32nd Parliament, 1st Session































The House met at 2:02 p.m.



Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege on a matter which is so serious to me that I would like to have the opportunity in the life of this parliament to address my honourable colleagues. I certainly would be most willing to even be deprived of opportunities to speak in the future, to be given the time to address this House today.

We have parliamentary immunity in this chamber to speak freely and express our opinions, but we also have the right to speak outside of this chamber in freedom.

I have been attacked by a foreign publication and I have two copies which compare me to the assassin of His Holiness, Pope John Paul and the perpetrator of the attempted assassination of President Reagan. It is a most vicious attack against my person, a form of psychological terror, hate literature, in a Soviet publication called News from Ukraine which is published in the Soviet Union. It has a distribution of approximately 100,000 copies in Canada, 20,000 copies in both English and Ukrainian in the area of southern Ontario. This is the second such attack against me.

The concern I have is that it was not very long ago the honourable member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) addressed this assembly about the need to extend the mandate of the Ombudsman committee to include the discussion of human rights. I know there are many honourable members who are concerned about the violation of human rights in many parts of the world, and if there is to be an open discussion inside or outside committees and if foreign governments are to interfere in such a vicious manner to try to psychologically blackmail an individual from speaking out, I would like to have the support of my colleagues.

This publication, side by side with the first article that appeared --

Mr. Bradley: My local newspaper does that to me.

Mr. Shymko: The difference is that we have an opportunity to sue for libel against any publication that speaks in a defamatory manner here in Canada, but I cannot challenge this type of attack against me or against any member of this Legislature in court.

I have consulted the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the office of the Premier (Mr. Davis), and I have thought about whether or not I should raise this issue on a point of privilege, because my safety and the safety of my family are threatened through the allegations that you read. The first article, called The Career of a Politico, published two weeks before the federal election in 1979, was the first vicious attack. In consultation I was told not to raise this issue, not to spread this hatred beyond the limits of this publication. I did not.

On June 6, 1979,1 was approached by the first secretary of the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa and the representatives of Novosti Press, Izvestia and Pravda. They told me frankly that I should never run in an election in this country. They interfered directly by dictating to me that I not become involved in the free electoral process.

I thought this matter had been cleared up. And yet after the provincial election the second article, called The True Face of Mr. Shymko, appeared recently, distributed once again to defame me in a most violent manner by comparing me to criminals and assassins. In all conscience I cannot remain silent on this issue, because by remaining silent I would become a partner to the lies and deceit of these publications.

I know there are members in this House who are very concerned about the violation of human rights in other parts of the world. I have had an opportunity to listen to the concerns of the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis), who is concerned about the violation of human rights in places like Haiti. I have listened to the concerns in committees and in personal discussions that the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), for example, has about the policies in South Africa.

If in voicing these concerns I am, or any of these members is, subjected by a foreign power to the distribution of this kind of hatred to silence us, the only recourse we have, since we do not have it in the courts, is to speak in this assembly. I ask to have the support of my colleagues, the Attorney General and the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), because this literature is found in all the libraries of this province: it is found in at least four libraries I have personally visited in the city of Toronto, including the main library.

I cannot understand why they would have done this except through their constant reference to a publication I prepared and delivered to the president of the United Nations General Assembly in the fall of 1978 entitled A Resolution Concerning the Decolonization of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They make constant reference to this.

In these papers, right beside the first attack on me, is a vicious anti-Semitic article, which maligns such distinguished members of our society as Phil Givens and makes constant attacks on individuals, organizations and institutions. But the viciousness of the anti-Semitism, for example, that is printed in this publication, is astonishing. And it has thousands of copies distributed by our post office through registration number "8856 news."

2:10 p.m.

I do not know who pays for this; apparently it is shipped from East Berlin. We do not know the exact circulation figure of this publication. It is as vicious as the Ku Klux Klan. Members may recall that when I personally objected to the KKK message being voiced over 11 radio stations in Ontario, the Premier's office received a letter from one of the prominent stations asking that I be fired from the advisory council because I spoke out.

At least I can speak and I can raise this issue with Canadian organizations. I have no such recourse in this case. I ask the Attorney General to assist me, as I have requested, by meeting with the federal Solicitor General, to look at the hate literature criteria that we have, and to see whether I can have some assistance.

In conclusion, there is a release from the United States embassy in Ottawa, dated October 9, 1980. I would like to quote from a text entitled Publication from the US State Department document called Soviet 'Active Measures' -- Forgery, Disinformation, Political Operations. In it, specifically, is the only rationale I have for this. They refer specifically to this type of operation being carried on at the highest level. The program of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The KGB, showed an example of that operation, and said that recently there has been a stream of these Soviet active measures, called in Russian, Aktivniye Meropriyatia.

It says, one, "The approach used by the Soviet government includes outright and partial forgery of documents, the use of rumours, insinuations, altered facts and lies," which this article is;

Two, "The activities are designed and executed by a large and complex bureaucracy, in which the KGB and the International Department of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Central Committee are major elements," which points to direct intervention about my person by the representatives of the Soviet embassy;

Three, "Moscow seeks to discredit opponents of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, those who are critical of human rights and other areas, and to undermine these individuals, the institutions and their values;

Four, "They use as provocations, Soviet friendship and cultural societies." The society that publishes this is called the Association for Cultural Relations with Ukrainians Abroad. They use these organizations to oppose policies in individuals and leaders in governments whose activities do not serve the Soviet interests;

Five, "In some cases the operations have failed because targeted individuals," such as myself and others, "or governments, have responded effectively," which I am trying to do on this point of privilege.

It continues: "However, these Soviet active measures have had some success and they remain a major, if little understood, element of Soviet foreign policy. Unless the targets of Soviet active measures take effective action to counter them, these activities will continue."

In conclusion, there is a philosophy I hold and it is one that is shared by everyone here. In trying to understand the rationale of attacking me as viciously as I have been attacked, when a person passionately believes that justice, equality, tolerance, compassion, liberty and peace are not visions but attainable goals, this is a faith in man's ability to conquer all things as well as his own limitations.

It poses mighty challenges to some governments, such as the Solidarity movement that threatens those established powers based on force, to control the destiny of man. I see no other reason why someone like myself, and other members in the future, would be threatened by foreign governments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member has raised his point of privilege, without making a major speech, and I thank him for drawing this to the attention of all the members.

Mr. Sargent: It was a setup. He set it up. He cleared this with the House before he started, didn't he?

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a point of privilege?

Mr. Sargent: Yes. In 20 years I have never seen anything like this, where the Speaker allows a guy to go on like that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.


Mr. Speaker: Before the routine proceedings, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to all members of the House, and ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Shawn O'Sullivan, who is the winner of the gold medal for amateur boxing in the World Cup boxing championships. He is accompanied by his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Michael O'Sullivan, his trainers, Mr. Peter Wylie and Mr. Ken Hamilton, and many friends of the Cabbagetown Youth Centre.

I would ask all members to recognize them.

Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Members will be pleased to know Shawn O'Sullivan is the first Canadian to win the gold medal in 49 years. Nineteen years old, he is a student at the University of Toronto. Absent today is John Raftery, a student at Queen's University, who won the bronze medal in his class. His brother Barry is here to represent him today.

Through their skill and courage both young men have brought great honour to this province and to the Cabbagetown Youth Centre where they received their training. They are an inspiration to the hundreds of young people who engage in a variety of sports programs at the Cabbagetown centre. The programs and the centre were funded through Wintario grants given through the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. It is interesting to note that Peter Wylie, the trainer for Shawn and John, is a member of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force emergency task force.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Breithaupt: Don't tell him he may end up like you.

Mr. Hennessy: No way.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Shawn O'Sullivan. It is a very difficult sport. One has to participate in it to realize the effort one has to make to win a championship. I was fortunate enough to represent Canada at the Olympics. There are a lot of sacrifices one has to make to be a champion --

An hon. member: See what it did to you.

Mr. Hennessy: The member is all right with his mouth. I know Shawn is a very dedicated performer. I would like to tell Peter Wylie, Ken Hamilton and his mother and father, who took a great interest in the young man's future, that he has a good career in front of him. We all wish him the very best. He brought honour to Ontario and to Canada by winning the gold medal.


Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sorry the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) is not here. I waited to see if she would come in. I wish to correct the record with reference to the minister's statement in the House yesterday. I quote briefly the statement she made, "Over the last few years of the term of the agreement on established program funding, the federal contribution to health and post-secondary education in this province has been only a little over 44 per cent of the total amount contributed to those two sectors."

In fact, the minister has made two important errors. First, she has ignored the transfer of tax points under EPF, each amounts to $1.6 billion. This is the room that Ottawa has agreed to vacate in order that the province might raise revenue. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) himself understood this when he explained in his budget last May that it would be incorrect to include only the cash without acknowledging tax points.

I quote one sentence from the budget, "The growth the provinces receive from EPF," said the Treasurer, "is generated by the tax plus cash total, not the cash component alone. It is the former that has been used in evaluating the financial experience under EPF." Clearly by ignoring these tax points, the minister has made the province's contribution look $1.6 billion greater. If we consider the tax points as part of the federal contribution, which they are, then the federal contribution is not 44 per cent but 68 per cent.

Second, and even less excusable, is the minister's failure to segregate user fees, that is, Ontario health insurance plan fees and tuition costs. out of the province's contribution. User fees for both health and education equal $1.4 billion. When we separate the user fee part of the total provincial expenditure on health and post-secondary education, the respective contributions by both Ottawa and Queen's Park are 85 per cent federal and 15 per cent provincial.

2:20 p.m.

