Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

COPIES OF BUDGET

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege on my behalf and perhaps on behalf of the other members of the assembly who are not privy or are not being made privy to the contents of the budget, I wonder if you, sir, would take up with the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. F. S. Miller) on our behalf the provision to each of the members of the assembly of a copy of the budget at the time the Treasurer commences reading so they will be able to follow closely what is being said.

I ask this because I am quite certain that you, with the assistance of your staff, can ensure the security of the document until that time. It is most important, I believe, when members of the press and when other of our colleagues in the House are now privy and will be privy to the budget that all of us have an opportunity to read it at the time the Treasurer is delivering it. I do not believe this is a significant departure and the question of security under your guidance is one that can be eliminated from the consideration of the question.

Mr. Speaker: I did have some advance notice that this might possibly arise and I am having my staff try to negotiate such an arrangement with the Treasurer. I will get back to the members on it as soon as possible.

DINNER FOR HAROLD ADAMSON

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of personal privilege. The media today report a provincially sponsored dinner in honour of Metropolitan Police Chief Harold Adamson which was held at the Inn on the Park last night. There might have been those who wondered whether the absence of Liberals from that dinner was an indication of something less than wholehearted support for Chief Harold Adamson’s career or for the police in general. I can assure you nothing could be further from the truth.

My colleagues and I have substantial support for Mr. Adamson’s career and we feel our privileges have been seriously negated by the government using funds voted for the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs to hold a dinner at which no representation from the opposition side of this Legislature was allowed. Some senior municipal officials were not allowed to be present either. It was described by the morning press as a family party.

I would suggest our privileges as members have been interfered with, not in that we were unable to partake of the richness of the hospitality offered from the public purse at the Inn on the Park, but in that it may be misunderstood by those citizens who could never imagine the government of the day acting in such a narrow-minded and political way in such an important community matter.

Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, would it be permissible for a member of this party to speak on the matter of privilege before the Attorney General is given the opportunity to respond?

Mr. Speaker: You need only rise to your feet and wait to be recognized.

Mr. Renwick: I was on my feet, Mr. Speaker, before the Attorney General was on his feet.

I want to join with the member who has just spoken in emphasizing to the Attorney General that this caucus and this party, and particularly the 14 members of this assembly representing Metropolitan Toronto, consider that their privileges were not only abused, but that the offices of the Attorney General and Solicitor General were used for political purposes on an occasion which should have been totally divorced from political consideration.

On a matter of privilege, it makes one wonder about the objectivity of the government in these affairs when it did not see fit over the weekend to have a representative at the dinner relating to the Chinese Canadian community when a matter of serious public concern was before the people.

I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General that I and my colleagues in this party, and particularly those from Metropolitan Toronto, resent and will not henceforth participate in a co-operative way with the minister and his government until after the next election.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Attorney General like to comment?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will comment very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I would simply like to characterize the questions of purported privilege which have been raised by the members opposite as total nonsense.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I regret that the members opposite would seek to choose this forum to spoil an occasion for one of the most dedicated public servants this province has seen in a long time. I would like to express my own personal sense of outrage that they would use this forum to try to stir up needless controversy about a dinner that has been held. I seldom hear such nonsense in this House, although it is not unique, given the sources of the statements that have been made. I am not going to dignify their comments by saying anything more at this time.

Mr. S. Smith: Speaking to the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General has now seen fit to suggest that when my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) rose to make clear to Chief Adamson that he has very many friends on all sides of this House, my colleague was somehow trying to cast an aspersion -- or east a pall -- over the entire dinner, which is most unfair. I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, in your consideration of this matter, that my colleague was careful to point out that Chief Adamson has many friends indeed for the excellent service he has given, including people on this side of the House, including the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.

At the dinner for His Eminence Cardinal Carter, for instance, the fact that nongovernmental members were left out in the audience and not seated at the head table, at least was not interpretable by His Eminence as any lack of respect for himself. In this instance, the fact that we were not there at all might have been interpreted by the chief as a lack of regard for him. We want to be clear, Mr. Speaker, that our privilege to be interpreted correctly will be upheld by this House, and that the chief will understand that had we been invited, we would have been more than happy to join with other Ontarians in recognizing that worthy and fine gentleman.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I too want to rise on the matter of privilege to say, in the first place, that under Chief Adamson Toronto has maintained one of the finest police forces, not only in Canada, but on the North American continent. That is something of which we are all proud, and members of this party, who have made contributions in terms of suggestions about the way in which policing could be improved in Metropolitan Toronto, have always done so recognizing the contribution that both Chief Adamson and people in local government have made to maintaining a very fine police force.

On the other point, as far as people in this party are concerned, we are growing very impatient with the constant use of public funds by the Conservative government of this province for partisan political advantage such as they showed last night by excluding the other parties. That has got to stop.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that all members who have spoken to the alleged point of privilege have expressed their views and their consternation about being left off the invitation list. You have made your point quite clear. It is not within the purview of the chair to check invitation lists of whatever happens to be going on in Ontario. There is nothing more you can expect me to do other than listen to your displeasure with what has taken place.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FAMILY BENEFITS GUIDELINES

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I won’t make it a matter of personal privilege, but I think you ought to know that I wasn’t invited either on that occasion, if it is any consolation to the honourable members opposite.

On a number of occasions I have indicated my intention to make available to members of the House and to the public, the various guidelines, standards and manuals used by my ministry for the delivery of services to our clients.

I am pleased to advise the House and the public that I have arranged for distribution to each honourable member a copy of the policy and procedural guidelines for the family benefits program administered by my ministry. For their further information, it is my intention to provide updated material concerning these guidelines to each honourable member on a continuing basis as changes occur. In this regard, I also intend to make available the policy guidelines relating to general welfare assistance and legal aid assessment in the very near future.

The policy and procedural guidelines I am releasing today apply to approximately 115,000 recipients who are currently receiving family benefits allowances. My ministry also receives about 3,000 applications and reapplications per month. I believe this reflects very clearly our continuing policy of providing better access to the criteria used for program decision-making to the public at large. In keeping with this, my ministry will be making available, on request, copies of these guidelines to the public, concerned agencies and advocacy groups through the income maintenance branch of the ministry.

Yesterday afternoon during consideration of the 1979-80 supplementary estimates of my ministry, I was asked about the availability of similar policy guidelines for the vocational rehabilitation program. I am providing copies of these to the opposition leaders and critics today. Due to the volume of paper and technical details involved, additional copies are not being distributed to all members of the Legislature and the press gallery today. They will be available, on request, from Peter Crichton, executive coordinator, adult social services.

I would like to point out that the vocational rehabilitation manuals were first published in 1975 and revised in 1978. Copies were provided at the time to concerned agencies directly involved in providing vocational rehabilitation services to clients. To the best of my knowledge they had never been requested before by any member of this House. I would also note that these manuals are only as useful as they are up-to-date. We will also undertake, therefore, to provide revisions to the vocational rehabilitation policy manuals to members on a continuing basis as changes occur.

The release of those guidelines is another sign of an open and responsive government continuing to enhance services to our clients in this province.

FISH TESTING AND INFORMATION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, as is traditional at this time of year, I would like to report to the members on Ontario’s fish testing and information program just prior to the opening of the 1980 fish season this Saturday.

Many of the members are aware that Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to undertake a comprehensive program to test sport fish for possible contamination and to recommend safe consumption guidelines based on our test results. We do this for two reasons: to assure anglers that what they catch can be eaten safely, and to monitor water quality trends across the province, since fish are good indicators of how effectively our pollution control programs are working.

Mr. Kerrio: Or not working.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The member should wait and listen. He should be quiet and he would hear some very good news.

For the past four years we have provided this test information to the public in a convenient, easy-to-read yet comprehensive form, and we have issued monthly bulletins as tests were completed on new lakes and rivers.

In this regard I am pleased to report to the members that test results completed during the past year continue to confirm the majority of Ontario’s waters yield healthy fish. Over 11,000 fish from 250 lakes and rivers across the province were tested by our laboratories.

Copies of the 1980 editions of our bilingual publications, Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, are being released today and will be available to the public throughout the province. Members have a set of these three booklets and I will be pleased to provide more upon request. These 1980 editions provide the results from tests completed to date on more than 54,000 fish taken from 878 lakes, rivers and parts of the Great Lakes.

2:20 p.m.

In fact, in 94.3 per cent of the waters tested, or 828, some or all sizes and species of fish were found to be suitable for unrestricted consumption -- that is, 21 meals per week. This compares with 93.3 per cent of the waters tested, or 583, up to last year. in 5.5 per cent of the waters tested, or 48, we recommended restricted consumption of all species and sizes tested. This is down from 6.6 per cent reported last year.

In only 0.2 per cent of the water bodies tested, or two, do we recommend no consumption of any fish tested. These two locations are on the Wabigoon River below Dryden and nearby in Clay Lake. On Clay Lake, a federal-provincial task force is continuing the investigation of possible remedial measures to counteract the mercury problem.

These facts are documented in our booklets, Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, which are published in three editions -- northern Ontario, southern Ontario and the Great Lakes. They are available without charge from offices of the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources and in northern Ontario from the Ministry of Northern Affairs. These booklets will also be available at vacation outlets of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Brewers’ Retail stores during the spring and summer months. I would also like to report to members that the 1979 booklets were extremely well received by the public. Over 170,000 copies were distributed during the past year. As a result of the effectiveness of these publications, other jurisdictions are beginning to follow Ontario’s lead. Quebec has now instituted a similar program and there is considerable interest from neighbouring US states such as New York and Michigan.

While the statement does not say it, I wish you, Mr. Speaker, and through you the other members of this House, good fishing.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Would the Premier know whether the Minister of Industry and Tourism will be in later?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He will be coming in.

JAIL REMANDS

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask my first question of the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker), Mr. Speaker. The minister will remember his statement that thousands of people were spending time in Ontario jails unnecessarily. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has stated that this view is totally unsupported from any evidence he has seen. That is a direct quote from the Attorney General.

The Attorney General also stated that he has discussed the matter with the Minister of Correctional Services. Could this minister tell this House whether they have resolved their differences in this matter? Can he tell us whether it is or is not true that thousands of people are needlessly and unnecessarily spending their time in Ontario jails?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify again the essence of the report that appeared in the Globe and Mail about a week and a half ago. I indicated at that time that on a study done of about 23,000 remanded people, some 17,000 did not ultimately end up incarcerated even though they spent a period of time prior to the trial on remand.

When asked some of the reasons why, I indicated a number of the reasons. I indicated that some were acquitted; that some were given credit for the time spent; that some, perhaps, got probation or got suspended sentences. I then went on to indicate that some of the reasons related to lawyers. In some cases lawyers were busy. In some cases I suggested there was some finagling of the system. I suggested that there might be the shopping of judges, or whatever -- sometimes attempts to delay.

The newspaper chose to highlight one aspect of that. I do not think the Attorney General and I disagree at all with respect to the figures. These figures are around and have been available for same time. I know that he would support the fact that the figures are there. I think the difference is in the interpretation of the figures. There is a disagreement on, basically, the interpretations of the figures among a number of sources. We have our views on them, but basically the Attorney General and I are in satisfactory agreement on how they are interpreted.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: The minister stated in this House on April 14, and I quote, “That has to suggest that a large number are serving sentences prior to trial, and obviously in an unnecessary way if the numbers are that dramatic, and we think they are.”

Since the minister stated that after he was given the opportunity to explain his comments in the Globe and Mail, and since the Attorney General continues to say he has seen no evidence that many people are in jail needlessly and that it is totally unsupported by evidence, will the minister attempt to resolve this matter and tell us frankly how he can say there is no disagreement? It is obvious the disagreement has not been resolved.

Will the minister also tell us whether the study upon which the original figure of 17,000 was based, the internal study in his ministry, will be released to this House, and whether the Attorney General has yet looked at that study?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I want to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that the study, Prisoners Remanded in Custody, prepared by Paul R. A. Stanley and Associates, ARA Consultants Limited, in November 1977, was sent to the Liberal caucus office in November or December 1977. The member has the study; he might like to look at it.

In addition to that, if the member would like another study, Description of Ontario’s Jail Population, by Patrick G. Madden of the planning and research branch of the Ministry of Correctional Services, was published in November 1978, and in December 1978 it too was sent to the Liberal caucus office. The member might like to go back to his library and he will find the copies of the report. There they are; the information is available.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to redirect a supplementary to the Attorney General and ask him, because the facts are in front of us and since he now realizes there is a serious problem, which he didn’t admit before, instead of accepting the Minister of Correctional Services’ approach to dump all over the lawyers, what does he intend to do to solve this serious problem so that we don’t end up with 17,000 people in just six months needlessly spending time in jail?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, since I disagree fairly fundamentally with most of what the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) has said in his question, it is pretty difficult to provide an answer.

The Minister of Correctional Services has quite properly expressed his concern in relation to trial delays, for example, when these matters could proceed more expeditiously, and I understand his concerns in that regard. Certainly one of the highest priorities in the Ministry of the Attorney General has been to provide a better framework within which cases will be heard more expeditiously without detracting from the fairness of the process.

There are a number of elements involved in relation to getting these matters on for trial, as the honourable member knows. I know he has spent some time acquainting himself, very effectively I think, with the problems of the courts and I appreciate his concerns in this regard. We face, on a day-to-day basis, problems in relation to scheduling of cases, availability of lawyers, availability of witnesses and a host of other factors which I will be delighted to continue to discuss with the member and others during the current discussion of the ministry’s estimates.

As to the bald statement that 17,000 people are needlessly in jail, what that means, of course, is that different people have different interpretations. I just don’t accept that statement. The people who are awaiting trial in custody are there because there has been a judicial determination resulting in their incarceration pending the trial in the absence of posting of bail, for example.

