-class products are used, washroom facilities meeting the requirements of the applicable materials safety data sheets shall be provided.

That initial document was then picked up and dealt with by the councils, such as the Ontario Pipe Trades Council, which again itemized and extended the individual requirements that would then presumably be taken by employer and employee on individual sites. In addition, the provincial labour-management subcommittee, which the amendments are currently before, has also described and filled out the recommendation. I think the concerns of the member should be assuaged somewhat by knowing that committee is looking at those particular suggestions.

I would just like again to ask members to visualize for one moment the typical construction site. It is summer now and it is hot. On a typical construction site -- I said there probably is not any one, but there are certainly 10 and members could envisage any one of those 10 -- there are probably corrosive materials on the site, building materials, dirt and possible seasonal pollutants. Workers handle equipment, building materials and perhaps hazardous materials with their hands in the majority of cases, since automated techniques are still not wholesalely practical in the building trades industry.

Many of the materials handled are capable of irritating the skin, combining with each other to produce all sorts of irritants. Skin rashes are part of the inherent risk of interacting on the work site. You have the seasonal effects of rain, snow if it is in the winter, and heat, and again you get a period of time where diseases can incubate and where indeed the risk factor has to be tracked.

We are not doing enough in research and development -- that is true -- but I think when you see changes effected in the amendment of the legislation, that allows for the kind of tracking and regulation that is needed. I have heard trade union movement people say over and over again that with the regulations they hold up from time to time when they pull workers off the job sites, on every page and every amendment going through these books of regulations there are dead people.

I would suggest to the members that in the construction industry we do not want to see Workers’ Compensation Board examples. We want to be able to prevent industrial diseases from spreading on construction sites. That is why the amendments before the joint labour committee have taken so long. In this government’s tenure, they have been before that committee for three years. I am informed that indeed progress has been made and has been made not only as a result of that amendment, but as a result of the current review of Bill 208, on the act and regulations by the Ministry of Labour and the industry.

I should bring to the attention of the House that no change is done in a vacuum and no change is done as a result of either my bringing a resolution here or as a result of any one body saying that things need to be changed and are not working.

In fact, when the changes are proclaimed, and I am certain they will be, the changes will be the culmination of an extensive consultation process during which the Ministry of Labour sought the views of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, the Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee, specific trade labour-management committees, the Construction Safety Association of Ontario, the Council of Ontario Construction Associations and other interested parties.

What one realizes when one puts regulations through that are minimal is that indeed an awful lot of other work has to take place at the same time in order that the differences in different construction sectors are realized and that the changes are appropriate and are applicable.

The regulations again being minimal requirements, I am confident that the changes will extend beyond that, but I am also saying that there will be seen to be, and there will be a great deal of work beyond the confines of that amendment in order that specific conditions at specific sites work out. This again requires full co-operation of all the workplace parties at all levels in the construction industry.

I certainly think it is timely that the amendments are placed in juxtaposition with Bill 208 and those amendments, and that it also take place in concert with the formation of safety committees on projects and the inclusion of construction in Bill 208. I believe that when implemented, all of the amendments will promote a joint forum for labour and management to review and rectify workplace health and safety concerns.

I am told that a draft proposal of an amendment to

section 89 of the regulations for construction projects was presented yesterday, 2 May 1990, to the Provincial Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee, addressing some of the major concerns we have talked about today. Again, it will take continued co-operation, but I am confident that with the direction and with the statements of all interested members of the House, the Ministry of Labour and the joint labour-management committee will ensure that amendment moves forward.

I would again like to thank Tom Casey and Mr Wilson for attending on behalf of the Hamilton-Brantford building and construction trades and to recognize that Fred Wilson was the originator of the original amendment that came forward that we are working with today and that the members will see in place tomorrow.

I would also like to thank all the members for their very constructive suggestions and to recognize the way that each one of them came at the particular resolution from a different point of view. There was no duplication, so it seems to me that the resolution is of importance to us. It is certainly of importance to 300,000 workers in Ontario. Each one of those workers has a family, and I can tell members that the greatest day in my life will be to be travelling around the highways and industrial sites and to see less and less Johnny-on-the-Spots and better hooked-up running water facilities. I may even go into the construction industry myself as a trade union person.

I would like to thank the House for what I think has been a very good discussion, and I would like to urge the Ministry of Labour to take account of and be cognizant of it. I thank them also for their co-operation in sponsoring the joint labour-management committee.

COMMERCIAL RENT PROTECTION

The Speaker: Ms Bryden has moved resolution 1.

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will stand down that vote. I will find out what happens to the next question and then I will call in the members.