In other words, once we have stripped away the numerical camouflage, the facts show that out of every dollar spent by government for health and post-secondary education here in the province --

Mr. Jones: A little party line.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think you have made your point on correcting the record. Order.

Mr. Wrye: If I just might conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying further on the subject of post-secondary education alone, if you will just bear with me for a second, I am tabling the facts and figures upon which we reached the conclusion that Ontario's share of university funding has fallen to a mere five per cent as of 1981.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in response may I suggest to the honourable members that sleight-of-hand with figures will simply not wash.


Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that some time ago, early in the session, I rose on a point of privilege to bring to your attention the manner in which the director of Hansard treats interjections made in the House. You may also recall that the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) joined in the debate and you promised the House you would look into this situation.

The very point I was concerned about has now come to pass. I informed you I was quite concerned about having the director of Hansard put himself in a situation where he must decide whether or not an interjection would appear in Hansard -- namely an interjection coming from the Premier or from a cabinet minister. He may or may not feel some kind of political pressure for not having the interjection recorded in Hansard.

Last Thursday, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) and I engaged in an exchange in the House. I clearly heard the interjections made by the Minister of Housing. I am sure the Hansard reporter on the floor at the time also heard the interjections. It was very important to me to have those interjections appear in Hansard as I wanted the record to show what the Minister of Housing had said. To that end I sent a note to the Hansard reporter on the floor asking if she had heard the interjections.

Today I received a silly memorandum from the director of Hansard informing us, and I quote, "I should point out that members frequently engage in discussions across the floor of the House, and that these are not considered part of the debate." Mr. Speaker, as to the history of the Hansard recordings of this House, this is totally incorrect.

Until recent times the interjections have always formed a part of the debate. In many cases the interjections are just as important as the debate. I find it very offensive that the director of Hansard can put himself in a situation where he does not record things said by the Premier or members of the cabinet. If we, as opposition back-benchers, were put in the same position, could we expect the same treatment? We do not know.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think you have made your point. You did draw this matter to my attention. You may recall in the very incident to which you refer I did not hear what was said. But obviously the two members were becoming quite agitated and I did call the minister to order. To this end, I would just like to point out that all interjections are out of order.

I would like to make another point, the policy of the Hansard Reporting Service, with regard to recording interjections, is similar to that of most other major jurisdictions and is based upon guidelines approved by Mr. Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy. The difficulty of recording and reporting the growing number of interjections has escalated in recent years and after consultation with successive Speakers of the House and Hansard staffs in other jurisdictions, the policy was adopted of recording only those interjections that evoked some response from the member who has the floor and which, as a consequence, form part of the debate.

This policy was discussed extensively at meetings of the members' services committee in the last parliament but despite requests for guidance, there was no general agreement about how interjections should be treated. The committee polled other jurisdictions across Canada and the response indicated most of them were treating the reporting of interjections in much the same way as we do at Queen's Park. No clear agreement or recommendation emerged from that committee and after considerable further deliberation the guidelines now enforced were approved by Mr. Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy. If my memory serves me correctly, it was in November of 1979.

Mr. Nixon: On the point of order if I may, Mr. Speaker: I certainly don't want to question your statement nor indicate a faulty memory on your part because I feel sure you have looked it up very carefully. But as a member of that board, I do not recall ever approving a concept for the recording of interjections other than it is a responsibility of Hansard to take down the words that are spoken.

The only time that cannot be done is when the House becomes more or less a mêlée with people on all sides shouting. In that case, it would be humanly impossible for Hansard to take down all of the pearls that are cast on each side. But in instances where the interjections are clearly made, whether they are in order or not, it was always my understanding they formed a proper part of the record as it would be taken down and printed in Hansard.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that in this House about a year and a half ago, there were some interjections put into the record which were found objectionable by certain members who heard them. At that time the House leader for the government and his colleagues on the Board of Internal Economy decided the best way to eliminate the interjections from being picked up was to remove what we call the garbage track which picked up all the interjections. One did not have to rely on someone taking notes but just go back to the Hansard office and listen to the tapes. The government in its lack of wisdom decided the best way to eliminate the interjections was to remove the garbage track.

I objected to that then because there were a lot of racial slurs going on and I felt we must know who made them. I was the only one who objected to the garbage track being removed from the Legislature.

Mr. Mancini: Could I speak to this, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It is finished.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order. I gave you the information that I had made available to me, based on a decision prior to my occupying this chair. You are out of order.



Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am pleased to inform the House that we have entered into a contract with the University of Toronto for planning and development that will lead to the establishment of an Institute for Hydrogen and Electrochemical Systems in Ontario.

I think honourable members will be interested to know the institute we intend to create will be the first of its kind anywhere in the world. We believe it will put us in the vanguard of hydrogen research and lead to Ontario becoming a world leader in the development, marketing and use of these new and exciting technologies.

On several occasions our government has announced its interest and support of the role hydrogen could play for this province. Members may recall that early in the new year we announced our intention to prepare Ontario for the transition to an economic system based increasingly on electrical power and nuclear technology. We outlined the role of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development in a policy document called "Building Ontario in the 1980s." Stated in that BILD policy framework was our intention to establish an institute for the study and development of hydrogen systems.

2:30 p.m.

In the speech from the throne on April 21, 1981, we reaffirmed our commitment to the establishment of a hydrogen institute and stated that approaches had been made to the federal government, suggesting a joint funding program. Negotiations are proceeding in this regard at the present time.

Slightly more than a month ago, I tabled a synopsis of the Ontario Hydrogen Energy Task Force. I am sure many members have taken the opportunity to study the synopsis and find it as thought-provoking and timely as I do.

As I told honourable members on October 16, the report of the task force confirms my belief that Ontario is in a strong position to assume the role of world leader in the development of hydrogen energy systems. As a province we have the good fortune of having established an energy mix that could be used to make us masters of the approaching electricity-hydrogen age.

We in this House know we do not have much oil or gas in the province but we do have electricity -- and lots of it -- from hydraulic and nuclear power. This good fortune, coupled with the success of our internationally-renowned Candu reactors, our substantial supply of uranium and our sophisticated manufacturing industries, puts Ontario in an enviable position to expand our use of hydrogen.

For what purpose? First, to build an energy system unique and indigenous to Ontario. Second, many eminent international thinkers say it is the energy system that will be used progressively throughout our planet; Ontario can lead this evolution. That is what excites me the most about the role of hydrogen in this great and wonderful province of ours.

At a time when all the people of the province recognize the importance of environmental quality -- from the quality of the air we breathe to the quality of the lakes in which we swim -- I would be remiss if I did not identify the very positive environmental impact of using hydrogen in place of fossil fuels.

When hydrogen is used as a fuel, the waste produce -- that is, the exhaust -- is simply water. If Ontario can lead the world in using hydrogen, it will also lead the world to a cleaner and brighter future.

As I told the House a month ago, I was very pleased to see that the report of the Ontario Hydrogen Energy Task Force supported my proposal that a hydrogen institute should be established. We expect such an institute will attract experts from around the world to join with Canadians in this task. Their work will put Ontario in the lead in developing the systems to produce, distribute and utilize this new fuel.

The institute will act as a catalyst to mobilize the resources of government, industry and universities. The institute will make every effort to encourage the private sector to enter into joint programs so that products can be developed and manufactured, not only for the Canadian market but for a worldwide market as well.

In other words, we see the role of the institute as paving the way for a new industrial sector in this province, based on hydrogen applications.

The institute will also undertake a coordinating and management role for all future Ontario hydrogen development projects and ensure their integration and co-ordination with my ministry's previously announced alternative fuels program.

As members may recall, it was last October when I announced a 10-point, $165-million program, which included a $75-million, five- year alternative transportation fuels component. We defined a clear role for hydrogen in the transportation sector, which has been confirmed by the conclusions of the hydrogen task force.

The task force concluded that the cost of hydrogen is projected to escalate more slowly than forecast Ontario prices for carbon-based fuels; thus, in the long term, the economic prospects for the use of nonfossil-derived hydrogen for transportation are attractive. When one considers that transportation accounts for 50 per cent of crude oil use in Ontario this is a very exciting concept.

The first major initiative we announced last spring under the alternative transportation fuels program was the signing of a contract with the Urban Transportation and Development Corporation to develop hydrogen storage and fuel systems and then to equip two demonstration transit buses to use the new fuel.

I have said this in the House before but I think it bears repeating in light of today's announcement: It was 75 years ago the government of Ontario anticipated the importance of electricity in a modern society and moved to harness our abundant hydraulic endowment. Eighteen years ago, this government grasped the significance of developing a Canadian nuclear program to secure an indigenous energy base and to further strengthen Ontario's leadership in electricity.

Our hydraulic and nuclear capabilities now place Ontario in a very fortunate position in the electricity-hydrogen age. I wish to refer honourable members to a report called Energy Alternatives, which was prepared by the special committee on alternative energy and oil substitution for the Parliament of Canada in the spring. Here is a quote from that report which I think will be of particular interest to all of us in the House this afternoon:

"There are two energy currencies which can be derived from all the alternative energy sources which we (the special committee on alternative energy and oil substitution) have considered. They are electricity and hydrogen. We see these two currencies dominating Canada's energy mix in the long term because they satisfy our criteria for determining the direction a new energy policy should take."

I hope all members will join with me in wishing the planning group for the Institute for Hydrogen and Electrochemical Systems well as they undertake the very important task of setting up the institute over the next six months. The group will be led by Dr. David Scott, who has just completed a five-year term as chairman of the department of mechanical engineering at the University of Toronto. Some honourable members may already be aware of Dr. Scott's impressive qualifications and keen interest in the development of hydrogen.