The matter is obviously a very complex one and I will be happy to pursue the issue with the member during the estimates.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General: Since his colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) has indicated his report has been widely disseminated, and he is a little belligerent about that, it also must have gone to the Attorney General. Would the Attorney General still say there is absolutely no statistical evidence for the statement made by his colleague and his superior in the matter of policy, the Provincial Secretary for Justice?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I really think the members opposite, for reasons that are quite obvious, are attempting to suggest there is some great controversy or some substantial disagreement between the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Ministry of the Attorney General. I can indicate that just doesn’t happen to be the case.

Mr. Lawlor: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Correctional Services: In his opinion, is the operation of legal aid the prime or a substantive cause of these incarcerations?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I think there are probably many reasons for them and there is no doubt that possibly legal aid has some possible impact on it, I would not consider it to be the overriding influence. There are many reasons that go into the complex consideration here.

I would say the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Correctional Services have done a great deal in attempting to alleviate the problem as best they can. The Attorney General has added a good number of judges to attempt to clear up any impact of the overloading of the courts. The Provincial Offences Act, which came into being on March 31, will have a dramatic effect in changing some of that.

Indeed, the bail supervision project that our Ministry of Correctional Services has implemented has also done a great deal to attempt to resolve the problem. To attempt to ascribe it to any single reason is not appropriate.

MINAKI LODCE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). If I recall correctly, the minister said yesterday with regard to Minaki Lodge that after the government puts another $12 million or so into it, at best some five years down the road there will be a positive cash flow in the neighbourhood of $600,000 which would make it in the minister’s words “a going concern.” The minister, however, failed to point out that when he spoke of that cash flow he left out a very small item which had to do with the interest on the money borrowed to put the $12 million in. Would the minister care to tell the House how he calculates the interest on the additional $12 million and what that does to the cash flow figures over the next several years?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in looking at Minaki Lodge, may I say I think it is only fair to the people of northwestern Ontario to try to look at it on the same basis as we would look at a convention centre proposal for Metropolitan Toronto, which I remind the honourable member he and his party are strongly supportive of, and in the same fashion in which we look at Ontario Place. In all those instances we make a major capital investment, and commit those investments and those funds and those structures to the tourist industry of Ontario in the particular parts of the province in which they are located.

I remind the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) that it is well known, to take an example, that the Toronto convention centre not only will not be able to service its capital debt on the basis of the money flowing into that centre itself, but will indeed on an operating basis, unlike Minaki Lodge, lose about half a million dollars a year. Ontario Place will likely continue to lose about half a million dollars a year at the same time at which Minaki Lodge is bringing in revenue of about $600,000 per year.

If the members want to compare them in terms of the benefits they bring to the province, I only say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he wants to deal in the cost of that money, then let him do it on all three. If he does it on the same basis, I know his tourism critic will then withdraw his support for the Toronto convention centre.

For our side, we believe very strongly that we have to build the tourism infrastructure important to each part of the province.

Mr. Eakins: You’re wiggling out of it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are not wiggling out of it. I am telling the honourable member, clearly, honestly, and directly that in terms of the revenue that will come into Minaki Lodge and the cash flow we gave yesterday of $600,000 in year five, we made no calculation whatsoever for the cost of carrying the capital investment on that building. We will be doing exactly the same on the Toronto convention centre which, in terms of building for building, will lose us more money than Minaki Lodge will bring us.

Mr. S. Smith: I can hardly believe the minister believes what he is saying. Is it the government’s intention to create a money-losing situation only where there are convention centres which, after all, have as their main purpose the drawing to a city of large conventions with all the ancillary hotels, restaurants, amusements and other spending, or does he intend also to have the government open a chain of hotels designed to lose money in wilderness situations? Surely the two are not comparable.

Will the minister admit that after he has put the $12 million into Minaki Lodge, anybody who would want to buy it would have to pay interest on his money and that the most the minister could ever hope to get for it, even five years down the road at his most optimistic projection, would be approximately $4 million?

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question there?

Mr. S. Smith: Yes. Would he admit that the most he could get out of it would be approximately $4 million the day after he puts the $12 million in? Does that not seem to him a very strange way to do the business of the province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I only say to the Leader of the Opposition that he could not get me a customer for the Toronto convention centre who would buy that convention centre --

Mr. S. Smith: Of course not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Right. The same as the Hamilton --

Mr. S. Smith: It is not a hotel.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Exactly the point. I am glad the member has agreed. The Leader of the Opposition finally seems to --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ll bet no one over there has been to Minaki. I’ll bet not one of them has been to Minaki.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are all experts on it even though they have not been there.

I think the Leader of the Opposition in his uncontrollable interjections finally has acknowledged that in terms of measuring the value of these investments one cannot measure the cash flow in the building alone. That is ludicrous. Anyone who looks at tourism investment -- including the member’s tourism critic, who has been begging for the Toronto convention centre, and the Leader of the Opposition, who has been begging for support for the Hamilton convention centre, which this government provided -- and measures it in terms of that building alone, does not make sense.

If it is measured in terms of the dollars and social benefits it brings to the community, it is an enormous success. We are willing to take that risk for northwestern Ontario. The opposition leader is not willing to take it, but then again he has never been there.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Seeing that the minister is prepared to put $25 million into Minaki, is he prepared to put a couple of hundred million into Bending Lake to ensure that --

Mr. Speaker: That is not supplementary --

Mr. Martel: Certainly --

Mr. Speaker: No. That is not supplementary.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister tell this House whether a study concerning Minaki Lodge was undertaken recently by a consulting firm either for his ministry or for the Minaki task force? If so, what was the mandate of the consultants and what were their recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, their recommendations were that a lodge would be viable. We drew these figures based upon the recommendations of that consulting firm, and it is upon these figures, roughly drawn by the consulting company, that Radisson Hotels decided to go into the project.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary: Since the minister insists on comparing apples and oranges and comparing Minaki to a convention centre, would he not think it more appropriate to compare this whole deal to a white elephant sale?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker. I see no comparison between this deal and the member’s last leadership convention.

2:40 p.m.

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) about the proposal to burn coal at Nanticoke in order to generate electricity and ship it under water through Lake Erie to the United States. Has the minister informed the Premier (Mr. Davis) that the burning of coal at Nanticoke to export electricity will add to the acid rain problem which is threatening Ontario’s prime tourist areas? In view of the Premier’s answers to this question last week, does he feel that the Premier knows which way the wind is blowing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: At this moment from there to here.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in this province who understands wind --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No one in this province understands wind and direction and all of those things -- in fact, understands any issue -- as well as the Premier does. One thing that he does not do is shoot the breeze like the members opposite.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the minister has effectively said that the Premier’s view on the wind going south overrules his view on the wind over Nanticoke which brings sulphur dioxide and, therefore, acid rain into our prime tourist areas, could we have an assurance here and now from the Minister of the Environment that the proposals to export electricity from Nanticoke under Lake Erie will be subjected to the full environmental assessment procedure under Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The answer to the latter part of that question is yes. It was always the intent of Ontario Hydro and they understand it. That should be very thoroughly understood. The best interests of this province and the best interests of the North American continent will be fully assessed during those debates.

I would also like to draw the attention of the members again to this particular statement which seems somehow to be confused. There is an interchange, if you will, of the terms “acid rain” and “sulphur dioxide” emissions. They are not necessarily one and the same. I am not saying there is no relationship. I want to make that very clear. I think, however, when members are dealing with emissions, they must make sure they are doing just that and not taking the next, and frequently logical, step that such emissions are the same as acid rain.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the Minister of the Environment also assure the House that in the environmental assessment proceedings he has promised on this proposal to export electricity there will be none of the exemptions which Ontario Hydro was seeking before the Porter commission and which would effectively remove a great deal of the power of the Environmental Assessment Board in carrying out its hearings?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I know of no exemptions that would be applied. I would like to take that question to some degree as notice, because I would not wish to misinform the honourable member on his legitimate question and his concern which I am sure we all share. I certainly express the Premier’s concern on the issue. I need not remind the honourable member of the Premier’s statement on the issue in Dallas. I just want to be very sure in responding to his question that I am 100 per cent correct. If I am not, I will certainly let the member know, but I believe I can offer him those assurances today.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary to the minister. Is there any truth in the fact that the type of coal now being burned at the Nanticoke plant is banned in the United States because of its high sulphur content?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I cannot answer that yes or no, but I do know the amount of coal we use in Ontario is relatively small, I know the content of the sulphur portion of the coal is relatively small and I know this -- I only learned this figure this morning -- all of Ontario Hydro emissions do not begin to equal the emissions from what the US considers one small plant in Mitchell. It is about fourth on their list.

Frankly, I found that hard to believe. This morning, for the first time, I saw the total list of US emissions. It is an interesting fact that all of Ontario Hydro’s plants put together do not begin to equal the output from one US plant.

Mr. Cassidy: I hope the minister will table that document he just referred to.

ASBESTOS HAZARDS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), Mr. Speaker, arising from his statement yesterday that there is a nominal roll or a tracing list of workers which has been prepared of the workers at Johns-Manville Canada Incorporated who may have been exposed to asbestos and that he expects to have that in the near future.

In view of his repeated statement that there are lists being prepared of workers who are exposed to asbestos, can the minister explain why neither the president of the local at Johns-Manville nor the Canadian Textile and Chemical Union is aware of such a list and why the United Steelworkers of America, which has repeatedly asked for tracing of workers who may have been exposed to asbestos, is also not aware of any such list being prepared? If there is a list being prepared, why is it being done in such secrecy, or is there in fact any tracing taking place at all?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I might point out it is far from secret, because I quite distinctly recall making a statement in this House outlining that very fact. I think it was approximately a year ago. There is anything but a secret about it. I am sure if the member reads Hansard it will verify that.

As to why the union involved and other unions would not know about it, frankly I don’t know, but I have no problem discussing it with the unions involved there or at any other site if they wish to speak to me about it.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact that as long ago as 1977 the United Steelworkers made an offer to the Ministry of Labour that they were prepared to co-operate in tracing workers who had been exposed to asbestos, why was that offer never taken up by the Ministry of Labour? Why is it that also in 1977 the then Minister of Labour (Miss Stephenson) talked about developing an asbestos register on current and former workers at Johns-Manville but no effort was then or has subsequently been made to contact the chemical workers’ union at Johns-Manville?

How does the government expect to find out who those workers are if it rejects offers of assistance from the unions and never contacts them to get their co-operation in tracing workers who have been exposed to asbestos on the job?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know of no rejection of an offer from the union. Indeed, I recall about a month ago, when I was inquiring about the status of the nominal roll from Johns-Manville, asking my staff if they had been in touch with the particular union involved and they indicated they would be doing so as soon as Statistics Canada information came back. There is no desire to hide anything from anybody.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister is aware of the problems with Bendix Eclipse in the city of Windsor in their two plants, and now essentially just the one plant. Has the minister prepared lists of workers who have been exposed --

Mr. Speaker: What has that got to do with Johns-Manville?

Mr. B. Newman: -- to asbestos in the Bendix plant in the Windsor area?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice and inquire whether there are any lists being prepared of employees at that plant.

Mr. Cassidy: A final supplementary: Can the minister explain how his occupational health hazard branch and the ministry generally can maintain confidence among workers and the unions that an adequate job is being done of tracing workers who may have been exposed to asbestos when on December 13, 1977, the former president of the chemical workers’ union at Johns-Manville was told by the then Minister of Labour (Miss Stephenson) that the government was developing an asbestos register on current and former workers, and yet there has been no contact with the union and apparently there will not be such contact until the list has been entirely developed?

2:50 p.m.

Why are the workers not being consulted on the way the list is being developed? Why can they not co-operate on this? Why are they excluded? When will the minister get workers involved through the unions to ensure that every worker across the province who may have been exposed to asbestos is contacted and informed, and we can find out whether their health has been damaged by that exposure? Why can the minister not start getting serious about this question?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With the greatest of respect, I think the member is inaccurate when he suggests there is any desire or intent to exclude anybody. Where else could one get the records of the names than from the company’s list of employees? We have done that. There are some 5,000 names from that particular company.

I have clearly told the honourable member that my instructions to staff are that as soon as the Statistics Canada information comes back with those names, they are to sit down and discuss it with the union to see if they have any comments on it. The member knows very well that throughout my ministry there are consistent endeavours to involve the trade union movement as well as management in activities related to occupational health and safety.

CONFEDERATION OF TOMORROW CONFERENCE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Davis). Could the Premier confirm or deny a comment in today’s Globe and Mail, in Geoffrey Stevens’ column, as follows: “Ontario Premier William Davis and Saskatchewan Premier Allan Blakeney have been discussing a 1980 revival of John Robarts’ 1967 Confederation of Tomorrow Conference. The idea is that the provinces would meet after the referendum, without benefit of Mr. Trudeau’s presence, to chart a common course.” Would the Premier confirm or deny this initiative, and would he undertake to keep this House advised considering our commitment to renewed federalism and our nonpartisan approach to this whole question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any discussions with Premier Blakeney along those lines.

AUTO INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

Hon. Mr. Davis: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question asked by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) on Friday last, when I did not have access to the most up-to-date information. He asked me if I would use my good offices to see if American Motors (Canada) Limited would change from Jeep production to small cars. I would like to advise the honourable member -- not because of his question, although I had some insights on Friday, but was not at liberty to disclose them -- that American Motors has announced today that it is converting to the production of its most popular selling vehicles, the Eagle station wagon plus the Concord.