CONSTRUCTION SITE WASHROOM FACILITIES

The Speaker: Ms Oddie Munro has moved resolution 43.

Motion agreed to.

COMMERCIAL RENT PROTECTION

The House divided on Ms Bryden’s motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 12

Allen. Bryden. Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Farnan, Hampton, Laughren. Mackenzie. Martel, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Reville.

Nays -- 29

Carrothers, Cleary, Cooke, D. R., Daigeler, Eakins, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Furlong. Johnson, J. M., Keyes, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McLean, Oddie Munro, Owen, Patten, Ray, M. C., Roberts, Smith, E. J., Sterling, Velshi, Villeneuve.

The House recessed at 1208.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr Allen: There is talk of tax revolt in Hamilton. With an average potential tax hike of $203.98, after rigorous trimming of budgets by both local councils and the board of education, the city hike will be 4.9%, the region’s hike 7.9% and the board’s hike 18.1%.

The city is furious over the education increase and the city finance committee is recommending for the first time ever that the city not collect the education tax but force the board to do so. This malaise and infighting is more than a local matter.

A letter on my desk from the regional council refers to the “disintegration of the historical partnership between the province of Ontario and the regions and municipalities of this province” and urgently requests a meeting with the minister. The problem began under the Tories and continues under the Liberals.

The Liberals have frozen municipal unconditional grants while costs escalate. The Liberals have failed to pass through municipal expenses in social services for federal payback under the cost-shared arrangements. The Liberals fall far short of 50% responsibility for the Hamilton-Wentworth Conservation Authority. Schools have major asbestos removal costs uncompensated by the Liberals at Queen’s Park.

In 1985 the Liberals promised to pay 60% of education funding and now they pay 40% province-wide, less than the Tories did, and only 28% in Hamilton. If we have a tax revolt in Hamilton, let us revolt against the right government.

PATRICIA STARR INQUIRY

Mr Sterling: I trust the Premier and the Attorney General have been reading the reviews on their response to the Supreme Court ruling on the Starr inquiry. The Attorney General’s

interpretation of the ruling has been called “wimpish and wrong, a shameful dive, convenient” and “highly restrictive.” To my knowledge, no one has described the Attorney General’s

interpretation as accurate, fairminded or courageous.

There is general agreement that the government botched the inquiry, that “the province blew it in drafting the terms of reference,” that the Premier and the Attorney General “got it dreadfully wrong” and that “the Liberal government of Ontario bungled the inquiry.” There is also the concern that “the issue of government responsibility will never be adequately addressed” and that the government is trying to walk away from “its responsibility to investigate.” It is recognized and accepted by many outside this government that “an inquiry is still needed, and the Premier has a duty to make sure one is held.”

I would be happy to provide the Premier and the Attorney General with copies of these columns and editorials for their scrapbooks. They describe a shameful

chapter in the history of this administration because the Starr inquiry was the check on the issue of accountability and credibility of this government. The Premier and the Attorney General have wimped out and the people of this province know it and will not forget it.

DAVID SMITH

Mr Owen: Recently Barrie witnessed the official opening of a community health centre for seniors, To bring about this service required a great deal of enthusiasm and dedication. The main person who spearheaded that campaign was 84-year-old David Smith.

Mr Smith first arrived in the Barrie area in 1937 under a program initiated by the Liberal MPP for that riding at the time, Dr Simpson, who was also Minister of Education. Armed with a master’s degree in philosophy from the University of Toronto, David Smith commenced an experimental program as director of a community life training institute and also became the first secretary of the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture. The program was to be a model for adult education at the county level.

In 1946 David Smith journeyed to Saskatchewan, where he was employed in developing adult education programs. UNESCO took advantage of his talents in 1953. His work over a period of years took him into North Africa and Asia in evaluating and promoting various programs of self-help. In 1987 David Smith brought together various leaders in the community and showed that his talents for involving people in meeting their own problems are as sharp today as they were when he first came to Barrie a half a century earlier.

I would ask the Legislature today to acknowledge the bright, the alert, the 84 years young David Smith.

DIABETES

Mr Hampton: The Ministry of Health is making plans to locate three regional pilot diabetes education centres in the province. The education centres are to provide diabetes education to the public as one effective means in combating diabetes. Several urban centres across the province are clamouring to have one of the diabetes education centres located in their region. The centre would, of course, bring jobs, money and status for a city like Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie or Thunder Bay in northern Ontario.

I say that all of this is irrelevant. Cities like Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay already have diabetes programs in place, albeit smaller programs. The programs in these cities are operated by a major hospital or hospitals located within the urban area in connection with the public health and community health programs that are also found there.