I believe this announcement today is one more example of this government's commitment to a secure energy future for Ontario, its stated intention to lessen our dependency on crude oil, its commitment to encourage new high-technology industries and its concern for our environment. The establishment of this institute, I believe, will be seen in time as one of the most important and far-reaching energy undertakings ever made by any provincial government in Canada.


Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform members of the Legislature of the death of Alan Albert Russell, QC, who served this province with dedication and commitment for 30 years.

Mr. Russell, a University of Toronto graduate, served with the Canadian Army in the Second World War, before joining Ontario's civil service. He served as solicitor to the inspector of legal offices, as inspector of legal offices himself, as an assistant Deputy Attorney General, and he was Deputy Solicitor General before his retirement at the end of 1979.

In addition, Mr. Russell was an active member of the Canadian Bar Association and the St. John Ambulance, and was first vice-president of the Civil Service Quarter Century Club.

Working in all parts of the province, Alan Russell was unstinting in his service to the citizens of Ontario. He was a humane and compassionate man who earned the respect of all of those who were privileged to work with him and to know him. His delightful and very special sense of humour was always an important and effective ingredient in the undertaking of his many vital tasks.

We are indeed all indebted to him. I am sure all members of this House will join me in offering condolences to his wife, Nora, and other members of his family.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the condolences that we bring from this side of the House, may I say that I got to know Alan Russell rather well over the years. We served together on the provincial finance committee for the Order of St. John.

He was, as the Attorney General mentioned, a very humane and compassionate man whose sense of humour and dedication, particularly to that area in which I knew him, was unsurpassed. Indeed, he was a fine public servant. He will be missed not only in the other activities but also by many friends who will be shocked and saddened by his sudden passing.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my voice on behalf of the New Democratic Party in extending condolences to the family of Mr. Russell and to express our sorrow with his death and our gratitude for the services he has given to the province.

I know that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who could not be here today, would have wanted to have his voice added as well, as a colleague in the law and because of Mr. Russell's contribution to the law and to this province.

2:40 p.m.


Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.



Mr. Breithaupt: It is all right, Mr. Speaker; they will get used to it. In any event, I will probably get more votes from over there too.

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services, who was in his seat but I guess has left the chamber briefly.

Mr. Breaugh: Here he comes walking through the door now.

Mr. Breithaupt: Then to the minister: The minister is aware from recent press reports, and from yesterday's report by the Ontario Status of Women Council, that some 200,000 elderly women in Ontario suffer the hardship of grinding poverty. He knows that Ontario's meagre dole to the aged widow in Metropolitan Toronto falls some $1,600 short of a decent income, as found by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto.

What promise will the minister keep in respect to this cry from the poorest of the poor in Ontario? Will he decide to alleviate this suffering and in this case go beyond the inadequate eight per cent increase given November I and enrich Ontario's guaranteed annual income system, family benefits and general welfare payments for this particularly needy group?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First, Mr. Speaker, one of the prime considerations in the social assistance changes in the fall of this year in the category of taking the permanently unemployable person up to the disabled rate was the fact that a large number of the individuals who had been classed at the lower rate as permanently unemployable were in the aged single female category.

Second, I am, and have been for some time, looking at -- I still call it by its old name -- widow's allowance for the female who is classed as a single person for any number of reasons and who is above the age of 60. I want to take a look at that. Quite frankly, I do not think any increase in general welfare assistance would be particularly beneficial to this group.

I think, though, one of the things that should be taken into consideration is that in the larger areas, such as Metro Toronto, a considerable proportion of the needs, particularly in shelter, are met at a reduced rate. So the spread between the poverty line and what they would receive from any combination of social assistances, federal and provincial, is not necessarily accurate.

There is no question either about the inadequacies of both public and private pension plans, in that most of them started after these people were able to get into them, and this is a category we are looking at.

The honourable member also should be aware of the fact that there is a marked discrepancy in terms of the lifespan and the numbers of females, not only those over 65 but also those over 60. However, while we may be able to meet some temporary needs, it is obvious that welfare or social assistance, except in the case of disabled persons, is not really the legitimate answer to this question if those people are to have the type of dignified senior years they should have.

Mr. Breithaupt: May I remind the minister of a statement by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) several days ago in a dialogue on pension reform? He said:

"First, let us ensure that the problems of the existing elderly, particularly single people, can be taken care of by adjusting income guarantees from guaranteed income supplement and through provincial programs such as Gains. This will be a main priority in our pension reform efforts. Government alone has the responsibility and resources to solve it."

In the light of that statement and in view of the minister's concern for the group that was formerly in the widow's pension class, that is, including single persons as well, will the minister act now and get the Treasurer to encourage an immediate enrichment of provincial aid for the aged widows in particular so they can live in dignity and comfort and so it can be done in 1981, this year, before Christmas? Can we not have some changes at least committed so this problem will be alleviated?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, not all of them qualified because of age for the old age supplement, the guaranteed income supplement or Gains-A, the guaranteed annual income system payment for the aged. This is a perplexing part of the problem because of the arbitrary age delineations for a single person.

I think what the Treasurer was commenting on in the context of those remarks was the period after 65, particularly because of the longevity of the lifespan of the female and the fact, which I think is also well known to all the honourable members, that in terms of being an active, independent person, the female's span is also much greater than that of the male.

The particular aspect the Treasurer raised is one that will have to be addressed. But at the same time there is a limited number who are eligible for social assistance, and that is one of my responsibilities.

I do not think there is any argument in this House that the existing pension plans are not meeting the need. To change both the public and the private plans, there is nothing we can do literally in 60 days that will be meaningful to those whom the member was talking about.

It is the responsibility of this ministry. Indeed, one of the doors we opened in September was that there is no more universality in social assistance. We would have to meet needs based upon the particular segments of the population on a priority basis. We are looking into this question. Our role as a ministry is the only effective way to have a stopgap until the long-term things that are necessary can be brought into place.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary if I can understand all the mishmash from the minister.

If the minister is looking for something he can do within 60 days, why does he not implement the recommendation of the select committee on pensions that the single Gains rates should be increased to 60 per cent of the married rate to get the singles on Gains in this province above the poverty line? Is that beyond the government's capacity?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that this honourable member has addressed a question to me knowing it is outside my jurisdiction. The first time the question of the Gains-A payments came up was three or four weeks ago. When I asked the member afterwards why he would ask me, he said it was because the Speaker would not let him ask the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe).

The payments and determinations under Gains-A are in the jurisdiction of the Minister of Revenue. They are not part of my ministry.

Mr. McClellan: Never mind the crocodile tears.

Mr. Cassidy: What a government! Are you responsible or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have the greatest of difficulty in here. As I said before when this very thing was asked, I cannot speak for the Minister of Revenue.

Mr. Peterson: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I wish to redirect my question to the Premier, because each minister asked about this question seems to try to slough off the responsibility to someone else. It is obvious, if people are not being looked after under Gains or GIS, that they end up as cases for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but each minister is passing the buck.

In view of the Haley commission's report and the select committee's recommendations on this subject, why does the government not move tomorrow on Gains so that at least we can rectify to some small extent the problem we are all so very aware of?

Mr. Speaker: I respectfully suggest that question was out of order. You cannot redirect.

Mr. Peterson: Then why did I waste all that energy?

Mr. McClellan: When it was also my question.

Mr. Speaker: Indeed.

2:50 p.m.


Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, who will recall the comments made Thursday last. In lauding the many virtues of the Suncor purchase, he mentioned an upgrading of Suncor's Sarnia refinery. At that time the minister said that some $350 million was to be expended on that project, all of which was made possible, in his own words, "because of the Canadianization of the company, and we are involved in that."

I ask the minister, however, whether he is aware that Suncor had made a commitment to the federal government as early as May 1980 to upgrade its Sarnia refinery and that the decision was made to upgrade because of the necessity to phase down the production of heavy oil; it had nothing to do with Canadianization. Why does the minister take credit when the credit belongs to someone else?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am at some disadvantage in that I do not have the Suncor press release here. I sense that the honourable member asking the question does. If he will read, I think, the second paragraph of the Suncor release itself -- because that was the source of my comments in that debate -- he will find that it talks about $1.5 billion over three years. They earmarked the $350 million for the refinery.

In that second paragraph, if memory serves me correctly, they attribute their involvement in this increased rate of investment to a couple of factors; one was the more favourable terms under the Canada-Alberta agreement, and the second was that the company was now on its way to Canadianization. They attributed their interest in making these substantially increased investments in Canada to those two factors.

Mr. Breithaupt: In a lengthy letter printed in the Globe and Mail of which he was the apparent author, the minister comments: "As well, to table this confidential information could undermine the ability of Sun Company Incorporated to sell the other 26 per cent of its shares so that majority ownership and control can be held in Canadian hands."

Is the minister trying to tell us that he cannot allow others to know the information on which he bought his shares in case they do not want to buy it? Or is he trying to say that if he let the information out, people would realize he should not have bought in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am very pleased that the honourable member took the time this morning to read the letter with the care that he obviously has. Under the circumstances, in responding to his question, I thought I might use this opportunity to say how much I appreciate the fact that the letter was published.

I am going to use this opportunity as well to say that! will be writing to the editor to indicate that I am sorry there was one part left out of the letter which deals with the very point the member raised, namely, confidentiality. In the course of that letter, after the paragraph dealing with confidentiality to which the honourable member refers, I went on to write and share this in my letter:

"It is useful to recall what the Royal Commission on the Freedom of Information recommended in cases such as this, and I quote:

"We recommend the adoption of the following exemptions relating to commercial information: (a) A governmental institution may refuse to disclose a record: (i) containing a trade secret or other financial, commercial, scientific or technical information obtained from a person, if the disclosure of that information could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position, or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations, of a person, group of persons or organization."