Retooling will cost about $6.5 million. Employment figures will be comparable to those they have at present. As has been indicated, it will provide a degree of stability and encouragement. I wanted the honourable member to know that has happened as of today.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I will allow a brief supplementary. The Premier jumped the gun; he is mixing two things. If the member has one in response to a question asked earlier, I will hear that; then we will get back to the main question.

Mr. Roy: Mine was on the constitution and we ended up with cars.

Mr. Cassidy: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is that in view of the fact most of the workers involved at American Motors have run through their supplementary unemployment benefits and many will have no rights to unemployment insurance at all over the four or five months that the retooling is going to take place, has the Premier had assurances from American Motors that there will be income protection for the workers? Will this government make a plea for transitional assistance benefits to protect the workers of American Motors and other workers in the auto industry affected by technological change?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This point has been made relative to the automotive industry. Certainly this further intention of American Motors will he communicated to the federal authorities. Some personnel will, of course, be retained. I am only going by memory here, but I think a number of them with seniority are entitled to four weeks’ vacation, which also assists in the conversion process. The latter aspect will be brought to the attention of the federal government.

CONFEDERATION OF TOMORROW CONFERENCE

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the Premier on my original question: without having discussed this matter with Premier Blakeney, could the Premier advise whether anyone within the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs has taken any initiative to set up this type of 1967 Confederation of Tomorrow conference? Would the Premier agree that it might not be a good idea, in setting up this type of conference, to exclude federal participation, considering that the federal government received, after all, an overwhelming mandate just a few months ago? Is it the Premier’s plan for such a conference, to invite all the Premiers of all the provinces, no matter what the results of the referendum are?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really thought I had heeded, because I was trying to, the members’ advice of the other day to shorten my responses, even though the questions opposite appear to be getting longer.

I said, very simply, there hasn’t been any conversation. I don’t know of any conversation from anyone in my office or in the government.

EXAMINATION OF MINERS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). With the present conflicting evidence of arsenic levels in the miners at Atikokan, and with the urgency now that the Caland Mines pelletizing plant will be closing at the end of this month, will the Minister of Labour order immediately, rather than just recommend, that exit medical examinations be conducted for every worker leaving Atikokan? This would enable us to track them down, should evidence of occupational disease mount in coming weeks and months.

After that order, would he not ensure that every worker is provided with a copy of the results of the examination?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) suggests, it was suggested to the company and to the union that such examinations be carried out. If he has any evidence that they are not being carried out in the case of each and every worker, I will be glad to consider his recommendation. I agree with him that there should be an adequate record of each worker kept, following the closure of that plant, for future information.

The second question had to do with the availability of medical reports directly to workers. As the member well knows -- and I am sure one member of his party would know -- the traditional point of view has been that the family physician is probably in the best position to interpret a medical report for his patient. As the member knows, that is a view that will come under scrutiny in the Krever commission and in the freedom of information commission. I will be glad to review the results of those studies. They have indirect reference to the principle we are talking about. It is in that regard that I will be interested in those studies.

With regard to the first part of the question, I will certainly review it and see if there is any suggestion that all workers are not being examined.

Mr. Foulds: Has the Minister of Labour not been made aware that in order to get an exit medical, the workers have had to sign a form that provides the company with the results of that medical but does not provide them with a copy of that medical? Not only that, they have to sign a form that gives the company access to their entire medical record. Does he not find that uneven justice?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: My understanding was that a copy of the report was to be supplied to the individual’s family physician as well. But the member will also be interested to know that I have already asked the occupational health and safety division to review the whole matter of worker examinations in that region.

SOVIET PRODUCTS IN LCBO STORES

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea).

In this morning’s edition of the Toronto Sun, I noticed an article saying that some employees have asked for the withdrawal of some products of the Soviet Union from the shelves of stores of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. In view of the fact that this House has put forward a resolution condemning the activities of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with regard to Afghanistan and the Olympics, what action will the minister be taking on the petition from those employees of the LCBO?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario some two months ago cancelled all dealings with the state agency of the Soviet government involving supplies of Russian-produced alcohol.

I emphasize that the chairman of the LCBO, Mr. Bosworth, did that. I think Mr. Bosworth deserves a very great deal of credit. There will be no further supplies of Russian-produced alcoholic beverages in the LCBO stores. There is still a minimum of product; most of it is out of stock. That stock is paid for by the LCBO at the time of acquisition and we cannot return it; so what little bit remains will be sold. I do not think anybody is missing anything. It is not a very good product anyway.

MAPLE DUMP SITE

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) concerning the Maple landfill site. Now that the Ontario Municipal Board has given approval, with conditions, to the establishment of a garbage dump at Maple in the town of Vaughan, will the minister demonstrate a little initiative and imagination and enter into negotiations with the promoters and owners of the dump who, by the way, are prepared to reduce the risk of polluting the local water supply? Will he negotiate, or even require them as an added condition of ministerial approval, to construct a reclamation plant on the site so that the risk of contamination of the local water supply will be even further reduced and some sort of useful purpose could be made of the site? Instead of merely burying garbage, at least a portion of it could be converted into some form of usable energy.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member meant the OMB or the Environmental Appeal Board. I get the message that it is the Environmental Appeal Board, and if my calendar or arithmetic is correct, the possibility of an appeal still exists. As the member perhaps knows, that appeal would be to myself and, therefore, it would be absolutely wrong for me to deal specifically with the question as it relates to the application of any of the conditions that may or may not be placed on that particular pit.

Having said that, and now divorcing myself completely from that application and that appeal process, in the last month I have spoken three or four times around this province strongly recommending as much recycling of our waste as is humanly possible.

Mr. Stong: Is the minister undertaking to carry that same attitude into negotiations or discussions on this particular site?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it would be unwise of me to make any comments about this site at this time.

MOOSE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) regarding conservation and moose management. What is the response of the minister to the position taken by the president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, that the minister’s “new plan ignores most of the meaningful recommendations of the federation” with regard to the moose season?

Specifically, can the minister explain why he chose the pair licence system instead of accepting the federation’s proposal for an optional party licence and why he did not maintain a fixed Monday opening day and the one-day head start for resident hunters over nonresidents? Why did he cut the season for Ontarians more than he did for non- residents?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, in northeastern Ontario there was no advance season for residents last year. In northwestern Ontario there was a one-week advance season. We have reduced that to three days. The reason for that, and for the pairs in hunting, was basically to reduce the harvest. What we are trying to do is to control the number of hunters, to keep the season standard and to apply the controls to the hunters based on the resource in the various zones.

I must say I am looking again at the question of the size of the group.

Mr. Wildman: Would the minister not agree that shortening the season for non-residents to a lesser extent than for residents has very little to do with actual conservation? Can he also explain why, with regard to the public meetings held across the province -- which overwhelmingly favoured restrictions on the nonresidents’ hunting seasons before restrictions on residents -- he has not made the results available to the federation, since the federation claims the optional party licences actually would cut the moose kill more than the pair licences the minister has gone for?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I can best answer that by saying I expect to be meeting with the president and the executive director of the OFAH in the near future, but my information is that the results of the public meetings around the province were pretty well applied to the policy we adopted. Of course, there were suggestions that we reduce the nonresidents’ season even more but, looking at the economic factors involved in the north, we decided what we were doing would be reasonably fair to both residents and non-residents.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When is the minister going to take under advisement the recommendation that he manage the moose herds as they do in the Scandinavian countries, where they now have more moose than the hunters can kill off? When is the minister going to manage the herds instead of the hunters and develop moose herds in Ontario like those that used to exist in the past?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, there is a vast difference between the operations in this province in the past and what has happened in Scandinavian countries. As a matter of fact, I think it is fair to say -- Mr. Speaker, if the person asking the question is listening, I would like to direct my remarks to him -- their problem is that they have too many. In fact, I understand there are areas where they have electric eyes that will turn on a traffic light and tell the motorists to stop because a moose is coming across the road.

They have tied in their moose management with their reforestation practices, which we now are doing; we have just started that. If the honourable member recalls the debate on the amendment to the Crown Timber Act, he will get the rest of the details.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT HEARINGS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle). In view of the fact that the Niagara Escarpment phase one hearings, now being held at Ancaster, are being labelled a farce by some of the newspapers and by some of the participants because the hearings are not being transcribed and witnesses are not being sworn in, and in view of the fact that the public cannot attend every day, would the provincial secretary direct the Niagara Escarpment Commission to have the hearing tapes transcribed and made available to the public?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows the hearing officer, Mr. McCrae, is a very experienced person. He has had more than 20 years, I believe, at the Ontario Municipal Board, and he was in charge of the public hearings on the parkway belt. He has mentioned that if they want transcripts they can have transcripts. He made it known that if they wanted the transcripts they could be made available, but they would have to be paid for by those who wished to have them.

As for the witnesses being under oath, this is not an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. These are public hearings for the purposes of providing information; so there is no reason the witnesses should be under oath.

Mr. McKessock: In view of the fact that one of the witnesses admitted at the hearing that he would not need to worry so much about misleading statements because he was not giving them under oath so he could not be held liable, does the provincial secretary not feel for this reason the statements should be made under oath because of the misleading statements that have been made in the past when the first plan for the Niagara Escarpment was out? Further to that, does he not feel it is actually a bit much for the public to pay for these transcripts when usually they are provided by the hearings themselves?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No. Those who attend those hearings can certainly make notes if they want to. I understand the transcript would cost at least $100 a day, and maybe more. We hope those hearings will not go on too long, but they could go on for quite some time. I do not feel the public should be paying for the information that those who are there can get by making their own notes.

I do not believe that being under oath is necessary. This is not a public inquiry. These are hearings to provide information.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Is the minister aware that the hearing officer will not permit or hear any submissions made relative to enlarging the planning area even to take in environmentally sensitive areas? In view of the fact there has never been any order through this House which limits those planning boundaries, will the minister direct the hearing officer to hear such submissions?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: About the only people who favour this crazy project, which involves hundreds of millions of dollars of someone else’s land, are people who have nothing whatsoever to do with it and do not live near it. The people on the payroll spent maybe a $10-million budget over the past three years. In view of the fact that we are cutting back on everything else, so that people cannot keep their farms or mortgages, et cetera, why does he not consider this as expendable and cancel the whole project? Everyone is in favour of that. Can the minister stand up and answer my question? He must know what is going on.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, is the honourable member speaking for his party or is he saying that his party is not in support of this very valuable provincial asset? Is that what the member is saying?

Mr. Sargent: I am speaking about the people in my area. We are fed up to the teeth with what is being done.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier (Mr. Davis). In view of his reputation as a devotee of opinion polls, both public and private, in view of strong statements made by the national president of his party and in view of statements attributed to the Premier in the Toronto Star on July 26, 1979, about the need for control, can the Premier tell the House what plans he has in terms of legislation to either control or ban the publication of opinion polls during the period of an election?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the party opposite is opposed to any such legislation, and we are not contemplating it.

Mr. Samis: Is there any truth to the report in the Toronto Star that the Attorney General’s office last year had instructed an official to draw up possible legislation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think there was some indication, and I think one of the private members introduced legislation on this. I am not sure.

Mr. Breithaupt: There was a resolution in the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, there was a resolution in the House, and I think there has been some discussion.

URANIUM CONTRACTS

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier regarding the uranium deal. He knows about that. The government, via the Premier, has made a $339-million, interest-free loan which eventually will cost us $372 million in interest on top of the $7-billion loan for 40 years. The farmers and small businessmen in my area are suffering very badly. If there is no relief, no interest-free loans for farmers and businessmen tomorrow, will the Premier give them the same treatment -- $339 million -- that he gave interest-free to Denison Mines as a precedent?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the transaction was with Rio Algom Limited, but I do not recall all the details. I would only say to the honourable member --

Mr. J. Reed: You should remember.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not have them here at my fingertips. I could rush over and get them from Jimmy Deeks. I know he has them at his fingertips. Look at him chuckling there under the gallery. I would say to the honourable member, I understand his concern about his constituents. I have some constituents who are involved in the agricultural industry, and this government is quite concerned, quite sympathetic. I really do not think I quite follow the relationship in the question that has been asked. If the member is asking if we are concerned about the agricultural community, the answer is yes.

Mr. Sargent: Would the Premier tell me -- I have asked the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) repeatedly -- how much of the $339 million in progress payments has been spent to date? The minister will not tell me. Does the Premier know?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No.

Mr. Sargent: Will the Premier find out?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I will endeavour to.

HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS IN URANIUM MINES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). In view of the fact that approximately two weeks ago the federal authorities indicated they were going to pass a special order in council bringing the uranium miners from Elliot Lake under the provincial legislation, has the minister’s office been advised that that has occurred? If not, would he be willing to contact Ottawa to find out when they intend to pass that order in council?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of that information. I heard it on the radio as I was driving from somewhere to the north recently. We did contact the federal government, and such an order in council has not been passed yet.

AUTO DEALER BANKRUPTCIES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea). Is the minister aware of reports with respect to the bankruptcies of two Chrysler dealerships in the Ottawa area? I believe the names are Parkway and Orleans. Is the minister also aware of reports that certain persons who have made deposits for vehicles are not having these deposits returned them, presumably under terms of the assets in bankruptcy, so that eventually they may lose these funds or else will be unable to proceed with the purchase of the vehicles for which they had contracted?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I was aware that one Chrysler dealership in the Ottawa area was in receivership. I am not familiar with the assets in bankruptcy or the deposit situation since that is under the superintendent of bankruptcy. However, I will pursue the matter. But I would suggest to the member that a deposit against a future consideration quite often becomes a very technical point in a bankruptcy. It is very seldom a very clear obligation or a very clear matter.