When the Ministry of Health decides on the location of a northern Ontario diabetes education centre it should look at one very important fact: The highest incidence of diabetes in Ontario occurs among our native people. A recent Globe and Mail

article pointed out that on some reserves one half of the residents older than 45 suffer from diabetes, which can lead to blindness, heart attacks, strokes and kidney failure. Specific reasons for the higher incidence among native people is not known, but certainly any diabetes centre should be located in an area where this could be looked at.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr McCague: It is not often that we are able to put a pricetag on stupidity, but the spending estimates reveal the nearly $20 million that the government will spend keeping an eye on its friends and supporters in the auto insurance industry.

My good friend the member for Leeds-Grenville warned more than two years ago that consumers and taxpayers were going to take it in the neck, that they would pay and pay again for the government’s incoherent policy on auto insurance.

Of course, the government tells taxpayers -- who have footed the bill for studies and commissions the government has ignored, for the auto insurance board which the government has scrapped and for the millions of dollars in tax breaks the government has given to the industry -- and it tells consumers, who will not get those promised lower rates, not to worry; they should not worry about an $8.5-million increase in the cost of making a bad idea worse, because the money will be recovered from the industry.

Who will the industry recover the money from, I wonder? Maybe the government thinks insurers will eat the cost in much the same way it thought developers would absorb the cost of new lot levies.

The new automobile insurance commission will become like the rent control system: expensive, inefficient and complex. We can only speculate as to why the Liberals are so anxious to push the taxpayer into a swamp.

CYCLING SAFETY

Mr Dietsch: Over the past few years traffic has increased dramatically, as has the number of cyclists, ranging from teens to adults, out on the streets with their vehicles, be it for transportation or recreation. With it, the number of injuries and deaths of those between the ages of 14 and 44 have also risen dramatically.

Recognizing that most bicycle safety training programs are geared to children at elementary school level, I, in conjunction with the Niagara Regional Police Force and the Ministry of Transportation, am currently sponsoring a Cycling Safety Week in St Catharines-Brock from 30 April to 6 May, to assist adults and students to drive safely. From 12 noon to 7 pm each day, students, adults and youth from the surrounding residential areas have been targeted to test their safety knowledge and to assist them in avoiding future injuries or tragedy.

At this point in time, I would like to extend my appreciation to Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, Merritton High School, Denis Morris secondary school, Kernahan Park Secondary School and Niagara District Secondary School, many local and Glenridge Plaza merchants, and the Lincoln county public and separate school boards for their tremendous support of this project.

I would also like to applaud the efforts of the Minister of Transportation for his recent amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, which help bicycle drivers become more aware of their responsibilities on the road and the legal implications of their actions. After all, going safely means getting there alive.

THOROLD AND WELLAND STUDENTS

Mr Kormos: A couple of visits that I have had the pleasure of having in classrooms down in Welland and Thorold over the last few weeks, and the most recent one this morning, cause me and force me, compel me, to speak to the members in this assembly about those classrooms.

Mel Dove and the students at Thorold Secondary School -- and I can tell you, Mr Speaker, those students will be with us later this afternoon -- provided some of the most insightful questioning about the motives of this government, the conduct of this government, indeed, the rationale or lack of it, more importantly, that this government has for so many of its programs, so many of which are ineffective when it comes to hard-working people and people in communities like Welland and Thorold.

You are talking about a group of young people at Thorold Secondary School who are not content to merely sit back and be told that things are going to keep on being the way they are. Indeed, these young people at Thorold high school are the types of young people who are going to seize the bull by the horns and provide leadership in their community and indeed in this province.

It is a pleasure to see them here this afternoon, taking a look at the sometimes scandalous things that take place in this very assembly on the part of this Liberal government.

This morning I was with Mrs J. Heinze at Fitch Street school in Welland. Her grade 4 and 5 kids have a better understanding of the needs of this province when it comes to protection of the environment and the future of our air, our water and our land than any member of the Liberal government sitting opposite me. Those kids are to be commended.

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FARM RADIO NETWORK

Mr Villeneuve: Once again, I would like to draw the attention of members and the public to the work done by the Developing Countries Farm Radio Network. This Ontario-based organization provides radio scripts, audio cassettes and other materials to some 700 broadcasters and farming experts in some 100 countries. The material is translated and passed on to the world’s poorest farm families, helping them increase their food supplies and benefit their health in general.

Radio is used because roughly one family in three in the developing world owns a radio. But it should also be pointed out that the farm radio network’s material has been demonstrated in village squares, schools, tea rooms and various other gathering places. In my view, the network is one of the most cost-efficient means to raise living standards and to help the developing world.