I think it was unfortunate that this was left out of the letter this morning, because it talks about the reason why we are respecting that agreement.

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: A question was asked by the member for Kitchener precisely with regard to a paragraph in a letter. You heard the question. He said that if giving out the information will deter other people from buying it he wants to know if the facts are so bad that other people will not buy it or if the facts so bad that he should not have bought it.

That question has not been even remotely approached in the minister's answer. He went on to talk about a totally different paragraph that should have been in the letter. Surely you can call the minister to order and not give him 15 minutes to stand up and avoid answering a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I just point out that the Leader of the Opposition is as well aware as I am of the standing orders pertaining to the answering of questions by ministers.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows perfectly well that this recommendation of the Commission on the Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy was not at all directed to situations where there was a major investment by the people of the province --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I don't know that at all.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, it certainly was directed only to companies where the information happened to come into public hands.

As a potential shareholder of Suncor, putting a $600-million investment in there, I am concerned about the fact that my company has just reported that for nine months its profit is down to $50 million from $255 million in the same period last year.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cassidy: My supplementary to the minister is this: So that I can find Out what is actually happening with this company, of which we are to take 25 per cent, is it the government's intention to bring supplementary estimates into this Legislature so that we can decide whether, and how much, to vote for the purchase of Suncor, or does the government intend to buy into Suncor without seeking legislative approval?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member understands -- in fact, he has participated in the debates on this matter up to now -- that there are all kinds of information that is public, and that has been included in the tabling --

Mr. Foulds: All kind of information, but not the truth.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I beg your pardon? Not the truth?

Mr. Foulds: Not the truth; only wrong information.

Mr. Smith: Not the whole truth.

Mr. Foulds: There is a difference between information and truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that the minister answer the question and never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Will you bring in supplementary estimates? Yes or no?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: As far as the disclosure of information is concerned, we have already dealt with that. The honourable member knows the transaction is being done under the statutory authority provided to the Ontario Energy Corporation.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, will the minister take this occasion either to refuse to answer these questions or to provide the answers that were asked for by the member for Kitchener?

In the first place, with regard to the refinery for which the minister took credit and which he said would not have been upgraded without his deal, will he admit, as the member for Kitchener pointed out, that they had already been committed for more than a year to do that very upgrading because of the heavy oil problem and because of federal policy at the time, and that it had nothing to do with his purchase? Will he admit that or else refuse to answer?

Second, will the minister explain to us how making the facts known to the public will deter a purchaser from buying 26 per cent of the shares? Are the facts that bad?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, although I can appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition came in on the question a bit late --

Mr. Smith: I heard it outside, very clearly.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That perhaps will be the member's permanent position: on the outside listening to what is going on.

If the member really had listened to the question, he would have understood something was being attributed to me with respect to that statement, which I was drawing to his attention, that was in the body of the Suncor news release.

Mr. Smith: No, no. On Thursday you said it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I was quoting. Perhaps I will give the member for Kitchener an opportunity to bring him up to date. It is a news release I was using from Suncor, making reference to Canadianization.

Mr. Smith: You said it in your statement to the House.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, I think the member should use the news release too that I was quoting from. It says so right in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister address himself to the question, please, and never mind the interjections?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I thought I was perhaps being helpful to the honourable member, because he presumes to know what was being asked.

With respect to the disclosure, we are talking in terms of the fact that we have retained professional people to give us advice with respect to our negotiations, which we think is privileged information in so far as it deals with others who may be seeking an opportunity to buy into that matter as well.

As far as the upgrading is concerned, there is no question that there has been a fair amount of interest expressed in this country about the need for heavy oil upgrading. I assumed, on the basis of that release, that what Suncor was doing was establishing some timetable for it and was giving some attribution to the pricing agreement between --

Mr. Smith: Not so.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member will have to read the press release and then perhaps ask me the questions.

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am going to quote from Hansard, because the implication is being made here that we are somehow distorting what the minister has said. At page 3712 of Hansard, he says: "With respect to the employment implications in Ontario" -- and then he goes on to speak about the press release and so on -- "we see that some $350 million is to be spent in Sarnia." Then he talks about the number of jobs: "This will involve 1,000 direct construction jobs at the Suncor refinery at the height of the project.. Is that not interesting for Ontario?" Then, referring to the release, the minister says, and this is the key: "He the president of Suncor. says all this is made possible because Canadianization plans for his company are well under way, and we are involved in that. It is a very positive step."

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is what the press release said.

Mr. Smith: Whatever the press release said, if one looks at the 10-K document supplied by Suncor to the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington on March 31, 1981, it says plainly that as of September 30 they were already committed to the upgrading of the refinery in Sarnia --

Hon. Mr. Welch: When? To start when?

Mr. Smith: I will provide the document. Because of the fact that the government of Canada has an established --

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is deteriorating into a debate. The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) with a new question.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, you let the member for High-Park Swansea (Mr. Shymko) stand here with his self-congratulatory nonsense --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are out of order.

Mr. Sargent: A new form of closure, eh?

Mr. Mancini: You had no right to turn the microphones off.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We don't turn them off.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre has the floor and will please proceed.


Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday, he blamed some of the shortfall in jobs in the St. Thomas area on market conditions in the automobile industry.

I want to ask the Premier whether he is aware of the report by Mr. Neil MacDonald on the medium-term employment outlook in the automotive industry, a report that was prepared for the federal Labour Market Development Task Force and is now under serious study by the federal government. It forecasts that employment in the automobile industry in Canada could drop to between 50,000 and 55,000 workers by 1990, or half the level that existed in 1980.

In view of this new evidence of the structural problems in the automobile industry, is the government now prepared to take some new long-term initiatives to restore jobs in that industry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have debated this subject on a number of occasions. I have not read Mr. MacDonald's report. We have debated in this House the long-term future of the automotive industry. I can only express a personal point of view based on discussions I have had with people in the industry, with members of the United Automobile Workers and others. I remain far more optimistic about the future of the automotive industry than some others.

Mr. Cooke: Based on what?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Windsor- Riverside (Mr. Cooke), in representing that important segment of the economy of this province, wants to be totally negative about the future of the automotive sector, so be it.

I suggest to the leader of the New Democratic Party that when it comes to giving encouragement to the automotive industry in terms of both the major producers and the auto parts sector, I question whether any other government in North America has done as much as we have. I ask him to show me any government that has done more to encourage the development of the automotive sector than the government of this province. He will not find one.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the Premier recall the leaked report from the Ministry of Treasury and Economics which came out a year ago about the 1985 shape of the motor vehicle industry? In that report the ministry itself forecast employment in the industry would be down to between 63,000 and 67,000 workers by 1985. Now we have another forecast which suggests it will be down to 50,000 by the end of the decade.

Will the Premier say what has happened to the large-scale review of the industry's prospects and problems which the Treasurer said was under way in his mini-budget a year ago and which has yet to result in any new and effective policies to maintain and improve jobs in the automotive industry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This gets around to one of the basic problems in the automotive industry which, as I explained to the leader of the New Democratic Party, was not easy for this government to resolve. That is the question of domestic markets in North America, the question of how many Americans are buying automobiles.

With great respect to the honourable member, the automotive sector in this province is somewhat dependent upon consumer attitudes and purchases in the United States. That may have escaped him, but it happens to be a reality that even he should be able to understand.

Mr. Smith: Then why did you reduce the sales tax in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would like to show the Leader of the Opposition all the comments we have had from dealers across this province and from the manufacturers.

He can oppose it all he likes. I just think he should consider himself very fortunate that he is not maintaining his position as Leader of the Liberal Party because he would be decimated by these people. Now where was I?


Hon. Mr. Davis: I could give the leader of the New Democratic Party one example that was sort of a worst-case scenario developed by some people who were studying the automotive sector. If he looks at that very carefully, he will find some dire predictions about American Motors. He will find, if I have the same report in mind, that since the preparation of that report American Motors US and American Motors Canada have entered into a modest agreement with Renault, which was not anticipated by the authors of the report. If all goes well, this will add growth for American Motors Canada. I happen to know a little bit about that problem.

There are still some difficulties with that relationship and finality with respect to it, but that report -- and I just used one example -- was very negative about the long-term future of American Motors. Am I right?

That picture has changed, and there is reason to be optimistic about the --

Mr. Cassidy: This report suggests only 40,000 jobs by 1990.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know what it is, and the honourable member always likes to look at the worst-case scenario of every single subject. That has been his prime motivation all his political life. But in spite of his dire predictions, in spite of his negative attitude and that of his party, this province has produced more jobs in this past year than even we had anticipated. We do not minimize the economic difficulties, but the long-term future of the economy of this province is very healthy, including the automotive sector.

Mr. Wrye: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Davis) will be aware that just yesterday General Motors announced the indefinite layoff of more than 300 workers at its transmission plant in Windsor, and a temporary layoff of almost 400 -- a total layoff of more than 700 workers. At the same time they announced they would be delaying expansion of that plant until early spring, and reducing the number of trans-axles that it has been making back down to 2,000.

What is the Premier doing to ensure that any cutbacks in the expansion programs by the automotive industry will not be confined to Canada, which would further cripple the automotive industry here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) would be delighted to reply in more definitive terms. I have the figures before me, if the honourable member wants me to send them to him, with respect to the number of layoffs in the American facilities of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The figures will show rather conclusively that the companies are dealing with this in a very even-handed fashion.

If we take Chrysler as an example, and the honourable member should be aware of this, their plant in Windsor is the one plant that has gone on double shift because the consumer market in the United States, for some reason or other, has decided it wants more of the larger- sized vehicles rather than the smaller ones. I cannot explain this, but it just happens to be that at the moment Chrysler in Windsor is the beneficiary. As I sense the attitude of the companies, Ontario is not being singled out. The layoffs in the American facilities have been as significant, on a percentage basis, or perhaps even higher.