In any event, I will look into those two cases and determine if there is any deposit money involved at the present stage of the receivership.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: My colleague is absolutely right. There are more than two dealerships, though two are Chrysler dealers, and in particular the Parkway Chrysler situation is much larger. Is the minister aware of the fact that apparently, according to the legal counsel of the firm, the deposit is not returnable to the consumer? Apparently, it is stated by the consumers’ association, at least in Ottawa, provincial legislation makes no commitment or does not force or protect consumers in such situations. Would the minister give some consideration, if that is a fact, to amending consumer legislation, because it is a provincial responsibility to protect consumers in Ontario against such results?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter with the Hon. Allan Lawrence last fall when he was the federal minister. For 12 years the federal government, for one reason or another, has not brought the Bankruptcy Act up to the latter part of the 20th century. At the dominion-provincial conference in St. John’s, Newfoundland, there was a commitment by the minister. As a matter of fact, the person from the bankruptcy division of his ministry left immediately to go back to draft the statute that would remedy some of these situations. Under the present status of the Bankruptcy Act -- and I think that is the key, because we can pass all the statutes we want -- bankruptcy is purely and simply a federal matter.

At the first opportunity I have to discuss this matter with the new minister, Mr. Ouellet -- and I know Mr. Ouellet’s feelings from the past about the Bankruptcy Act -- I will suggest that one of the things that all 10 provincial consumer ministers want is that Bankruptcy Act brought up to date.

3:20 p.m.

I suggest that the difficulties are that we can pass all the provincial statutes we want, but the moment it goes formally into bankruptcy -- and I don’t want to comment on these cases, because I don’t know whether they are still outside of formal bankruptcy -- the federal government has total control. Indeed, if something is not done about the Bankruptcy Act and, notwithstanding current economic conditions or anything else, it gets worse by the month and worse by the year.

OSHAWA TIMES STRIKE

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). I would like to ask if his ministry is doing anything to bring about a resolution of the strike at the Oshawa Times.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I was advised last week in a report from the mediator about events at the Oshawa Times that efforts will be made to resume negotiations whenever the parties indicate a desire to do so.

Mr. Breaugh: In the light of the Thomson’s record in negotiating with its own employees over the last several decades in this province, is the minister considering making any comments or representation in view of the Thomson takeover of the Globe and Mail?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not intend to make any comment about that.

CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question for the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), Mr. Speaker. Will the minister recall that two weeks ago today she indicated in a response to a question about learning-disabled children, to use the minister’s words, “In my personal view, it is inappropriately based at present in the Ministry of Community and Social Services”? The minister went on to say: “I will find out the information for the honourable gentleman and report to him.”

Can the minister advise us today what has been the level of negotiations between her ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services as to the timing and procedure of her ministry taking over from his ministry the facilities and the programs for learning-disabled children?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between members of staff of both ministries. The minister and I have discussed it briefly on several occasions, but the staffs on both sides are in the process of developing the kind of mechanism which will assure orderly transfer. I am not sure when that will be completed. I am sorry that I cannot tell the honourable member that, but there will be some announcement about it when the proposal has been finalized.

TABLING OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I bring your attention to standing order 26(c). It says: “After any policy statement, the minister shall table a compendium of background information.” The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) made a statement yesterday about Minaki. He referred today to a report which was available to him that was operative in the decision having been taken. I would have thought that might have been tabled as per the requirement of this standing order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that report was done for the Rubinoff committee that was seeking people for Minaki lodge. It was part of the information supplied to them, not a part in itself of the governmental decision which we were reflecting yesterday, made in 1978, to find an operator for the lodge and to complete the lodge. That decision was made some time ago. If the member detects a note of reservation, it is because there were certain conditions between the firm selected to do the study and the Rubinoff committee with regard to some of the information in that study. I am not totally familiar with the study but, provided that can be sorted out, I will send it to him before Tuesday. I will be happy to get it in his hands.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Gaunt from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following supplementary amount to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Education be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1980:

Education program, $67,900,000.

That supply in the following supplementary amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1980:

College and adult education support program, $5,580,000; strident affairs program, $5,155,700.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the estimates of the various ministries and offices be deemed to have been referred to the committees of the House as outlined in the statement of the government House leader on March 14, 1980.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I understand this is a rather routine motion but, before the order of the estimates is set in concrete, might I have your view as to whether the hours assigned to the various debates are immutable after this motion passes? There has been some discussion, since the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) has assumed a higher profile in the affairs of his ministry and related ministries, that we might require a bit more than five hours simply to determine properly the course of policy and its implementation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it would be my understanding that this motion we now are putting does refer these estimates to the committees with the hours as outlined in the statement of March 14; but, of course, as with many orders of this House, if subsequent discussions lead us to want to put a motion to change that, that would be entirely in order.

Mr. Martel: Could I ask the Speaker if a motion would be necessary to change the number of hours for a particular set of estimates? I am not sure why we would need a motion to that effect.

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding it would require a motion.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS PROJECT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 47, An Act for the establishment and conduct of a Project in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to improve methods of processing Complaints by members of the Public against Police Officers on the Metropolitan Police Force.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced as Bill 201 in the last session. Since that time, my ministry has had extensive consultation with interested persons and groups these past months and the bill now contains certain refinements, including an expansion of the investigation role of the public complaints commissioner.

There would also be power to extend the project beyond three years so that assessment and evaluation might be completed, any necessary changes made and the smooth transition into a revised system be accomplished.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 45, 81 to 88, 108 and 109 standing on the Notice Paper.

3:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following hills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 2, An Act to amend the Drainage Act, 1975;

Bill 6, An Act to amend the Durham Municipal Hydro-Electric Service Act, 1979;

Bill 7, An Act to repeal the Welfare Units Act.

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved third reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on the third reading of this bill.

It is, as you know, a most unusual occasion when a private member of the assembly is able to have a bill go through first and second readings, committee stage and third reading and become part of the laws of Ontario. It is an even more unique occasion, quite frankly, for this party, for it is the first time a member of the New Democratic Party caucus has had a bill go through the House and become part of the laws of the province.

We are indeed proud, as I believe each member of the assembly probably is, with the amount of work and time, and the devotion which the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) has given to this particular subject. I must also comment in fairness that the minister responsible for that particular ministry co-operated extensively, as far as I could determine from the debates, in an effort to make sure that the bill went through and that it became law.

As a member of this assembly and I believe as representing the views of my colleagues, I wish to extend my sincere good wishes to the member for Etobicoke and hope that his efforts will be repeated on many more occasions in this assembly.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t get a chance before today to speak to this bill. I would be remiss if I were not to make a few comments, because I had some very responsible people in my area circulate petitions. I put before this House, on behalf of Joseph Charlebois and those people who were genuinely interested in this particular bill as it related to the concerns that they had, something like 1,000 names in support of this bill. As I say, I would be most remiss if I were not to put that on the record on behalf of those kinds of citizens who would be interested enough in the process to make their feelings known, in fact, to support a bill that was supported on all sides.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to congratulate the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) with respect to the passage of Bill 15. As he will recall, it took 30 years for me to get the first private member’s bill through from the opposition and only three months to get the second one, and I hope things will speed up even more so that private members will be encouraged by the opportunity to have amendments brought before the House which are recognized as useful on all sides of the House.

Mr. Philip: I wasn’t planning on speaking on the third reading of this bill. However, I would like to thank the members of the House for the kind words they have just expressed. I have already thanked, on second reading, the various groups, associations and individuals who spent a great deal of time with me talking to members of this House in support of the bill. Finally, once again, I would like to compliment the minister and thank him and his staff for their consideration and for the dialogue that we were able to have on this bill.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS (CONTINUED)

Bill 26, An Act to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1976, and to provide additional powers in certain other Acts with respect to Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations have an opening comment?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe the statement I gave in the Legislature on March 23 covers the matter.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to speak in favour of second reading of Bill 31. In the statement the minister made to the Legislature on first reading of the bill, he outlined the general changes this bill will allow in the operations of credit unions and caisses populaires in Ontario. On this side of the House, we certainly welcome those amendments which the bill brings.

Credit unions and caisses populaires have certainly matured in their operations during recent years. They will now be able to receive trust funds and to be the recipients of investment in term deposits. The opportunity to make guaranteed student loans is also welcome. All in all, the bill gives some opportunity for the credit unions and caisses populaires to develop their availability of business operations to persons who have used them in the same way that many others deal with banks or deal with trust companies.

The final area of amendment would enable the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corporation to act as a liquidator in the event of a credit union being wound down. We hope this amendment would not in practice be required too often.

There are some concerns I do have when one sees this amendment. Those concerns are such that the minister might wish to comment upon them if this is the opportune time. There have been concerns expressed that certain credit unions are heavily extended into longer-term mortgages at lower rates of interest than the current market. They are having to pay out certain higher rates on deposits. The end result is a gap which is said to be working against the prospect of successful operation in a variety of credit unions and perhaps caisses populaires as well in Ontario.

If the minister is aware of those credit unions which may be under some strain, I would appreciate hearing from him while we are dealing with this bill as to what he is doing through his staff to oversee the operations to ensure there are no particular difficulties in either of these groups.

We would hope, as I’ve said, that the amendments to this section will not be needed, but the bringing forward of it at this time does rather catch one’s attention as a result of some of these suggestions of longer-term commitments which may prove difficult to live with, possibly in areas where unemployment or other difficulties, in the Windsor area particularly, could cause certain strains. I would be interested to hear about that, if the minister would choose to comment at this time.

Other than that, the particular items have been sought by the Ontario Credit Union League. The amendments are certainly welcomed, and we’re pleased to support them.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, having spent the weekend, as did my colleague, the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) reading the Bailiffs Act, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, 1971, the Trustee Act, the Insurance Act, the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1976, the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, as well as the bill before us now, I feel qualified to speak for a moment or two on the bill before us. This is Bill 31, An Act to amend the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1976, and to provide additional powers in certain other Acts with respect to Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires.

The New Democratic Party, in a word, supports the minister on this bill. As a matter of fact, the New Democratic Party would support many more bills in the future to expand the role that credit unions play in Ontario. It is fine to live in a province where more than one in four people are members of and use the services of a credit union. It is something that, traditionally, my party has found itself in agreement with and will continue to do so. I think the minister should be congratulated in those cases where, over the past number of years, the government and his ministry have encouraged the growth and development of credit unions and caisses populaires in the province.

I must say, though, not to be discordant or uncharming, that I and my party are not known as the greatest defenders in North America of the banking system, unlike certain members of the minister’s party at the national and provincial level. I would very much like to see the minister continue the encouragement he has shown of supporting the credit union movement. I think it is fine that at this point the minister has taken the opportunity to expand the credit unions’ access to business to include such areas as real estate, insurance companies and loan companies.

Most especially, I like the provisions for students of our universities and colleges. I think that is a particularly fine piece of work because it will, at a relatively early stage in their life, get people used to dealing with credit unions. It is hoped that is a tradition they will continue through their lives.

The minister has my and my party’s full support in this endeavour. I see no reason for the legislation to go to committee. I think we can pass it immediately through second and third readings.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of saying a few words about this important legislation and about the minister being present during its discussion.

As my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) has mentioned, this party, under his leadership, is in full support of the principle of the legislation. The information we have is that the minister has worked closely with the credit unions and caisses populaires and that they have asked for this legislation. Certainly we are in full support of it.

One factor I did want to mention when we are talking about the principle of this bill is a concern that my colleague for Kitchener has raised and some of my other colleagues may have raised as well. That is dealing with the amendment in section 1 of the legislation. That deals with an amendment to the original legislation that had been passed in 1976 dealing with what was called the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corporation. In French it was called -- I’m sure you will want to know this, Mr. Speaker -- La Société Ontarienne d’assurances des actions et de depot.

An additional function is being given to the corporation and that function is that of acting as liquidator of the estate and effects of a credit union for the purpose of winding up its affairs and distributing its property. We think this is a function, obviously, which the credit unions and the caisses populaires have realized is a necessary function for the corporation.

As my colleague the member for Kitchener has mentioned, we trust this is not a function that is being established at this time and will not be a function, it is hoped, which we will see being used extensively across the province, because we have some concerns.

I do want to put on the record of this House, while I am on the legislation, some of the concerns that I have -- not in the legislation itself -- which can be remedied by certain comments by the minister or maybe by certain undertakings that the minister could give.

The first concern we have, as my colleague from Kitchener has mentioned, is the financial bind that some of these institutions find themselves in at the present time. The financial bind is being caused, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you will understand, by the fact they have mortgages which are running for a period of time -- in other words, fairly long-term mortgages of three, four and five years at a fixed rate.

The rate last fall was about 11 or 12 per cent, and of course these mortgages have to be supported by short-term deposits which means at this time the caisses populaires and credit unions have to borrow this money. They are having to borrow money at 15 and 16 per cent. Probably I am exaggerating when I say 16 per cent but that is very close to what they are going to have to pay for the money. When one is trying to reconcile these two things, it is not a very good way to survive when one is losing three and four per cent on one’s money.

If that carries on for too long a period of time, some of these institutions will find themselves in very difficult circumstances indeed. I know of one institution in my riding which I am advised lost a considerable amount of money last year and this year. Apparently the projections for this institution are that it will be losing close to $1 million.

We all have a duty in this House to be responsible and not to spread panic among certain financial institutions or among certain members who are participating in what is basically a co-operative effort every time an institution such as a credit union or a caisse populaire is set up, but I do want to express the concern that if high interest rates continue for a period of time as they probably will, and unless inflation is grappled with, it is going to be very difficult for these institutions to be able to survive, especially the smaller ones, on a long-term basis.