This organization does rely on public support and is a registered charity. Ontarians interested in supporting this organization can contact my office for further information. This organization does excellent work in developing countries.

SOVIET THEATRE STUDENTS

Mr Carrothers: In recognizing the spirit of co-operation and openness between countries, I rise today to acknowledge the presence in our galleries of eight Soviet exchange students and their three teachers. They are from the Experimental Association Midnight Multilingual Theatre School in Leningrad.

While in Ontario they are being hosted by Appleby College -- located in my riding -- and escorted during their visit, which will end 12 May, by the international affairs club of the college.

The eight students are attending classes at Appleby College and will be visiting various historical and cultural sites across southern Ontario.

Through this exposure the students will be able to experience Canadian culture first hand. During this brief visit, students and teachers at Appleby College have been fortunate enough to learn something of the Russian language and culture and have acquired a deeper understanding of the Soviet way of life.

Appleby students will also have a chance to experience Soviet life first hand during a reciprocal visit scheduled for later this year.

I am sure all members will join me in welcoming these students to our Legislature during their tour of Ontario over the next few days.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINING INDUSTRY

Hon Mr O’Neil: I am pleased to rise in the Legislature today to provide details of the initiatives relative to the mining and mineral exploration industries announced in last week’s provincial budget.

In the document tabled by my colleague the provincial Treasurer, we have reaffirmed this government’s commitment to the economic development of northern Ontario by announcing an additional $30 million in order to assist prospectors and basic mineral exploration.

We have also announced that the province of Ontario will pursue discussions with the federal government in order to renew the five-year Canada-Ontario mineral development agreement, known as COMDA, which expired on 31 March 1990.

Of this $30-million funding, a total of $25 million will be dedicated to enhance the Ontario prospectors assistance program, known as OPAP, and the Ontario mineral incentive program, known as OMIP.

OPAP, which provides grants to qualified individuals for prospecting, has proved to be a great success. OPAP will continue with its current criteria. However, this government will allocate an additional $1 million a year for the next three years in order to encourage prospecting. This will bring total OPAP funding to $4 million a year.

OMIP, which provides grants to companies and individuals that are carrying out exploration, will receive an additional $6 million in the first year and $8 million per year for the following two years. Grants are equal to 30% of eligible expenses. The maximum allowed for grants will now be doubled to $300,000. Activities such as diamond drilling and some underground exploration expenditures will now be eligible under this program.

Funding under OMIP will be expanded to include marketing studies, laboratory work and pilot plant studies for industrial mineral projects.

This additional funding for OMIP will also help flow-through funded exploration and development companies which have been recently hurt by federal cutbacks. These companies will now be eligible for funding under OMIP.

As well, my ministry is providing $1 million in the first year and $2 million in the following two years for OMIP in the vicinity of selected communities that are facing economic difficulties. Projects undertaken in these communities will receive an enriched OMIP grant. OMIP will refund 50% of eligible expenses, compared with the normal 30%, to a total of $300,000 per individual or company.

I am pleased to announce that Elliot Lake will be the first community designated as eligible for funding under this community-centred program. A map showing the boundaries of the exact area eligible under this program will be published very shortly.

At this point, I would like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for the great assistance he has been to me and in cabinet in getting this program through.

We have also made a commitment to pursue negotiations with the federal government to renew COMDA. Projects under this agreement have proved very beneficial to the Ontario mining industry.

The initiatives announced today will complement and enhance the many other measures this government has introduced in order to ensure the continued success of the Ontario mining industry into the 1990s and beyond.

The Ontario mining industry contributes nearly $8 billion a year to the Ontario economy and employs more than 80,000 people. The Ontario government is committed to maintaining the strength of that industry and to the economic development and diversification of northern Ontario.

RIDE PROGRAM

Hon Mr Offer: The safety of the driving public across this province is a concern which we all share. I am pleased to announce today that my ministry has committed a further $1.2 million for the next two years to continue support of the reduce impaired driving everywhere program throughout Ontario. All municipal police forces in the province will be eligible to apply for this additional funding to support their local RIDE initiatives. This funding will keep the RIDE program operating province-wide on a year-round basis.

For the past two years, my ministry has provided municipal forces with funds which were used towards program delivery and to purchase and update existing equipment to operate RIDE. I am pleased to advise the House that in the past two years this funding has allowed 107 forces to participate in the RIDE program. During the first year of the program, over 2.4 million vehicles were screened by OPP and municipal police programs, resulting in over 15,000 12-hour suspensions and almost 10,000 criminal driving offences. This new funding means that street enforcement will be increased in many locations across the province during the next two years.