To get back to the point I tried to make to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who does not understand it, the situation in the automotive sector -- and we are not minimizing it; it is serious -- does relate to the number of vehicles being purchased by Americans in the United States. As a layman, I would relate this consumer reaction directly to the interest rates in the United States. This province, in relative terms, is being treated fairly, and there is not a higher percentage of our workers being laid off temporarily in this province than in the States.

Mr. Foulds: That makes it good, does it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it does not make it good, but at least we can be honest about it.

Mr. Foulds: What are you going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don't you buy a new car?

Mr. Foulds: What are you going to do about it? You are the government for at least the next three years. Why are you so defensive?

Hon. Mr. Davis: How long did it take you to buy a North American-produced car?

Mr. Nixon: When was the last time you paid for one?

Hon. Mr. Davis: My wife just bought one.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, we know just how badly things are going in the auto industry when the Premier talks about the positive aspects of the auto industry. He talks about the Chrysler plant which has been at work less than 50 per cent of the year so far, and says that is a positive aspect of the auto industry.

I would like to know when this government is going to introduce a policy, a long-term strategy, for the automobile industry, and in particular the auto parts industry? The Premier will be aware that Mexico has introduced content rules which now has made it the fastest-growing automotive jurisdiction in the world.

3:10 p.m.

Is the government prepared to press the federal government for content rules and in so doing, also institute a policy of expansion in our auto parts firms, through direct investment, through adequate research and development to create the 25,000 to 30,000 jobs associated with just 85 per cent Canadian value added requirements?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of intriguing that the member even acknowledges there are 25,000 jobs available if this were to happen, because his leader was just giving us totally different figures.

I would say a clear demonstration which they opposed as a party, and probably individually, was the encouragement given by this government to Volkswagen to locate in Barrie. They are opposed to it. I understand it but it is a clear indication of what this government has been able to accomplish.

Mr. Martel: You did not answer the question. You are all over the ball park.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question. The member for Ottawa Centre.


Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Premier about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program.

Yesterday the Premier said the BILD program was designed to deal with specific sectors and talked about the food-processing sector. He said that $8.5 million have been spent there and said after six or seven months BILD is having an impact.

Was he referring to the fact that Southland Canning in the Windsor area has now gone into receivership after receiving a $350,000 grant from the BILD program to go into the tomato paste program? Or is this not more evidence that the BILD program is floundering before it even gets off the ground?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to that. The honourable member knows full well the commitment of $8.5 million covers many aspects of the processing industry. I met with the processors yesterday. If he does not believe me he can go and talk to them. I think he would be most welcome. He might even learn something.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the Premier explain how it is that the civil servant most associated with creating the BILD program, Duncan Allan, now the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, could say a few weeks ago: "Damn it all. I sometimes think maybe the answer is that we have got to have a publicly-owned or co-operative plant big enough to be able to get into that market and compete with the multinationals." He was referring specifically to the area of tomato paste after $350,000 had gone into a firm which is now in receivership.

Why is it the government keeps trying to convince people in this province the BILD program is going to turn the economy of Ontario around when the evidence all around us is that it is not going to work? Even the author of the BILD program is turning his back on it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I asked the member for Downsview with respect to de Havilland -- we can go through it chapter and verse if the member has the time and the House will permit. The minister would be delighted to go through it, item by item.

As I said yesterday, if the members opposite would listen to me very carefully, the BILD program has singled out certain sectors of the economy. Do they want me to go through them again? The processing industry is an area one can single out as being in some difficulty, but members can ask the processors about their acceptance of the plan and what we have been doing. We have committed $8.5 million. My guess is that we will reach the five-year program within 12 months. In fact, the Treasury will probably be asked to allocate additional funds for the food processing industry.

I know the leader of the New Democratic Party is opposed to the BILD program. He is opposed to it because it is working. This is totally consistent with his philosophy, has been and will continue to be and I am not even going to try to change his mind.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the Premier not agree with me there is a tremendous need in the Windsor-Essex county area to have a more diversified economy to get away from being so highly dependent on the automotive industry? And does he not agree we are in a unique position there to support a huge tomato paste industry which could bring many new jobs to our area?

Could we have his assurance that, although this one cannery was unsuccessful in obtaining a market for tomato paste, this will not discourage the government investing more money in the Essex county area to take advantage of the tremendous farm land and the highly productive farmers who can fill the gap and displace imported tomato paste? Can we have the Premier's assurance that this one company's lack of success is not going to sour the government on its program? We need assistance in this area.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall, in debating the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, a more enthusiastic endorsement from a member of the opposition than that we have just received. I recognize the unique characteristics of Essex county and of Windsor. I will not tell him how unique I think it is in some respects, but it is unique.

If he is saying that one bad experience should not deter us from giving leadership and encouragement to the development of the agricultural sector -- not only in Essex, but in Kent, Elgin, Middlesex, Peel, and so forth -- of course we will not let that discourage us. I am delighted the member understands what we are attempting to do and is so totally supportive. He should talk to his friends from Essex over there and get their endorsement as well.

Mr. Cooke: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: There is a great deal of concern amongst tomato farmers in Kent and Essex counties as to whether there will be a purchaser for their tomatoes next year because this plant has gone under. Will the Premier commit himself or have his minister investigate the possibility of entering into direct investment with the farmers in the area to set up a co-operative to keep this plant going?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the plant is still operating, as I am sure the honourable member knows. If he is asking whether we as a government will do our best to ensure a market for the excellent product in Essex county, the answer, of course, is yes. I assume, in spite of the member's hypocritical observations when he is at home and here --


Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I am sorry -- contradictory observations. I assume the member would agree with the former member and that if we found something was viable he would encourage BILD initiatives to assist the farmers in Essex county as well.


Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Culture and Recreation on the McMichael matter. The minister will be aware that as a result of the press conference by Mr. Taylor today there seems to be an issue developing as to the degree of influence the McMichaels are to have in the conduct of those aspects of the collection that have to do with the aesthetic values.

Would the minister agree that in the original agreement the advisory council was to consist of five persons: the McMichaels, two crown appointees and a chairman agreeable to all four persons? Would he agree the spirit of that was to be maintained in the act that was passed which said the board of trustees could have five to nine persons? The board was increased to nine but all appointments were to be made either at the suggestion of or with the approval of the McMichaels.

Could the minister explain the change of policy which occurred about three or four years ago when, instead of having the appointees either suggested or approved by the McMichaels, the government decided to make political appointments of people with, sometimes, no claim to knowledge in the field of art and without the approval of the McMichaels? This reached the point where Mr. McMichael and Mr. Taylor had to go to the ministry from time to time to ask why these people were being appointed instead of people they had recommended. Why did the policy change about three or four years ago?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, the policy did not change. At no time did Mr. McMichael get the power to approve the appointment of any order in council appointee to the board. I think the Leader of the Opposition could very --

Mr. Smith: He always did.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: He never had the power to approve a member who was appointed by order in council.

Mr. Smith: Not officially, but he did.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: No, never. He recommended perhaps, but he never approved.

Mr. Smith: He used to recommend them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The Leader of the Opposition should think through this scenario a little more clearly. What would happen if we had a board of trustees conducting the affairs of this very large public gallery where all the members would have to be approved -- whether that word would be in quotes or not in quotes -- by Mr. McMichael? What a cozy little setup that would be, would it not? Would he suggest that? There was never ever any suggestion that Mr. McMichael could approve, formally or informally, any appointees made by order in council. Therefore, the policy has never changed.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Smith: Supplementary: The original agreement made it very plain the board was only five persons -- the McMichaels, two crown appointees and a chairman agreeable to them all. Also the McMichaels had been assured the new act was not going to change the tone of that, even though it was changing the number from five to nine. The people put on the board did not need his approval but in practice were usually recommended by them. In view of all this, why did the policy change three or four years ago so that neither Mr. McMichael -- nor Mr. Taylor for that matter -- were asked about it and political appointees were made who were people they did not even know in many instances?

Why did the minister say on television on The Loeb Report yesterday that the act superseded the agreement? The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked at the time: "Shouldn't there be an amendment that would say for all time there would be an obligation on the foundation to carry out all of the obligations of the original agreement." The then minister replied plainly: "I am satisfied the intent of the bill is to accomplish just that."

Why is the minister now in retrospect suggesting the agreement, which had an advisory board of two plus two and a neutral chairman, could be changed by the bill to the point where they can have political appointments dominating the board?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as I said before -- and we should get this very clear -- Mr. McMichael never ever had the power to approve any appointments made through order in council.

As far as the appointments made to the board of trustees are concerned I think I understand why Mr. McMichael has some troubles in accepting some of the members of the board. It is because of the continuing difficulties between all of the members and some of the members of the board at the present time and the McMichaels.

The interesting thing in all this is that four of the present members of the board of trustees are original members of that body. As a result, one could say these were friends, these were people Mr. McMichael knew.

In recent years a problem has developed. There is a very real difference of opinion between the McMichaels on the one hand and all the other members of the board, in terms of who is managing or who has the power to manage the gallery. It certainly has nothing to do with the idea Mr. McMichael is attempting to spread abroad that somehow or other the government is dumping members of a board on him who are alien to his way of thinking or who are unknown to him and who are trying to drown him out. There is none of that whatsoever and I deeply resent Mr. McMichael suggesting that is what is happening.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us how he expects anybody in Ontario henceforth to donate anything of value to the province? It would appear -- and the minister has done nothing to dispel the appearance -- the government has betrayed its agreement with a benefactor of this province. How does he expect anybody to donate anything from now on?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I guess I should reread the statement I made here the other day. This government has not in the past, and will not in the future, in any way renege on the agreement signed in 1965 or on the act of 1972. If the member will be specific in asking that question as to where, how and when we have reneged on that agreement, please let me know. But he should be specific and quit his generalizations.