As I understand it, and I am certainly no financial expert, it requires two or three per cent to be able to make ends meet. That is the percentage that is required on money for these institutions to be able to survive. They will certainly not be able to survive if they are running in the red at the rate of two, three, four and five per cent on their money.

I do want to express that concern and I want to say that many institutions, caisses populaires and credit unions have foreseen this and have taken a responsible approach in the sense that they have tried to keep that balance. They have said, “Look here, we can’t overextend ourselves. We have to keep that balance between mortgages that are being renewed and short-term deposits,” so they have pretty well kept that balance. They have not overextended themselves.

We cannot say that is a problem that is universal across all credit onions and caisses populaires. My colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) may have some comments. In certain areas of the province there may be a special problem because of the unemployment situation and because of drastic economic conditions that have taken place. I think, unfortunately, Windsor has been hit with something that is certainly out of the ordinary.

In a city like Ottawa, where there is supposed to be some stability because of the civil servants, I can say that some of these institutions have been responsible and have checked that balance and are protecting what I consider to be the interests of their members, the participants in the movements, whereas some others have not.

I want to say to the minister that he should consider what is involved here and consider the co-operative aspect of these things and consider that some of us in our riding have many members, especially of some of these large institutions, and consider the possible effects a long-term deficit position can have on the institution. The result of it, of course, is that the corporation will have to step in.

Possibly the minister, through the co-operation of some of the other caisses populaires and credit unions, could look at some of the institutions and at the management of some of these institutions and consider whether they have put themselves into a conflict of interest situation. Is it because of these conflicts that these institutions are having some problems?

3:50 p.m.

I just mention, for instance, mortgages. There was great competition at one time in mortgages. People would say: “If you go through that institution, you will have to go through that particular lawyer. He will find a mortgage. There will be no problem.” As the minister knows, I am a defender of the legal profession, but they are certainly not all angels. Some of them have taken advantage of their positions with these institutions. If they act for the purchaser and vendor and act for the lending institution as well, that conflict situation encourages the institutions to get involved in mortgages and not to look at other aspects and say: “We must not overextend ourselves. There may be a problem with interest rates in the long run.”

I say this to the minister very sincerely, because I have some constituents who are very concerned. One institution in particular -- and the minister possibly knows which institution I am talking about, the Caisse Populaire Vanier Limitée in my riding -- is really running itself into a deficit situation at the present time. It is a serious deficit situation because there are mortgages out and deposits. To get that money they are having to pay higher interest rates on their deposits. I want the ministry to look at that particular institution and consider whether there has been an aberration. Why does that particular institution have such a problem?

It is further compounded by the fact that the institution itself -- and this is why I talk about possible conflicts and about why the money was lent to them -- has had to take over and foreclose a large number of properties. Obviously the investment was not a good investment; so the institution had to foreclose and take the money back. That costs additional money and overheads when an institution has made a bad investment and subsequently has to get involved in legal fees and so on to foreclose and get the property back. Of course, having the property back is another headache. Financial institutions such as caisses populaires and credit unions are not organized to be sitting on 50 or 100 different properties.

I do want to express my concern. When we are in the process of passing legislation to give share deposit insurance corporations the power to act as liquidators, the ministry and people within the ministry must look at the operations of some of these institutions. I am sure some of these institutions have not been acting responsibly in the best interests of their members. They have been acting as though the institution did not belong to the members but to themselves.

Would the minister undertake to have someone look at that particular institution and advise us on it so that my constituents and myself at least have the satisfaction of knowing there may be no reason for concern?

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is now.

Mr. Roy: The minister says there is now. I am not the one who created this high deficit. Surely, if I say to the minister that one of these institutions is operating in a deficit situation, I am not the one who created that problem.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is the manner in which the member said it.

Mr. Roy: The minister says it is the manner in which I said it. I tell the minister to look at that institution. Why should one particular institution have that sort of problem? Why should it have a deficit situation as compared to other institutions in my riding? I do not know how many caisses populaires there are in my riding, but this is one on which I have received complaints and one which my constituents have voiced concerns to me.

Hon. Mr. Drea: For years.

Mr. Roy: The minister is quite right. I have raised some of these concerns for years. I think the minister can understand that when an institution is facing a deficit situation it cannot continue for all that long. I ask the minister to look at that particular situation. By looking at it, one would hope we will avoid having to resort to the corporation being more actively involved.

These are difficult times. We know it. We have seen people around this Legislature because of interest rates and so on. There is no doubt these are difficult times, but when the members organize an institution like a credit union or caisse populaire, when they vote themselves executives and people to represent them, it is important that these people act responsibly. When they are facing a deficit situation like that, there should be some explanation. There should be some investigation to determine how that was allowed to happen. That is my concern, and I trust that this concern will be shared by the ministry and that this matter will be looked into.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to say a few words with regard to Bill 31. Some of the remarks I intended to make have been partially covered.

I agree with the legislation in allowing further expansion of the use of credit unions and caisses populaires. They are an asset in my community, in my whole riding, where we have three caisses populaires and two large credit unions.

There are a few problems now, but in my area we find they are coping with the situation reasonably well. I noticed at the annual meeting of one of the credit unions that in 1978 they had 15 loan applications that were rejected and, in 1979, 85 applications that were rejected. They were looking at the situation and probably assessing their loans a little more closely, and probably it was wise they did so. They are protecting themselves.

I have heard of one or two things they have done. There is something personal about a credit union that maybe a bank or trust company does not get involved in, and that is the advantage of a credit union. I understand they had a case of some homes where the mortgage payments were getting behind. This was more because of unemployment than interest rates, with one member, or maybe both members of the family laid off, or with only one member of the family working.

I understand that the manager or loan manager of the credit union or caisse populaire would go to the home and discuss the problem with the husband and wife, asses their liabilities and then look at their assets -- maybe stored in the garage and used for boating or snowmobiling, or as a mobile trailer, or whatever the case might be. If they had problems, rather than take back the home they would try to direct them as to how they should dispose of one or two of those things, or maybe the wife would go to work part-time. They did not want to take back the property and, naturally, they wanted the people to stay where they were because people have to have a place to live.

That was a very good attitude to take. We are almost sure, especially in our area, that the present situation is temporary as far as unemployment is concerned although some people call “temporary” six months and others call it two years. It depends what one is talking about. I think that type of attitude can save a lot of anxiety for those involved and keep people in their homes. I think the credit unions have the ability to do that because they are more personal in nature.

4 p.m.

In the new legislation, specifically in sections 3 and 4, the minister is allowing them to use term deposits and so forth. Would they then have to keep a larger amount of assets? The minister indicates he is not changing that: I wonder if perhaps he should. I am not an expert on how this works, and I know he has a very good staff in his ministry, but I wonder if there would be any need for the credit unions to increase the amount they have to keep on hand which they could not lend. While sitting here, I was wondering if that was a thought at all, to give a little better protection for the credit unions and the people lending funds. However, I think the minister shook his head to indicate that wouldn’t be necessary.

I don’t have much more to say. I am a very strong supporter of the credit unions, because in our area the banks kind of abandoned some of the villages and towns back in the 1930s during the Depression and they have never come back in. They regret it now, of course, because when the credit union get going full swing the banks found here was no more use trying to get in, because they couldn’t compete; so they have stayed out ever since in some of the smaller villages. The credit unions have been a great asset to our area, and I just want to say I support the legislation.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat rusty about credit union matters, but I thought this might be an opportunity, on second reading and perhaps in committee of the whole House, to make certain we fully understand the implications of the proposed amendments to the various statutes to which reference is made in Bill 31.

I had occasion, as other members in the assembly may also have had occasion, to sit on the select committee on company law, which has happily been in existence for some considerable period of time now. Chapter 21 of that report, a goodly portion of which is the forerunner of and is incorporated in the present Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, which appears as chapter 62 of the statutes of 1976, deals with the question of term deposits -- that is, the acceptance by credit unions from their members of deposits -- and most of the recommendations the committee made at that time, if not all of them, were accepted and endorsed and now appear in the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

When I refer to being somewhat rusty about the act, it is this kind of question I am concerned about. For example, in section 7, in the explanatory note, it says, “The proposed amendments to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, 1971, will enable credit unions and caisses populaires to make guaranteed student loans.”

Then I find in section 84 of the Credit Unions Act a specific provision which says, “A credit union may make guaranteed loans under and in accordance with the provisions of the Canada Student Loans Act” -- and there are certain other acts referred to -- “and such other act as may be designated by the regulations.” I assume that in all likelihood there will now have to he a regulation which will deal with the correlative part of section 84. I notice the minister shakes his head in the negative and I am curious about the answer. I emphasize the extent to which I am rusty about these matters.

In the three or four sections of the bill which deal with the question of term deposits, as far as I can understand it, it is the purpose of the bill to make certain that the credit union has the opportunity to accept term deposits. As I read the bill, the proposed amendments authorize insurance companies, loan corporations and trust companies to invest in term deposits of credit unions and caisses populaires.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Their own act didn’t say that. It said --

Mr. Renwick: I guess that is what I want to understand. I want to understand, as I think I do, that this provides for an immense increase in potential liquidity of the credit union movement. But then I am curious about a provision, such as that in section 81(1), which says, subject to certain provisions of an earlier section, no credit union et cetera shall accept deposits from persons other than its members. I need to have some discussion with the minister about the tie-in between the provisions of the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act and the provisions of the various acts to which reference is made in Bill 31, the Insurance Act, the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and the Trustee Act, so that I will fully understand the implications of what the bill is designed to accomplish.

I believe, and I want to make it clear, that the act appears to me to be a beneficial act from the viewpoint of the credit unions. The enlargement of the capacity of the credit union movement is something which we in this party have totally supported. It is interesting to note that in 1968 and 1969, when we were considering the credit union movement, it was just at the point of takeoff. The last 10 years have shown that it has. I think the new statute in Ontario has done something to assist that, or at least does not hinder the development of the credit union movement as a part of the major financial fabric of Ontario and of the country. But it is the correlation between the Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Act and the various statutes referred to in Bill 31 on which I would like to have a clear explanation from the minister. It may be I have missed or overlooked some salient factor which would answer the queries I have put, but my specific concerns are with respect to the provisions of the Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Act as they relate to sections 3, 4 and 6(1), being the provisions related to term deposits. With that explanation, I am happy with the bill.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the member for Riverdale used the words “potential” and “capacity.” It certainly doesn’t bestow anything automatically upon a credit union or a caisse populaire. It gives them the opportunity to compete in the financial market for a particularly attractive form of investment.

4:10 p.m.

There has been some concern raised here about the question of the overall stability of the credit union movement at a time when term deposit rates are having to rise in order to attract investment, while at the same time it is locked in for a remaining period of years on relatively low mortgage investment.

Knowing something about the exact financial status of the credit union movement, I will stake the credit union movement’s stability at this moment against that of the chartered banks. When one looks at all the chartered banks -- and I am not exactly privy, because only the federal Inspector General is privy to all of the financial positions of the chartered banks -- the credit union movement is in at least equally good shape, and probably better shape.

There is no question that a great deal of discipline, control, monitoring and observation not only has to take place, but also for the past year has been taking place, not merely by the government of Ontario, but also by the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corporation itself.

That will continue for some period to come. ‘When inevitably, interest rates come down, as they will -- because there is an independent Canadian financial or monetary policy in Ottawa -- as the minister responsible in this field I do not wish to look back and see that, over this period during which we are experiencing this phenomenon of the most peculiar advances and declines and shifts in modern times in the monetary field, there are fewer but larger credit unions.

There is no question in my mind that the depositors are very adequately protected, particularly with the coverage of up to $20,000 insurance on an individual deposit. But I don’t want, if it can be avoided -- and I think it can -- the end position after this period of time of the very thing happening in the smaller communities because of the extraordinary inner resources that were required of the credit unions to survive the period, leading to what the member for Essex North recalled about the banks pulling out of the little towns.

The purpose of this bill, in part, is to expand the opportunity for the individual credit unions to attract a new type of account, a new type of deposit, a new guaranteed loan -- because there’s no risk with a student loan. This will enable it to be more competitive in the community, to build up its reserves and to have a better chance of financial success so that there will be real competition in the financial community.

Over the next year, unless there are substantial changes to the existing outlook in Ottawa towards the new Bank Act -- and that attitude hasn’t changed -- it didn’t change after May 22, 1979 -- even though there were representations by this government, by myself, that it should -- I can only presume that having had now three successive governments not changing the Bank Act --

Mr. M. N. Davison: It just goes to show there’s no difference between Tories and Liberals when they’re in power.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would suggest to the member that his party in Ottawa didn’t do one thing about that Bank Act. They like it just as much as everybody else down there.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not at all? They had every opportunity in the world.

Mr. Renwick: It’s coming back.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is back now. It is on the order paper now. That’s what I’m saying -- three governments: Before May 22, after, and after February 18.

One of the inevitable results of that is that there are going to be fewer, but larger, financial institutions. Indeed, what is being put forward on the basis of increasing competition may have, as its end result a lot more apparent competition with fewer places to compete in. I will assure members that I do not want that to happen in the credit union movement, because the credit union movement by the end of this decade, notwithstanding all the difficulties now, will be extremely competitive with even the largest of the traditional financial institutions, not only in this province, but also across the country.

The monitoring and constant observation as to the impact of the higher interest rates and the rather chaotic monetary policy -- which is determined every Thursday afternoon -- is not being done only by the staff of the ministry; indeed, it is being done by the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corporation itself.

One of the reasons the particular section about OSDIC being the liquidator is in here is the fact that OSDIC has acted as the liquidator, not on the basis of winding down a credit union that found itself in financial difficulty after a period of years, but where a small emerging credit union has found, after a certain period of operation, that it is not going to be able to serve the needs of its members, and that if it pursues its course in that market it is inevitably going to be a disservice to its members. Then there is a technical wind-down and a merger with an existing organization. OSDIC has done that very well.