One of the great strengths of the RIDE program is that it has community roots. It symbolizes the proactive approach being taken in policing. RIDE originated in the city of Etobicoke some 13 years ago. The success of that program and the shared concern of all communities has resulted in the expansion of RIDE throughout the province.

My ministry is proud to support the RIDE program, an initiative that demonstrates a close working partnership between the community and the police who serve it.

The Speaker: Other statements? The Minister of the Environment.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is the Minister of the Environment making a statement?

The Speaker: A moment ago I recognized the minister to make a statement.

Mrs Marland: It is just that I do not have a copy.

The Speaker: Are copies available?

Hon Mr Bradley: Yes, they are.

An hon member: They’re on their way.

The Speaker: Would it be permissible for the minister to go ahead?

Mrs Marland: No. I would like the statement. I am not a speed reader.

The Speaker: Do you still want to open it?

Hon Mr Bradley: I want to wait until all the packages are opened.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There is still one missing, I guess. Shall we wait until you open it? Minister.

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS

Hon Mr Bradley: As members know, the stratospheric ozone layer filters out much of the sun’s ultraviolet light before it can reach the surface of the earth. Over the past 20 years, the ozone layer has shrunk by an estimated 3% due to human-made ozone-depleting substances.

Scientists warn that increases in ultraviolet radiation result in more skin cancers and cataracts, reduced crop yields and damage to aquatic life. They estimate that a 3% reduction in stratospheric ozone protection will produce 2,000 additional Canadian skin cancer victims each year.

On 16 February 1989, Ontario became the first province to act to protect the earth’s stratospheric ozone layer by introducing legislation empowering the government to control the use of ozone-destroying substances. The bill was passed and on 1 July 1989 the first provisions came into force banning the use of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, in the production of rigid foam packaging as well as most CFC aerosol propellants. In total, these actions reduced Ontario CFC use by an estimated 12%.

Today I am pleased to announce the second wave of CFC reductions. New regulations will phase out by 1993 the use of CFCs in producing rigid foam insulation and flexible foam used in furniture. Schedules for six subcategories each contain interim reductions, resulting in all being banned by 31 December 1993. CFC use as a foam-blowing agent accounts for an estimated 34% of Ontario’s CFC consumption.

Appliances, water heaters, refrigerated vehicles and rail cars are exempt from the rigid foam regulation until substitutes are developed. Reductions beyond those to be achieved in 1992 are contingent upon commercial availability of adequate supplies of substitute materials, as determined by the ministry.

As of 1 July 1990, the use of CFCs will be banned in slurries, which are used in preparing aerosols, as well as home repair kits for domestic refrigerators and automobile air-conditioners. The exemption for CFCs as aerosol propellants for certain drugs and medicines and for insulation foam products will be removed as of 1 July 1990. Slurries, repair kits and aerosol products account for an estimated 7% of Ontario’s CFC consumption.

The capture and recycling of CFCs during maintenance and servicing of automobile and bus air-conditioners and truck and rail car refrigeration units will be required as of 1 July 1991. Steps are also being taken to encourage development of a recycling infrastructure for commercial and institutional air-conditioning and refrigeration systems to capture and recycle CFCs during the servicing of these units.

The government anticipates mandating such recycling in the future, as well as requiring manufacturers and importers of CFCs to use recycled CFCs. In addition, Environment Ontario intends to initiate in the near future a pilot study in the Toronto area to collect and recycle CFCs from discarded refrigerators and freezers. This study will help to identify the best methods for recycling household appliance CFCs.

Ontario is now on track to reduce its use of CFCs and other ozone-destroying substances by more than half in the next few years. I am confident that the pressure the public and the government are placing on industry to get out of the CFC business as soon as possible will result in prompt compliance with these regulations and others which will follow.

Ontario’s CFC phase-out program is designed to complement the international Montreal Protocol agreement, which reduced the production of CFCs by systematically reducing the use of CFCs in our province. The new regulations were formulated in consultation with affected industries and Friends of the Earth, the leading Canadian environmental advocacy group in the field of ozone layer protection. I look forward to the day, as I am sure all members do, when all ozone-depleting substances have been completely eliminated from use.

RESPONSES

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Laughren: I wish to respond briefly to the Minister of Mines and his statement, which he thinks is going to bail out the Liberal Party all across northern Ontario.

If the minister thinks that $10 million a year in new money for the next three years is going to help his colleagues in northern Ontario, he is very sadly mistaken. How does that minister think northerners feel when one day they hear the Minister of Transportation and the Premier stand in their places and say