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

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: New question. That was the final supplementary.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

Mr. Roy: You are saving him again, eh, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: I am being challenged.

Mr. Speaker: No, you are not.

Mr. Roy: I am prepared to accept the challenge.


Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell the workers in Ontario what rights they have to organize and engage in free collective bargaining as set out under the Labour Relations Act?

In the case of Irwin Toy, a disputes advisory committee was set up consisting of Mr. Bob Joyce and Terry Meagher. It came down with a contract recommendation that is appallingly modest -- an increase of 10 cents an hour after six months and minimal health benefits; $3.70 an hour for these hard-working women. This was a rather sick proposal the union is ready to ratify in an effort to establish the right to collective bargaining at that plant. Arnold Irwin nevertheless comes out and says no way and refuses to accept even the settlement proposal the disputes advisory committee thought they had.

Would the Premier say what rights workers have in Ontario, and what is their next step?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with all the specific details of the Irwin discussion. I will be delighted to raise this with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) tomorrow in cabinet and have him give the member a full report on Thursday.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In light of this absolutely unbelievable situation at Irwin Toy, will the Premier not also discuss the obvious and absolute need for first-contract legislation in his discussions with cabinet? What has happened here is a clear refusal by Mr. Irwin, even at 10 cents an hour, to sign a contract the disputes advisory committee thought they had. That simply means he is saying the right to collective bargaining means nothing: there is not going to be a union in that plant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will just repeat what I said to the honourable member: I am not familiar with all the specifics in the Irwin Toy situation. I will raise it with the Minister of Labour, and I am sure he will have some observations for the member on Thursday.


Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, and it concerns the current fate of the Renfrew County hamlet of Foymount. The minister will be aware that on Monday of last week the provincial hydro utility severed the power supply to the main water and sewage plants at that facility, thus seriously undermining the day-to-day situation of the 25 families resident in that community. I want to know whether or not the Minister of Energy was aware that Hydro was about to take that decision and, if he was, why the meeting he promised to the local municipal authorities some two months ago to try to work out some kind of accommodation of this admittedly very difficult situation was never held.

Was he informed? If he was, how does he square this action by Ontario Hydro with a promise he apparently made to the municipal council and others involved that no such drastic action would ever take place without first holding a meeting of all interested parties?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware the commitment was along those lines. My parliamentary assistant (Mr. Andrewes) carried on discussions with the officials in that municipality. To answer question number one, we were aware. There were a number of conversations with my parliamentary assistant on that issue in an attempt to have parties find some common ground for resolving the difficulty there.

It is my understanding that, as the honourable member has correctly pointed out, electrical service to the water and sewage plants has been terminated. There is some auxiliary equipment there to look after it, and I hope we can see some resolution of this matter. It involves a developer and some difference of opinion as to who carries the responsibility.

But I would not want the honourable member to feel there were not very frequent discussions back and forth in an attempt to bring people's points of view to the attention of the proper authorities. I do not know of any specific commitment that said nothing of this nature would happen until -- and I underline until -- some type of formal meeting is held.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Conway: I want to assure the minister that local municipal authorities are of the collective opinion that commitment was provided by the government through the Minister of Energy. If that is not the case, I think it is important for him to clarify it.

I want to know what specific undertakings the Minister of Energy will provide to restore power to those very basic services. Residents cannot get by without them for very long. Admittedly, a number of emergency factors now supply the community, but it is widely regarded that they cannot function for very long without the main electrical supply to the water and sewage treatment plant.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry of the Environment are undertaking major studies to see whether or not there is long-term viability to that troubled community. What specific undertaking is the Minister of Energy prepared to make on behalf of the province at this time. With the first winter snows blowing across that hilltop hamlet, what specific undertaking is he prepared to provide to give effect to the promise, "When you need us," meaning Hydro, "we are there?"

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am sure, in expressing his legitimate concerns, the member would want to underline that there is no disruption of electrical service to the homes in this community. We are not talking about the lack of electrical service to people in their homes. We are talking about a matter in which there is some dispute as to who has the responsibility for maintaining the services the member referred to.

My information is from my parliamentary assistant who has been very attentive to details and has attempted over a number of conversations to communicate concerns back and forth to those who have been involved. I understand the last offer was that Hydro simply wanted a modest deposit put up until such time as some of these other matters of jurisdiction and responsibility were settled.

The Minister of Energy stands ready to discuss this matter at any time, but ultimately Hydro had to take some stand with respect to the arrears. They have taken that position but they have made it quite clear they are prepared to negotiate with those involved. They have asked for a modest amount by way of deposit to show good faith while they carry on some discussions.


Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Health. Eight to 10 children at the Hospital for Sick Children are suffering from a fatal genetic skin disease called epidermolysis bullosa. It eats away at the patients' limbs and death from internal bleeding gradually results. Dr. Boxall, the head of dermatology at the Hospital for Sick Children, is convinced the treatment Dr. Kozak provides in West Germany works and advises his patients, "If you can pay, if you have the money, go."

In view of the fact it costs about $25,000 for each patient and guardian to go abroad and get the treatment, would the minister instruct the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan to accept the bill for Ontario children and young adults so they can be treated for this crippling and fatal disease?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I do not know if the honourable member is reflecting accurately the views of Dr. Boxall at the Hospital for Sick Children. Certainly, he is involved in some meetings which will be held in this city this weekend involving the gentleman from West Germany who has developed the alleged cure for this previously untreatable disease.

In the course of the discussions to be held in this city and in Edmonton tomorrow and I believe the next day, we hope the gentleman involved from West Germany will reveal what his alleged cure consists of. As long as we can be satisfied that what is involved in treating these patients will not cause other side effects in the long run, we are prepared to pay and include this as part of the Ontario health insurance plan and see that it is provided here, so that people do not have to travel all the way to Europe.

I should point out that the gentleman involved is not a physician. He practises as a healer under a law passed in Germany in the 1930s, under which the sole criterion for licensing is that one does no harm.

As I say, if we could find out what this treatment consists of, and to date all attempts to find out have been unsuccessful, and satisfy ourselves that it is not something that will have longer-term ill effects, we will be happy to include it in our health plan.

Mr. Grande: The minister is aware, of course, that the gentleman in question, Dr. Kozak, is a PhD in biochemistry.

Dr. Boxall said to me in a telephone conversation that it appeared from the symptoms the patient Tony Degabriele had when he came back in early September, after he received the treatment in August, that the disease had been stopped. That is what Dr. Boxall said.

Is the minister suggesting that as soon as he or his ministry has discussions with Dr. Kozak this weekend -- because I understand he is going to be here in Toronto on Sunday -- the ministry will then change its rule so that OHIP will be able to pay for that treatment? Is the minister saying that, as a result, the change will be made in OHIP?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am saying to the member that five minutes after I can be satisfied by the physicians in my ministry, to whom the details of the treatment will be revealed, assuming the details are revealed, including the compounds involved and the various medications administered, and five minutes after I can be satisfied there are no potentially ill side effects, I will recommend its inclusion in our health plan.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, will the minister's commitment extend to paying the expenses of those who have already travelled to Germany for the treatment and who on their return have found the cure was effective as far as they are concerned?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have no authority to make any such retroactive payment.

Mr. Nixon: Why? Certainly you do.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I do not.


Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point is that if this is valid --

Mr. Smith: They should have let their kids die, eh?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Smith: They had no choice but to go. Be sensible; what choice did they have?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister is responding to a specific question.

Mr. Smith: What choice did they have but to go to Germany?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You know better than that. Why don't you --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: They had no choice but to go to Germany, and the minister knows it. What else could they have done?

Mr. Speaker: The minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there are various kinds of illness, and the member is displaying a quite different kind.

Mr. Smith: Oh, come off it! What were they supposed to do with their kids?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact is, and the member knows this as a physician, we will cover any medical act the efficacy of which has been proven and which will not in and of itself produce ill side effects. I cannot be clearer than that. Over the years all attempts to try to find out what this treatment supposedly consists of have been unsuccessful. I am saying that if we can find out and satisfy ourselves that it is --

Ms. Copps: Tony Degabriele's illness was terminal.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Is the member a physician?

Ms. Copps: He was diagnosed as terminally ill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister just respond to the original question, please?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In all respects we rely on --

Mr. Smith: He is alive.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, and thank God he is.

An hon. member: No thanks to you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What a charmer! The member will be a lovely Leader of the Opposition.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we must satisfy ourselves that it is a proper treatment and, assuming we can satisfy ourselves of that, it will be included in our health plan.


Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I want to address my question to the Attorney General in the light of the comments I made on a point of privilege. What action is the Attorney General prepared to take to assist me, or other members of this Legislature in similar predicaments, when subjected to campaigns of hate and defamation by foreign governments and publications?

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the member for High Park-Swansea was legitimate and important. I have seen some of the publications to which he has referred, and I would like to think that all members, even some members opposite, might be sensitive to what I think is a very serious matter.

Judging by the comments, I regret that some of the members opposite treat these issues in a frivolous and cavalier fashion. The public is aware of that treatment, and that is why those members will remain on that side of the aisle and we will remain on this side.

Having said that, I think this issue should be taken up with the appropriate federal authorities with respect to the use of the federal postal service for the distribution of material that is highly offensive and, indeed, vicious. I indicate to the member that I am prepared to meet with him and the appropriate federal authorities, together with any other members who may share our concerns.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If the matter is so damned important, why does the Attorney General not do something about it himself? Here we have a case of a man wanting to be re-elected so he can --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of privilege.


Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you noticed in the Globe and Mail this morning that the Minister of Energy indicated he felt the rules having to do with the requirements that a compendium be tabled following a statement of policy were a bit inadequate.

I will just read the rule; it is standing order 26(c): "After any policy statement the minister shall table a compendium of background information."

lam sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the rule is quite clear, not just in its implication but also in its direction. For anybody to suggest that the statement of the Premier announcing the acquisition of 25 per cent of the common shares of Suncor is not a policy statement is simply unacceptable. To go on and argue that the rule does not give a time limit and, therefore, the rule was not breached is, in my view, unacceptable.

I would like to know your views, Mr. Speaker, since the rule was cast quite clearly and was meant to bind the government. Surely no cabinet minister should bring it into public question.

Mr. Speaker: I will take that matter into consideration and report back. I think I have mentioned before, through previous discussions, what my role is in the understanding of what a compendium is or the responsibility of the Speaker in tabling documents.

Mr. Smith: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker: You have already said a compendium can consist of whatever the government wishes to say. It is much like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, that a compendium means what they say it is, neither more nor less. They could give a Mickey Mouse comic book and call it a compendium.

Now the minister is saying there is no time limit. There might be a situation whereby a policy statement is made, and we can be given a comic book as a compendium and have to wait three years before we get it.

Surely the rule becomes an even worse joke than it already would be under your interpretation, Mr. Speaker, if we add to it the minister's interpretation that there is no time limit either.

Mr. Speaker: I want to refresh the memory of the Leader of the Opposition. It was not my interpretation. In fact, I looked it up in May's Parliamentary Practice and it is quite clear. With all respect, if you will look up the definition of what a compendium is, it does not help; there is nothing mentioned there.


Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition referred again to a letter dated August 8, 1981, which is alleged to have been sent by Mr. McMichael to the chairman of the board, Mr. Allyn Taylor, in which Mr. McMichael is said to have discussed certain allegations and offered a resignation of sorts. The Leader of the Opposition says it was confirmed that such a letter was sent to Mr. Taylor and that it was copied to me.

I can only reiterate that at no time have I received a copy of such a letter. I discussed this matter with Mr. Taylor this morning, and he too confirmed that he does not recall ever receiving a letter such as this and that there is no such letter in his file. I can only go back to the original point I made, which is that, as far as I know, no such previous letter was sent.

On a second point, the Leader of the Opposition stated he has also confirmed that the unofficial meeting of the collection's board members, to which Robert and Signe McMichael were not invited, was called for last Saturday, November 19. Again, I have no knowledge of such a meeting. I discussed this with Mr. Taylor this morning. He assures me no official or unofficial board meeting was called but that he came into town in his capacity as an officer of a trust company, had some friends in for lunch, and one or two of the friends happened to be on the board. He happens to like the people.

Mr. Smith: On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister will know that we checked with Mr. Michael Bell's secretary, and she stated she had phoned the members of the board, except for the McMichaels, with regard to this unofficial meeting. When asked why the McMichaels had not been included, she said, "You had better talk to Mr. Taylor about that." She said she did so at the request of Mr. Taylor. The minister had better deal with her.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition deal should with Mr. Taylor; he has given us this information. This is the second or third time the member has questioned the integrity of Mr. Taylor, who has given so much in managing the affairs of the McMichael gallery. He is questioning his integrity over what are really minor matters. The time has come that the member had better apologize to Mr. Taylor and the entire board.



Hon. Mr. Wells moved that in the committee of supply the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs be taken fourth in sequence; and that in the standing committee on resources development, estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the resources development policy secretariat be transferred to the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, to be taken in that sequence.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding any previous orders of the House, the following private bills be transferred from the standing committee on general government to the standing committee on resources development, and that standing order 72(a) respecting notice of committee hearings be waived for the consideration of those bills by the standing committee on Wednesday, November 25, and Thursday, November 26.

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Township of North Dorchester;

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Kanata;

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the Town of Bracebridge;

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Town of Gravenhurst;

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the Town of Huntsville;

Bill Pr36, An Act respecting the Township of Chandos.

Motion agreed to.

3:50 p.m.



Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 173, the Tribunals Conflict of Interest Act, 1981.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill prohibits former members and officers of tribunals subject to part I of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act from acting as advocates before those bodies for a two-year period after ceasing to hold their positions. The same restriction is imposed on former ministers and deputy ministers in connection with tribunals under the administration of their former ministries. The maximum penalty is $10,000.


Mr. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 174, An Act respecting the Succession to Estates of Deceased Persons in Ontario who have Beneficiaries Residing in Designated Countries.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that payments from the estates of persons domiciled in Ontario at the time of death are not made to foreign beneficiaries who are unlikely to receive for their whole benefit or use substantially the full value of any payments made under the estate and who reside in certain countries designated by regulation.

The bill provides for an application to be made to a court for an order permitting payments to a foreign beneficiary. The court may also order that no payment be made to a foreign beneficiary, in which case the court shall make an order disposing of the estate in accordance with the rules of succession contained in the Succession Law Reform Act with necessary modifications.


Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answer to question 246 standing on the Notice Paper.



The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 144, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Bill 145, An Act to amend the Pesticides Act.

House in committee of the whole.


Consideration of Bill 143, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I have no opening remarks. I suggest we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

On section 1:

Mr. Kerrio: I have some questions on the proposed section 40a(3). I wonder if the third party has anything before that.

Mr. Chairman: The indication is no. Mr. Kerrio, I am looking at some of your proposed amendments. I see that you do not specifically refer to the section of this bill but to sections of the Environmental Protection Act.

Mr. Kerrio: But there are questions relating to some aspects of the bill that I want to raise, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Then you will have to sort of shout as we go along.

Shall subsections 1 and 2 carry? Carried.

Do you have a question on subsection 3, Mr. Kerrio?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My concern relates to how this section reads in talking about a certificate of approval or a provisional certificate of approval that is in force. We already have had an experience related to those kinds of approvals. I wonder what the expiry of such approvals has to do with this section, because as a component of the Ridge determination, while there was approval in force that had expired, they had some great difficulty after the term of expiration because they continued to put materials into that site. I wonder how we are going to correct the kind of problem that existed at that time.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, as far as the reference to the Ridge site is concerned, surely the member would understand that until such time as there were a finding by the court that the certificate was not in force, it would continue to be in force; so the concern he is expressing ought not to be directed towards the time prior to the court's finding. If he is talking about the time subsequent to the court's determination --

Mr. Kerrio: But the expiry date has passed. There was no authorization.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No. Because I think it is an established principle in law, certainly under the legislation, that even though the date may expire, the certificate would continue to be in effect or in force. If one is talking about following the court's determination approach, that is a different matter. At that point, anything of that nature must cease going in, as it has in that particular site. I do not think it is a problem.

Prior to the court's determination, that certificate was in force. It was the court's decision that determined, as it applied to liquid industrial waste, that it cease.

Mr. Kerrio: The fact is, I was concerned about the certificate of approval expiry date. I wondered what significance it was going to have, which the minister has explained in one area. Does anyone else have questions on that matter before I go right to the next one?

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I understand what the minister is saying. Once the court has put an end to the approval, it is ended. But what will the future activities be? Will one have to apply to the court each time to say whether an approval has run out or has reached an end, or will the minister himself say that the date has arrived and it is therefore ended? I think that is the question we would like answered.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, it would still be necessary to seek a court decision in any individual case. If there were some dispute as to the validity of a certificate, the correctness of the certificate or whether it was still in force properly, obviously the appropriate forum would be the court. I am not sure if the member is referring specifically to Ridge. If there were some question about validity on another site, the court would be the appropriate forum to determine any dispute.

4 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: If there is a certificate of approval that carries an expiry date, should we not resolve the environmental problem as it exists for the reasons the expiry date was put on there in the first place? With the expiration of that approval, there should not be any dumping done. Could that not be handled in the regulations or in this bill?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think one would have to give that consideration at another time. This does not really apply to that. We are getting off on a tangent, I think. What the member is proposing might create some difficulty if, for example. the expiry date arose during the course of hearings. One cannot be too rigid on that. On the other hand, that is not really being addressed in this bill.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister if certificates of approval were obtained by the individuals who moved the Cobex and the Cobex containers from the warehouse in Windsor to the scrapyard that compressed the containers. In my estimation, they still contained some of the liquid Cobex, a herbicide which, according to newspaper articles, if one believes them completely, one would be extremely concerned and disturbed about.

Here we have a hazardous herbicide that could be and has been extremely harmful to those who were not in direct touch with it but were within inhaling distance of some of the so-called fumes that might emanate from the liquid. Did the people who transported that Cobex obtain permission from the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I am not personally familiar with the Cobex situation, although if the member is talking about the transportation of the material, and it is transportation for purposes other than disposal, it is not likely to be my ministry that would grant the approval at this time.

I think the more relevant part of the member's question is the section relating to the disposal of the containers. I do not know the answer to the question as it applies to that, because it is only in the last day that I became aware of the problem as a result of a conversation with him. I think any industry or operation engaging in the disposal of possibly contaminated containers is something we would be interested in.

Mr. Newman: It is certainly a different situation in this instance. The containers shipped in from the United States were five-gallon containers. For the safety of the community and in an attempt to ship the chemicals back to the United States where they originally came from, the liquids were emptied into large, substantial containers; so there is the involvement of moving the Cobex chemical itself.