Second, and I am surprised there was not a question on this: Is there not a conflict of interest with OSDIC, as the supplier of the deposit insurance money, winding down or liquidating the operation of the credit union when, if there is a bankruptcy or it is going into receivership, there is the question of the federal participation? We have examined that very closely and there is no conflict because at the moment the federal jurisdiction appears, in terms of a bankruptcy, then OSDIC has the opportunity to withdraw or to put itself forward before the trustee in bankruptcy as a liquidator that can be appointed.

The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has raised substantial concerns about a particular caisse populaire. His request to look into the operations of that caisse populaire puts me, as the minister, in an extremely difficult position. When a senior member of the Legislature of Ontario, in the course of a debate upon a particular piece of legislation, raises substantial concerns as to the financial viability of a community organization and, as a generalization, in a rather subdued manner calls for an investigation as to whether there are apparent or real conflicts of interest, it leaves me, as the minister, no other choice except to investigate formally. Therefore, we will formally investigate and I will table the exact financial status and all relevant details about that particular caisse populaire in the House. I don’t think I have any other alternative, in fairness, to depositors of that caisse populaire, to the board of directors, or to the staff. I don’t like to make public, unless there is a need, what ordinarily is a matter of record that can be looked at but is not passed around in public.

4:20 p.m.

I must reflect, however, upon the seriousness of the concern reflected by the member for Ottawa East and, since the name of the institution is in Hansard, I have no alternative except to table a number of matters.

Mr. M. N. Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about that particular institution. It is not one with which I am familiar, but I appreciate the minister’s sensitivity on this issue and I think his decision is probably the right one under the circumstances. Certainly doubt was cast upon the operation of that credit union and it is within the minister’s power to make same investigations. Under the circumstances, the minister has made the appropriate --

Mr. Acting Speaker: What point of order is the member raising?

Mr. M. N. Davison: A point of reassurance.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I am sure the minister is glad to have that reassurance. I do not think he needed it. In any event, it is not a point of order, but you are on record.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker: I put forward the position because I want it very clearly directed as to why I am taking the particular course of action. I think that is only fair and in balance.

The question was also raised by the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) about the need for new financial reserves because of this new opportunity being provided to credit unions. Actually the reserves will be more than protective. They will reflect this new money, if indeed it does come in, because they will remain at their present quotas.

The money going out in a student loan is a guaranteed loan in any event; so we do not think extra precautions are needed, because this money will be coming in for short-term deposit by fluctuation. If it does in certain cases tend to overwhelm -- although I doubt that will happen -- and might put out of balance the traditional lending practices of the particular credit union, they can always say they have a sufficient number of trust accounts and particular term deposits at that particular time.

The honourable member raised a very valid point but, on the nature of the type of money coming in, as against the only type of new loan going out, I think the present reserves are adequate. Section 92 of the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act does require 10 per cent in cash or negotiable security as a reserve.

There was a series of questions by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) particularly concerning student loans. The question of term deposits, trust companies and so forth can be answered by the fact that the legislation under which those trust documents were required specified that they be placed in a chartered bank and/or a trust company.

What we have done with the omnibus section is to expand that to chartered bank, trust company and/or credit union. Student loans at the moment, by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, are restricted to banks. They are not available to credit unions.

It is not a question of opening up the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, because the type of student loan it refers to is not the student loan as we know it. I want the student who is going to borrow under a guaranteed performance by the provincial government to have the opportunity of shopping around for the loan, the instalment, the convenience, the office, all of the things that go together to make one financial institution in a community more successful or doing a higher volume than another. I want these to be available.

A question was raised about membership being required for investment by section 81 of the Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Act. That entitles the investor to annual statements and voting. So the principle is maintained, even though the real estate agent or the person putting up trust funds into term deposits is not necessarily a member for investment purposes.

I want to commend the members of the House for their support in the introduction and, I hope, the rapid passage of this act. I think it is probably the last time there will be major amendments to the Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Act. This act provides the opportunity for expansion and for very true competition in the financial and commercial community. In the future, whatever legislation is brought before the House, I think will be of a particular or housekeeping variety.

It seems very odd to me that we are here in 1980 to add a little bit more. I say this a bit wryly, having had something to do with the passage of the major act in 1976. As a Legislature, we might have been more aggressive in 1976. Of course, hindsight always wants to make one aggressive.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It is because you weren’t the minister.

Mr. Foulds: No. He would have been cautious in 1976.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, never cautious. What I wanted to say and what I wanted to underline at this time is the fact that, given the opportunity, given a modern act in 1976, notwithstanding it has probably not been the vintage time for financial institutions, the credit union movement across this province has done better than I think even some of the optimists would forecast then. I want to emphasize for the sake of the record one last time, there is no question there are strains, no question there are some real problems and no question there is some real tough belt-tightening, but I only wish the chartered banking system and the individual chartered banks of this country were in the shape the credit unions and the caisses populaires are in this province today.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) is available, possibly that bill could proceed. After the next bill, there might be an opportunity to deal effectively with the matter today if that is convenient.

4:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member wasn’t here. The answers I have given may have answered him, but I will be here after the next bill -- no problem.

Mr. Acting Speaker: It was my understanding he said either here or in committee. I thought perhaps you had answered him here in your reply, but you still wish it to go to committee, do you?

Mr. Foulds: The member for Riverdale does. I am sure it can be done expeditiously.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Then it will be committee of the whole House when we can get to it.

ELEVATING DEVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 34, the Elevating Devices Act, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, this bill consolidates the current Elevators and Lifts Act and the Construction Hoists Act. The Elevators and Lifts Act was passed in 1953 and the Construction Hoists Act seven years later. As I pointed out in the statement I made when introducing this legislation, since that time there has been a significant growth in the number of installations, considerable changes in technology, as well as diversification of design of installation. Since the introduction of those bills in both categories, the construction field and all other, there have not been any major revisions.

In addition to the consolidation of the two acts, the bill has been drafted to accommodate technological change and to provide the framework for effective administration. Among the more significant changes to be implemented by the bill and the regulations to be made under it are the following -- I emphasize “the regulations made under it” because, like most bills dealing with technical standards, the legislation is enabling and in many cases the fleshing out has to be done by regulation.

Among those significant changes are: to set out the role and responsibility of contractors and owners in clear and understandable terms, as well as setting out minimum standards of maintenance; to extend the contractor registration concept to the construction hoist field, where it has never been, although it has certainly been in the Elevators and Lifts Act; to emphasize the responsibility of the professional engineer and private industry in the certification of design submissions; to provide for the flexibility needed to deal with technological change; and to require that a mechanic working on elevating devices has experience related to the work assigned to him. We have never had qualifications for the mechanic. It has always been for the contractor.

Before making this decision, we consulted with the union involved in this field. The union, I would say, supports the bill. We were concerned it might think we were trying to make inroads upon it -- that was not the intention -- and after substantial discussion the International Union of Elevator Constructors is supportive of this particular clause.

One of the things this bill is going to accomplish is that when one files -- and one is going to have to file maintenance contracts and who they are with -- one is going to have to give the qualifications of the person actually supervising that maintenance. This is going to be a significant safety and operational improvement. Until now one could list a contractor for certain purposes and designate a person who did general maintenance, but there was no requirement to state how that particular person was qualified.

This should provide additional work opportunities. It should provide opportunities for people who want to go into this field. No longer will they be told that anybody on the custodial staff can operate as the maintenance man in general terms for that particular device.

In addition to the fact it consolidates two bills, it brings one up to the level of the other. I am very confident this will provide additional safety -- and safety in elevating devices is always paramount. The province’s record has been outstanding, but one wants to make it even better. In terms of the construction industry, in terms of the design industry and indeed in terms of the elevator industry, we want to allow them to take advantage of new technology which will provide better scope of operation and better service to the public.

The safety concern out there on the construction hoists is one the ministry has had its eye on for quite some time. We are very confident that by bringing the construction hoists up to the same quality standards as the passenger elevators or other devices we will be expanding our safety role in the work place. This is always a vital consideration of the members of this House.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, following the discussion on the last bill we come to an area which has very little in common with credit unions which we have been discussing for the last hour or so.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They may have financed the elevator.

Mr. Breithaupt: They may have financed the elevator; I suppose that is so. But certainly the fact this piece of legislation now follows along is just a reminder, I am sure, to the members of the House that this ministry almost covers the waterfront with respect to various items of legislation and various operations within the province. There are some 70 pieces of legislation for which the minister is responsible and I must congratulate him on his ability to move from one theme to another in the manner he does.

The two statutes referred to have been in place for 20 years or so without major changes. The minister has referred not only in his initial statement, but also now, to the variety of reasons we have this legislation before us. I commend the minister for bringing these two themes together so that all the details for elevating devices appear in one statute.

I note from the definition of elevating device that it is a nonportable device. Therefore, I presume the question of amusement parks and that area of supervision, review and the safety of equipment is not going to be included or in any way is it meant to be in the legislation.

The one thing that does surprise me somewhat is that there are 14 exceptions to the act in the second section. At times one would almost appear to have mere exceptions than areas of inclusion. I am wondering if the minister in his comments could explain to the House the reason for the variety of exceptions and the approach which the ministry has taken with respect to the safety and involvement of these other areas.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They follow that category with the exception of private homes. They are goods carried.

Mr. Breithaupt: So this is a theme that has been developed: Where goods are being carried in a variety of ways to the mining industry or on the farm, or however it may be. Does the minister intend to have any supervisory control over the safety and mechanical operation of that kind of equipment? Or will the ministry be remaining entirely in the people-carrying business? I would think that if the minister would want to just comment on that point, it will be of interest to the House.

4:40 p.m.

As I have said, the basic reasons for the amalgamation of these two statutes into one is a reflection of the growth of the industry. the development of substantially increased and complicated machinery as elevators and escalators are travelling over greater distances and certainly at greater speeds with respect to the operations of passenger elevators in the very large downtown buildings.

I have no further comments to make to the statute. It is a commendable change to have these two items brought together and published in one form. It is also commendable to have the responsibilities of the industry set out clearly for public knowledge, as well as the penalties for the abuse of proper and safe operations. Processes of appeal are there against a decision which might be made. The minister has referred to the filing of maintenance agreements and the other responsible way in which this most important transportation type is being viewed by the ministry. I welcome the legislation, as I say and will certainly support it.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Mr. Minister, it’s unusual to speak now. Have you got a brief comment?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Just a very brief one if you could indulge me.

One of the matters I neglected to touch upon is that, in the filing of the maintenance agreement, we are going to develop regulations after consultation with fire departments so the maintenance agreement, including a great number of details, such as home phone numbers et cetera, will be available to the fire department at the site in case they require it. This is a new dimension, which I suppose is not really germane to elevating devices, that centralized maintenance information will now be available to fire departments when they have to make certain decisions within a building.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, elevators and these other devices are something we know about in Hamilton Centre, having a few of them in the riding. I want to tell the minister that it is really nice to be discussing elevating legislation, as it is one of those acts where we will be getting it at least in the title, if not in all of the principle and substance.

I must tell the minister that I was absolutely blown away with his opening statement -- which was somewhat different from the material supplied when the bill was introduced -- by the concentration of time the minister spent on the aspect of new jobs that were going to come about by this dual-pronged assault of registration and qualification. I didn’t hear it in the throne speech, but it’s really nice to see a job-creating program brought forward by the government. I hope it will not be the only one we see this session. Perhaps later on today we will see some other job-creation programs that will, it’s to be hoped, create more jobs than this particular one will.

While we are on the topic of this, Mr. Speaker -- I don’t know if you have noticed this -- I have always had difficulty when I go into an elevator. It’s not that I suffer from any number of phobias that cause me real concern, except for one, and that is when I am continually assaulted by the minister’s name. Some days that does get to me. Have you noticed it in all of our elevators? I don’t know if it’s by one of these regulations or not, but we have “Honourable Frank Drea, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations” on every single --

Mr. Acting Speaker: The ones that bother me are the ones that still have Dalton Bales’s name on them.

Mr. M. N. Davison: We have some of those and, of course, the names of Mr. Handleman and Mr. Grossman are kicking about on a few. I wanted to ask the minister about this: Couldn’t we just have “the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations,” rather than the minister’s name? Perhaps even mare appropriately, couldn’t we have in almost equal size right under the minister’s name, the words the honourable Jim Breithaupt, Her Majesty’s official opposition critic from the Liberal Party, and under that the reasonably or almost honourable Mike Davison, NDP critic for Consumer and Commercial Relations?

Mr. Cunningham: The only way you’ll get your name on is if you carve it in the wall.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I think you’re probably right.

The one item of substance I support unreservedly in the additions to the act are the new provisions of section 10 which permit the inspector to shut down elevators that are unsafe. I think that is a superb addition to the legislation.

There are two sections of the act which cause me some difficulty -- one because I don’t think I fully understand the intent and the second because I object to it. Perhaps we can deal with the first outside of committee, but I would like to send the second to committee for a few moments so that I could ask the minister some specific questions. The second area is the area of regulation.

I sit on a committee that changes its name every year -- the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments. It may be just a quirk of my mind, but I have difficulty with pieces of legislation like this that are 15 or 16 pages long and are followed by 7,000 pounds of regulations. There seems to be something outrageous about that much government by delegatory power. I think some of the regulative powers that are given out in this particular bill are excessive.

I understand when one deals with a technical bill there are going to be considerable regulations. That is unavoidable. I want to come back to this in committee of the whole House, but I think some of them are regrettable. I would like the minister to reconsider them. At the moment, I intend to vote against them.

The area I don’t understand at all well -- and I don’t mean to speak to the section -- is the fuzziness that comes through when I look at section 6 of the bill. I understand the broad power we give by way of inspection in section 6(i)(a). It says: “Subject to subsection 3, at any time without a warrant, enter in or upon any premises where he has reason to believe that an elevating device is being installed or operated and inspect an elevating device.” That is a good role and a good principle to find, not only in this legislation, but also in other pieces of legislation that deal with public safety.

The qualification, which I’m not sure I understand at all how it relates, is found later on in the act in section (3), which says: “An inspector shall not enter any room or place actually being used as a dwelling where the occupier refuses entry except under the authority of a search warrant ... ” I take it that what the minister is trying to do is somehow separate things like private homes that have elevators from everything else. I’m not sure I totally agree with that, but I can understand it.

What I have some difficulty understanding is the situation where it is a rooming house or a boarding house, where it is fairly difficult to understand what is and what is not being used as a dwelling or living space or, even more specifically, the situation where in an apartment building there are one-floor apartments on several floors. Does part of the elevator fall under the normal provisions of the act and part of the elevator under the exclusion from the act, which is crazy? Which part of that act takes preference?

I hope the minister can answer that and we can deal with that issue without having to take it to committee. I can understand it if it is simply to deal with private homes. If that is all it is supposed to deal with, maybe the minister could have a word before we go into committee with his staff to make absolutely sure that is all this addresses itself to. I would hate for us to pass a piece of legislation that created problems in a building where there were floors of single and sole occupancies. It may just be that I am reading something into this that cannot possibly exist in it.

4:50 p.m.

Subject to that, and the real concerns I have about the immense regulatory power, I and my party will support the bill on second reading.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Does any other member of the House wish to speak to this bill? If not, the honourable minister.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think the points that have been raised are very good.

In reply to the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), the fundamental demarcation is people and goods, although in some cases freight elevators or construction hoists may be designed for both.

The other types of devices exempted, with the exception of the private dwelling house, are all industrial, specialized material-handling devices. It has been our intent for a long time, and has been the intent of the Legislature to cover these under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Invariably this loading, movement or transport of goods is in conjunction with the work place whether it is an agricultural work place or otherwise. Of course, the Occupational Health and Safety Act has not been with us that long, but its predecessors dealt with those matters. We think that because they are specialized, because they do involve a person’s occupation and the safety of a person’s work place far more than the general application of public safety, they should remain with the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Breithaupt: This is a reasonable compromise.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes. The honourable member will recall, at one time, all of this was under the old Department of Labour. The demarcation was made in 1971 or 1972 that these were technical standards -- more by design, inspection, maintenance and so forth -- where the other ones were something that should be watched extremely closely in the work place. So there is that additional demarcation plus, of course, now the entire scope of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in all of its ramifications, and which far supersedes any of our jurisdiction because our ultimate jurisdiction, as the member noted, was now to put the seal on and say that the device was unsafe et cetera.

The member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) said he welcomed that, but we have been doing it. We have been putting rings on, or seals, or saying you should not use it. Obviously, when a thing is unsafe you should not use it. We are putting it in there now to ensure that. Sometimes I feel those things are a little bit redundant -- that the inspector who has to make sure the thing is safe certainly should have the right to say, “Don’t go on them.” So we are meeting that now. He has the right to do that in case anybody challenges us and wants to prove that, in the end, it is unsafe.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It is always best when the minister operates within the law.

Hon. Mr. Drea: We are sometimes more efficient before we get to the co-edification. There are times.

Dealing with the question raised by the critic of the New Democratic Party, one of our concerns with the new section that has been put in -- and he will notice the operative words in there are “actually a dwelling place” -- is where there is no lobby. For instance, how do we get into the place? If there is no lobby, and it is a rooming house -- although it is hard to visualize a rooming house with that much of an elevating device -- then I guess we would have to stand there and err on the side of privacy and caution and have somebody go out and get a warrant for us to do the work.

I don’t think we would have that difficulty with an elevator that goes right into an individual unit or penthouse, because usually there is a little foyer. In any case I know of, one cannot get off an elevator directly into somebody’s living room. There is usually a door. On that basis we could inspect the elevator without entering through the premises actually used by the person as a dwelling.

It is to protect privacy but, at the same time, if we get to a point where the inspection has to be made notwithstanding privacy we feel it is only fair that we obtain a search warrant. It may be unnecessary. I suppose everybody would say, “if you were violating any privacy, it was in a good cause.” We feel more consistent if we say that where it is in a public place we do not require a warrant, but where it is used as a dwelling place we will require that.

In terms of the regulations, the difficulty with the technical act that is constantly being required to cope with the exigencies of change is the inflexibility that comes if there is no regulatory authority. We have draft regulations which have been discussed with the industry, the unions and other interested parties. The draft regulations could be ready for distribution when the bill goes into the committee of the whole House. They would be in draft form, and I cannot guarantee those would be the regulations word for word.

Because this is pretty all-embracing, the union, or the companies, or the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, or any number of people may want some changes, but I know of no way to limit the regulatory-making authority in this act and still do the job we are supposed to do. Bear in mind that one bill is 1960, another is 1953 and here we are in 1980 with the first substantial revision. It seems to me there has been an awesome increase compared to today in the number of elevating devices since those bills were passed, plus all the technological upgrading, the computerization and so forth.

I presume the member has some detailed concerns on the individual regulatory-making clauses that we were --

Mr. M. N. Davison: That is the best kind of regulatory power. It is totally unnecessary in this case.

Hon. Mr. Drea: This is the regulatory authority which is exempting any person or any class of persons: “Any elevating device or part thereof or any class or subclass other than in compliance with the act or the provisions or any of the provisions thereof.” Obviously it is not going to be used generally. It would be there only as a backup for a specific case.

Unless I am informed in the next 10 seconds or so that that is absolutely necessary, unless I can be told that there is a particular and distinctive need, I am not really enamoured of an all-purpose one.

Perhaps I can ask it rhetorically and somebody over there would pay attention to me. Is the general all-purpose section which exempts “any person or any class of persons or any elevating device or part thereof’ et cetera, a general application, section P, clause 31 in the regulatory authority, based upon our prior experience that we need such an all-embracing power, or is it based upon the traditional concept that a backup is necessary in any and all cases?

5 p.m.

I am afraid this bill is going to have to go to committee of the whole House for that, because they insist they require it.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It is the lawyers’ backup. We can do it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I say this in fairness to the honourable member: Every time I ask about an all-embracing clause like that I am assured in the first instance that it is absolutely imperative we have it. When I keep asking why we need it we find out we really do not. However, as the minister, if I am not convinced, in this case it can be deleted.

I want to serve notice too, since we are going to committee, that we are going to delete clause 2, section (b), “elevators and hoists within the meaning of the Mining Act.” In the drafting of this bill it was overlooked that there had been substantial changes to the Mining Act and this clause is not required at all. It is not a matter of great urgency but a matter of clarification and tidying up.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

TELEPHONE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Telephone Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the brief remarks I made at the introduction of this bill. It is a very minor but important amendment to the Telephone Act, and I will be pleased to answer any questions members may have.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government is going to fall on Bill 32. We are most anxious to support it, in so far as it would provide some flexibility and promote some co-operation between our largest utility and any other utility involved in delivery of telephone service, more specifically in our rural areas.

I think enabling legislation to promote and foster co-operation between utilities would ultimately lower costs and most certainly would be to the advantage of the consumers of Ontario. With that in mind we certainly will support the legislation.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, we have no objections to this bill and we will be supporting it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any other members wishing to participate in this debate?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, whether you call this a debate, I thank the honourable members for their support of this bill. I probably should have mentioned at the beginning that this has been discussed with the Ontario Telephone Association. I met with them at their annual convention in Peterborough a couple of weeks ago and the association representing the private telephone companies in the province are certainly in support of the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 33, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement at the introduction of the legislation explaining the main thrust of the bill. It provides for us to enter into agreements on transit matters with the public utilities commission where a public utilities commission is actually operating the transit system in a municipality. There are some other more or less housekeeping amendments and a provision regarding regulations which was the recommendation of the statutory instruments committee, or one of the committees of the House, and we included it in here.

Mr. Cunningham: In keeping with the spirit of co-operation, Mr. Speaker, we will support Bill 33.

I would, through these comments, ask the minister to clarify several matters for me. We endorse the provisions relating to rapid transit and anything to promote that, especially the cost and percentage aspect, and the assumption of costs for experimental projects. In the context of the project that is going on in the city of Hamilton, it would be my hope that the province would assume all of the costs -- and I mean all of the costs.

With regard to section 3 of the act, I have some concerns relating to the necessity for this provision. I know that we, I guess as a province, would be concerned with people who would plant things or place objects near highways or within the controlled-access areas of highways. My question, though, relates to the concern of many people along major highways and highways that have become more heavily travelled, for noise barriers. I know that in the course of the estimates I have raised some concerns on behalf of my constituents with regard to the rather noisy situation we have at the base of highway 6 and the junction of highway 403, where a number of residents specifically on what we call Atkinson Boulevard have their backyards backing right on highway 6. In the summer when the people have their windows open and the traffic on a Friday night or a holiday weekend is absolutely unbelievable, the noise that is created causes these people a great deal of difficulty.

I know many of them would be anxious to plant poplars and faster-growing trees to minimize in any way the noise that does occur. I would think that throughout the province there would be some interest on the part of many people to do that.

I note with interest when I travel highway 400 that certain portions of that highway and highway 401 have rather elaborate noise barriers. It would be my hope that we could increase our interest in developing these types of programs to help people with the noise provisions.

I am not aware of the technicalities of this program, but I have been asked by one of my colleagues from the rural community to ask the minister about the fencing that goes along the highway, specifically highways like 400 and 401. Who pays for that? Is the maintenance of those particular controlled-access areas the responsibility of the property owner adjacent to them, or will it be in the future? If that question could be cleared up for one of my colleagues, we most certainly would be very glad to support the legislation.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, we are in support of this legislation. I have discussed it with a number of people at the municipal level, and they seem to have no major objection to it. The section 2 amendment makes sense to the people I have spoken to who are involved in municipal governments, although they do express a concern. They expect the minister will consult them in any arrangements they will be making with a public utilities commission.

I do have some questions, though, on section 4. That section, as I understand it, removes the designation from under the Regulations Act and, therefore, the result of this would be to eliminate the need for printing in the Gazette and for making it perhaps more public than the amendment would make it.

5:10 p.m.

The minister mentioned that some of the changes he is making were done in consultation with the standing statutory instruments committee. I would be interested in hearing from him what changes he feels they have suggested to him. My understanding is that the committee is toying with the possibility of looking at the idea of negative ratification. As I understand the concept of negative ratification as it applies in countries like Britain, it allows a certain percentage of the House to overrule or go against a regulation as it applies to a particular instance.

If the statutory instruments committee is moving in that direction, I wonder if it makes sense at this time to remove that kind of matter from the Regulations Act. Clearly the actions of the minister could drastically affect the value of a piece of property, and in that kind of instance it might well be worthwhile for that committee or some other committee of the House to take a serious look at it. Perhaps we can deal with the matter in committee. The minister may be able to tell us what dialogue he has had with the statutory instruments committee and how it would relate to this possible thrust the committee may well take. As I say, we are in support of it.

At the same time, I wonder why he wants to make the designation of controlled-access highways less public, which I understand is what this does. On the other hand, I must admit that in talking to different people at the municipal level not one of them could give me an instance where a person had launched a major appeal or successful appeal against the actions contemplated by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications as a result of publication in the Gazette.

On one side we have the principle of openness, of making the public or those concerned more aware of what the government is doing. On the other hand we have the very practical indication that to date it does not seem to have been a problem. I would like to have the minister’s views on this. We won’t oppose this section if the minister can give us some concrete reasons for removing this from the Regulations Act.

On checking section 6 with some people who have been involved in rural municipal politics they indicated to me that it made a lot of sense to move in this direction and therefore they are in support of the government’s intention to deal with the amendment. I look forward to the minister’s comments. Perhaps we can discuss section 4 further in committee.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable members for their comments. I am not sure if I can reply to what the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) was talking about, but I will try.

He was referring to the provision in section 3 of the act. All it does is increase the fine, which I believe is $10 at present for an offence. This is related mainly to people who build buildings too close to the highway or put up signs too close to the highway without obtaining permits for them. With a $10 fine, someone who wants a sign very badly will go out and put one up, illegal as it could be, knowing it may serve his purpose for a few days or a week before it is found out and ordered removed. All it is going to cost him is $10; so it is a good investment to have a sign even for the weekend. That is the reason for this. This will not prevent any plantings or buildings or structures or signs being built where they are processed in the normal way, where they make application for the building permit and so on.

I can clarify the matter regarding the fencing around the 400 series highways. It is the ministry’s responsibility to construct and maintain the fences on these highways. We have discussed this before in estimates, and it has been discussed with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on several occasions. It was a decision made a number of years ago -- four or five years ago at least -- that the ministry would be responsible for replacing and maintaining the fence on the 400 series highways one foot inside of our actual right of way; so that the fence is on our property and we maintain it.

With regard to the comments of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and with regard to section 4 of the bill, I would point out that in the report of the standing statutory instruments committee, the second report, dated November 1979, on page 14, recommendation 17 was that legislation should be enacted to exempt designations of controlled-access highways from the Regulations Act as is now the case with the King’s Highway designations, thus bringing the two procedures into line.

I would like to allay the honourable member’s fears that in some way we are hiding this designation.

The designation will still be published in the Ontario Gazette. It will still be gazetted. It will still be notice registered at the registry offices of the counties or regions involved saying there is a controlled-access designation on a particular highway. In fact, I believe the registry offices maintain what they call a highways register or some document or book where all our designations are listed. I do not believe the designation is registered against a person’s individual property, but the designation is there and any lawyer searching a title can check to see if there is any designation on that property.

We are also proposing to initiate a new system of installing signs where a new designation does take place. This is so that appropriate signing will take place to advise the public or land owners that this highway has a controlled-access designation on it. In other words we will be putting up a warning so that, if they were thinking of buying property or doing something with their property, they would know to contact MTC for the necessary permits or at least for the information involved.

With regard to section 6, we have had discussions with many municipalities, both cities and counties, where there are suburban roads commissions. There are 22 such commissions in the province where there are appointees made by the county and by the city to operate the suburban roads commissions. We have contacted and polled the cities and the counties where there are suburban roads commissions, and there was practically 100 per cent approval that the term of office, rather than being five years, or three years as it is in some cases. should be the term of the elected council. Then each new council that comes in would have the opportunity to elect or appoint its members to the suburban roads commission, and their term of office will be the same as that of the council. That does not prevent the council from reappointing the same person again -- as many times as they wish, I guess.

5:20 p.m.

We have almost total support for that from the cities and counties involved. We have also, at the request of the Municipal Liaison Committee, removed the present prohibition of a municipal councillor being on the suburban roads commission. For some reason, years ago it was thought that a municipal councillor should not be on the commission. We are removing that prohibition so it may now appoint municipal councillors.

I would point out, this legislation does not affect present appointees. If a present member of the suburban roads commission has been appointed for a longer term of office, he will run out that term and then any new appointment will be for the term of the elected council.

I believe that answers the questions that were raised by the honourable member.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1976, and to provide additional powers in certain other Acts with respect to Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Chairman, I realize this is unusual, but would it be possible to reverse the order in committee of the whole House and consider Bill 34 before Bill 31?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It’s perfectly all right if the member wants to speak on Bill 31.

Agreed.

ELEVATING DEVICES ACT

Consideration of Bill 34, the Elevating Devices Act, 1980.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Drea moves that section 2(b) of the bill be struck out and that the remaining clauses be relettered accordingly.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Chairman, I think I understand the reasoning behind the juxtaposition of section 6(i)(a) and section 6(3). I do not have a terribly serious problem with it. After all, we are talking about people who own $400,000 homes. I suspect they can look after their own safety. I do have some concern about a situation where it may involve handicapped devices and that kind of thing. I would accept the minister’s assurances that they would not be at all unwilling to use, and use quickly, the powers given to them to obtain a search warrant under those circumstances.

I have a real concern about those apartment buildings where there is a single-floor occupancy. I am not sure if those are all buildings where you have to go up in the elevator and out into a lobby. There may be some -- and I could be wrong -- where there is a key system in the elevator which then allows the elevator to go to the floor. I am sure the minister’s staff is more informed about those kinds of devices than I am.

If the ministry staff is certain that under no circumstances would there be difficulties in obtaining warrants, I can understand the concern about privacy. I do feel a bit uneasy about it, and I suggest it is something that the minister instruct his staff to keep an eye on over the first year or two of operation of the new legislation. It may well be necessary. I hope the minister will not have to come back in a year or six months, after having seen some problem with this, and move an amendment. Subject to all of that, I am not going to move an amendment or vote against those parts of section 6.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Actually, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the places where they have a key, those particular people welcome the elevator inspector. They love to have the device inspected.

Our concern is where we might run into a place that is actually being used as a dwelling. We never had this section in the old act. We never needed a warrant. We just put a protection out there. I do not think it will be a problem, but we like to be on the cautious side. If it turns out to be a problem, we will go back to the old act.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 31:

Mr. M. N. Davison: Did the minister want to start off with a comment on section 31(1)(p)?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, for once this all-embracing section is required, because there is no definition of a shaft. Bear in mind that we just removed, because of difficulties with duplication with the Mining Act, that particular exemption. From time to time, therefore, we may be in a position where we have to inspect and regulate a particular type of shaft. My staff advise me they cannot give an all-embracing definition of a shaft which would meet the requirements down the road. For once, the all-embracing one is needed for public safety. It is not a backup. We must be able to label the particular shaft and its elevating devices as being under control and regulation of this act and of the branch. There is no alternative way to do it.

I do not like this clause, but it is probably the exception that makes the rule, and it should be there. I will give the honourable member a commitment that if we can come up with a solution, based upon our experience and perhaps upon some changes in the Mining Act or in the Occupational Health and Safety Act where there is no problem with the definition of a shaft, we will remove the authority granted by clause (p), we will take it out completely, because there would be no other use for it.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could work in my comment to this particular bill on the Elevating Devices Act, 1980, as it relates to section 31(1)(b): “regulating the use, location, design, construction, installation, operation ... ”

5:30 p.m.

Perhaps I can raise a point here. I do have some concern about a matter related to a number of high-rise buildings being constructed in almost every municipality across Ontario. At different times, one may have some difficulties in the operation and the function of the elevators. Sometimes they may get jammed between floors or on floors. Often the first persons called in a case of emergency would be from the fire department. Under the Fire Marshals Act, I think they have powers to go in and almost rip the door off if they want to free persons from in there.

Normally, there is a safety device at the top of the door for which there has to be a special wrench to open and close the door manually instead of its being operated by air or by electrical motor. It has been brought to my attention that in the city of Port Colborne, in answer to an emergency call a fireman went into a building where there were about three or four persons trapped between the floors in the elevator. They had a notion to use crowbars on it, wreck and damage the door on the elevator. They didn’t do it, but they called a maintenance firm in Hamilton. It took them about three hours to get there while these people were trapped in that elevator. Sometimes people can panic in a confined area.

Is there any possibility through the ministry that when such elevators are operating in a municipality and installed in a high-rise building that those special keys would be left with fire departments so that if they are called in an emergency, they would have the proper equipment to enter that safety door to get the people removed from the locked or stuck elevator? Would the minister consider that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Perhaps the member couldn’t be here when we were doing second reading. We have discussed this bill and the requirements of elevator safety and maintenance with fire chiefs across the province. Under the new regulations, one will have to post in a building the maintenance contract and who the maintenance contractors are so that the fire department will know the exact status of the elevator, not only in cases where there is a fire, where they have to make a decision when people are trapped between floors as to whether to shoot the elevator down or whether it might be better to leave the people there, but also in the case of a breakdown the key must be made available. This seems to meet the requests of the fire chiefs across the province.

When they are called to the scene what they want is to be able to have complete data as to whom they can get a hold of to give them an exact description of the state of the elevator, whether people are on it, whether it has malfunctioned or whether it has been triggered off by fire. They are very confident that the obligation to produce the key to the fire department, which wasn’t there before, plus the maintenance contract, plus the fact that now the maintenance men -- the mechanics; not just the contractor -- have to be registered and qualified, will more than meet that situation.

Mr. Haggerty: Where would the special key be? If it is located, say, in Hamilton, a firm there that does maintenance work in elevators is three and four hours away.

Hon. Mr. Drea: We want the maintenance contract kept in the building so that when the firemen go in to do anything, they immediately know the state of the elevator. Right now, they have to find who is the maintenance contractor et cetera, and quite often they haven’t got time.

The owner is going to have to be able to produce the key. Obviously, he is going to keep it at the very same place that the maintenance contract is filed. The key can only be used for that purpose. There is no way we want a key around that one can use for the conventional method of operating an elevator.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Chairman, my problem is not really with that one particular subsection of this piece of legislation. I will admit it is not just this one particular bill but almost everything I see over there. I really do get worried about the immense power by regulation that the government takes upon itself. I want to talk about some of the other regulatory powers they are granting themselves.

I think it is easy to succumb to the hang-ups of lawyers and draftsmen in these things. I must admit to having no legal training. It is not one of my greater faults. It seems to me if the difficulty is that we have to pass an act that says there is a power residing with the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make a regulation “(p) exempting any person or any class of persons, and any elevating device or part thereof or any class or sub-class of them, from compliance with this act and the regulations or any of the provisions thereof” because we can’t come up with an all-embracing definition of the word “shaft,” there is something wrong.

If that is the reason that broad all-encompassing regulatory power has to be given to the cabinet, why is it beyond the capacity of some clever, legalistic person or some mystical cleric to come up with a definition? In section 1 of the act, they could put in a new subsection which says, “shaft,” and, after it, create some incredibly wonderful legalistic phrase like “‘shaft’ means anything so defined under section 31(1)(p) of this act.” We could then take the same clever legalistic scribe and turn him or her loose on section 31, where they could write a new 31(1)(p) which, after “may make regulations,” reads something like: “31(1)(p) defining the word ‘shaft.’” I have had only about 20 seconds to think about that. There must be an endless series of ways in which --

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, in fairness, since the member is casting some aspersions against staff, let me point out something.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Only lawyers.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Let me point out something to him so he can put his remarks into perspective. First, the people who are expert in shafts and who are responsible for safety and protection under the Mining Act have the responsibility of drafting this definition of a shaft. When they do, we will put it in and then take that out. The member, above all, and his party don’t want me or my ministry involved in underground mining.

Until the mining people come up with the proper definition and their criteria, the chief elevator inspector of this province, who now is beside me in this House, says he requires that to meet his requirements for public safety, if before the criteria are developed by another ministry he has to make a decision involving the safety of an elevating device in a shaft.

Mr. M. N. Davison: With the greatest respect, I do not believe the minister is completely conversant with the power he has taken upon himself by suggesting that this be kept in.

If as the minister has said, and I am going to leave this in a minute, the difficulty lies in the definition of the word “shaft,” then there are umpteen million ways in which we can fit in a definition that will resolve the difficulty, such as the one I suggested. Take another look at it.

5:40 p.m.

Because we are unable to define the word “shaft,” at this point in time, although we will be able to in the near future, how do the words “person or class of persons” get in? This is the kind of thing every legislative draftsperson in the world loves if he or she is not nearly addicted to it. We write down a list of 412 things we are going to be able to make regulations about; then, just in case we have forgotten number 413, we are going to put in a number 413, which is for anything else. That is exactly what this clause is.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not this time.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It is. If that is the problem they have told the minister about, then he should ask them why they have to have all the prattle about persons or classes of persons. We can just deal with the “devices or parts thereof” aspects of it, and not the persons. I am not going to belabour that.

I have some other reservations about section 31. One of them that always bothered me -- and again my criticism isn’t exclusively related to this piece of legislation -- is the whole area of fees. It is like a form of taxation without representation when we give these broad fee-levying powers to that wonderful, charming individual, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, sometimes known as the cabinet.

Over a period of the life expectancy of an act, 30 years, by the process of regulation we can have dramatic changes in what is in essence a form of taxation, by taking the power to levy fees and over a period of time creating something totally different with those fees. It is the same when one goes through every one of those kinds of powers. Again, I understand that when we have a technical piece of legislation we are going to have some difficulties. But we have sat through technical pieces of legislation, this minister and I -- things like the Residential Tenancies Act -- which are very complex.

There is another one I really like, section 31(1)(e), governing the conduct of persons in or about elevating devices. What’s that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Saying that you don’t fool around in one.

Mr. M. N. Davison: If there is a whole series of things that people are going to be prohibited from doing in elevating devices, put it into the legislation. There is no need to be creating reams and reams of rules about what people can and cannot do in elevating devices. Let’s have some public discussion of it.

I can go through this legislation and see the same kind of thing. If we look at clause (g), prescribing the responsibilities and obligations of licensees or owners, it occurs to me on occasion I would like to say something about that. There may be occasions when the regulations aren’t stringent enough but, aside from question period in the Legislature, what opportunity does a member have to do anything about that? In which case they can politely ask the minister, “Don’t you think we should tighten up on this a bit?” He can make a response, and maybe it will happen and maybe it won’t. I am not at all sure why the assembly isn’t charged with that responsibility. The minister can go on changing regulations for the next 20 years and there is never any debate in substance on the regulation.

We have this incredible little committee which the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) chairs and which looks at, studies and reads every single regulation that is passed. We could never debate the substance of it. All we can do is say: “Does that fit within the four corners of the act?” “Yes, it does.” Or “No, it doesn’t.” That is almost the kind of thing we can pay somebody to do. These pieces of legislation which remain unmodified for 20 years are the kinds of acts that members should have some say in when they are dealing with them.

Another similarity that I don’t understand is the regulations which follow in subsections 2 through 6 of that particular act; for instance, number 5: “The director may allow a variance from any code adopted under the regulation where in his opinion the variance would not detrimentally affect the safety of the elevating device.” That’s really nice, but I don’t know what it means.

All of those other ones are again ones that could be put into the legislation. I don’t think it is enough to wave the wand of technicality and say, “We are legislators and we shouldn’t get into anything technical, because we are not the experts.” I don’t believe in government by experts. I think we are elected here to write laws; we are sent here to write laws. I don’t see any need to delegate to some expert away off somewhere else the power to co-operate with that dear, charming person, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to create these laws for us. As legislators, we have a responsibility to write laws, and not to slough it off on somebody else so that they can go away in a corner of a room somewhere and write all these things, the substance of which is never debated.

The final argument I have with it is just a time argument. Over a period of time by change after change after change, in 20 years a statute can look, and indeed does look, nothing like the piece of legislation originally passed by the assembly. I resent the entire process by which we delegate responsibility for legislation. We are the legislators. We should be here writing laws, and we shouldn’t give that job away to somebody else.

Sections 31 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 34, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendment.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 5:47 p.m.