We are talking about 80,000 gallons of a herbicide. After it was in the large containers, the small containers had to be disposed of. In the disposition of the small containers which, in my estimation, still contained some Cobex, did they require a permit from this ministry to move those containers from the warehouse to the scrapyard that compressed the containers for eventual use as reclaimed metals?

Mr. Chairman: I point out to the honourable member that I have allowed a great amount of latitude in the discussion of this subsection. Possibly the minister will respond, but a future inquiry will have to relate a little more specifically to the subsection at issue.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, as a result of inquiries from the honourable member, the staff of my ministry are in the act of following up on it. I have not yet had an opportunity to be briefed by them on the details of that particular matter. I think we should recognize that this really has nothing to do with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: The chair is well aware of that point.

Shall subsection 3 carry? Carried.

On subsection 4?

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the minister on this subsection. His interpretation of subsection 4 is that subsection I applies only in the absence of a contract to the contrary.

I am very concerned about this section, because I am wondering if this section will allow the owner of the site to contract out of the responsibility of the waste ownership? In other words, could there be a situation where a limited company is formed and third parties could become involved? Could we end up with a situation where, after the originators of the waste have taken it to the site, the ownership of that waste then transfers?

What happens if subsequent to that we have leachates and problems underground? Who is responsible for the ground water problems, the cleaning up of the leachates, and moving material if need be, if they find the problems later? This relates to who might have to pay for that situation if it were to develop.

I wonder if the minister can respond to my concerns as to whether within the limits of this bill they could contract out that responsibility or contract themselves out of the sort of situation where there might have to be the ongoing security funds that the former minister addressed.

The minister understands that in some situations in the United States they have a superfund that is beginning to address that problem. Since the former minister talked about that kind of a fund back in October 1978 and in June 1979, and this minister suggested there might be something in the works to build such a situation as late as November of this year, I wonder if he can respond as to whether that can happen in this bill.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The short answer, Mr. Chairman, is no. If the member reads section 40(a)(1), it stipulates that the ownership of waste is accepted; it is not dealing with liability or responsibility. Subsection 4 states that subsection I applies only in the absence of a contract to the contrary. In other words, the owner may contract with the operator of a site to retain ownership of the waste, but he may not contract out of the responsibility. This only deals with ownership, not liability or responsibility in the case of an environmental problem.

The reason for the inclusion of this section is that there may be wastes containing levels of metal or whatever that would not be economically recoverable at the present time, but in the opinion of the generator of the waste it may be that, by storing that waste safely for a period of time, the technology may be available at some time in the future to recover it economically. I am just using this as an example. He may be able to economically recover more from that waste and, therefore, he may wish to retain its ownership and contract with the operator of the site on that basis to have it safely stored.

If an environmental problem were to develop, that contract would not absolve him. In fact, under this section, there is no provision for contracting out of responsibility.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, while I do not have a good enough law background to understand this question, ownership to me would also apply to liability. Is there a section dealing with liability?

We have in my riding, in Harwich township, the exact situation the member for Niagara Falls was mentioning; I refer to the situation involving the Ridge Landfill Corporation, a subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries. During the environmental hearings this summer, it was brought out that the mound is actually saturated with leachates and they are coming out.

They are going to build a toe drain in the next two years, and then they will have leachates to deal with, which they have estimated, on the basis of 1981 dollars, will take $37 million over the next 100 years, during which it is expected these leachates will continue to come out. Certainly the Ridge Landfill Corporation is not good for $37 million. I do not even know whether Browning-Ferris Industries is good for that amount.

Where do we deal with the liability if it is not attached to ownership?

4:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the member looks at the following section, Mr. Chairman, it states clearly that subsections I to 4 do not relieve any person from liability, except liability as owner of waste that is delivered to and accepted by the operator. In other words, it is saying the section we are talking about now does not relieve the person from liability for dealing with the environmental problems.

There is liability, of course, arising out of ownership, but there is also liability arising out of control of the waste. As the member for Niagara Falls mentioned earlier, we do have in preparation the spill regulation, which I had hoped we would be able to get before committee for consideration this fall but, given the time constraints of the committee and the fact that we have not even begun our estimates yet, we may not be able to get time before the committee this fall. But we have done our homework.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, the other day when we were reading the bill, I asked the minister a question relating to section 1 on section 40a(2) of the act: "Where waste is deposited but not accepted at a waste disposal site, the ownership of the waste shall be deemed to be transferred to the operator of the site immediately before the waste is deposited."

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think we have passed that.

Mr. Chairman: We have; but is it a pressing issue?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes.

It just does not seem right to me that a person who was handling the material could come into a site and dump it there, perhaps unknown to the owner of the site, which could be the municipality, and the owner then would be liable for the waste that had been disposed of in this area. I do not think it is quite right that it should be interpreted that way.

The minister should be bringing the law into force so that a person who dumps industrial waste or liquid waste into any dump or disposal site without permission is charged for illegal dumping of material that has not been accepted by the operator of that site, which could be the municipality.

In my area pretty nearly all the disposal sites are operated by the municipality. However, there are some private ones too. It is possible, for instance, that in the Walker Brothers Quarries situation somebody could go in there, unknown to the owner, and dump waste material and then all of a sudden the owner would be notified that he was responsible for that being dumped there. The owner says, "No, you cannot dump it there," but the other person says, "It is going to be dumped."

Mr. Chairman: That is a good inquiry. I would like to hear the response to that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Actually, I think these are interesting sections because if the material is being deposited without being accepted by the operator, the operator becomes the owner earlier than he would be if it were accepted. There is a good reason for that.

What the member says is quite true, if you know who the generator is who is bringing the material to a waste site without permission.

Mr. Haggerty: But licensed by the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, the site is. But just a moment; I did not interrupt the member when he was asking his question.

Mr. Chairman: Right. I agree.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If you know who they are and the point at which they deposit, sure, that is when you get them. But surely the member also recognizes that more often than not if somebody is depositing it without permission it is probably being done when the operator, and maybe no one else, is around.

In the event that you do not know who deposited it, you do not want to stand around wringing your hands and saying, "Gee, it is too bad we can't do anything about this particular contaminant, which could do widespread damage, because the guy who put it here is unknown to us."

We are saying the onus is on the operator to take appropriate steps to make his site secure: to fence it, guard it and do whatever is necessary to protect himself from that kind of liability for people coming in without his permission.

This section does not relieve the unwelcomed or unauthorized depositor of any liability. He is still liable if you know who he is and if you can catch him; but if you cannot, then the operator has the primary liability to make sure the site is secure and, if there is a spill on his property, to clean it up.

The operator is in the business, and part of the business of dealing with potentially hazardous substances is to make damned sure the site is safe. You do not leave it in a condition so that people can come wandering on to the site in the middle of the night, open the stopcock at the back of their truck and dump a load of liquid waste on the ground. One of the responsibilities of being in this business is to make sure you are handling things safely and preventing the irresponsible handling of these substances as much as is humanly possible.

Mr. Haggerty: Just to follow up on that point, I would like to use the city of Port Colborne as an example. They had a disposal site which they rented out to a contractor to look after the disposal and burning of waste material. A hauler licensed by the ministry transported goods to that site. Unknown to the municipality, that person dumped material that should never have been dumped there. The city is before the courts now trying to get this contractor to pay for replacing the firebrick that was burned out in the incinerator because of the very inflammable material that was dumped.

I say to the minister, looking at this particular section, that his ministry has the greater responsibility in this area, because it issued the licence for the hauler, who has to be licensed through his ministry. I think there is a good possibility you could still have haulers or contractors dumping industrial wastes that could be toxic into a site unknown to the operator of the site. Many municipalities may be caught in this crossfire in which they are responsible, although the licence was originally issued by his ministry. All I am trying to convey is that the minister has a bigger responsibility than anybody else through the enforcement of the licence.

In this particular case, I think the contractor -- the licensee or the carrier with the licence -- should have lost his licence. Yet in spite of all the infractions that occurred at this site, he is still in business. We do not know what he is doing right now; if he can get away with it there, he can probably get away with it on some dark side road in the marsh up at Wainfleet or some place like that. It is not the first time it has happened.

Mr. Chairman: I will have the minister respond if he would like to.

Mr. Haggerty: The barrels that were placed at that waste disposal site in Port Colborne contained phenol formaldehyde from Hooker Chemicals and, looking at that, when you talk to Hooker Chemicals --

Mr. Chairman: The minister wants to know what the question is.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: I am just saying that Hooker Chemicals thought the person hauling the material, licensed by the ministry, was disposing of it in the proper manner. But he was not.

I question that particular section of that bill, because it is not explicit enough to say who is going to be responsible. To me, the responsibility lies with the person issuing the licence, and that is the ministry. If the fine should be there, it should be with the ministry. I hope we do not have to take the same approach that we did with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow).

Hon. Mr. Norton: I greatly appreciate the confidence the member has in the ministry and in me. I realize, as far as the ministry is concerned, it is well justified confidence. I am sure some might question whether the confidence in me is entirely justified, but Tam not yet quite ready to bear the mantle of Big Brother.

Contrary to what the member seems to imply, we do not license people to do illegal things. He is saying if we licence them, that means we are responsible. We licence them to do certain things within the law. At this point we do not quite have the resources to have one member of our ministry staff riding shotgun in the cab of every truck on the highways in the province.

Mr. Haggerty: They would get the message, wouldn't they?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, they might. But do not forget we do have a special investigations unit now. And, as far as those dark country roads are concerned, one never knows: if one sees a couple making the place look like lovers' lane, they might be special investigators from our unit; so be careful. They are a very clever and well trained lot, and they are going to crop up in the most unsuspected places anywhere in this province. They are watching around every corner; so do not dump illegally.

Mr. Nixon: Big Brother is watching.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is right. But we cannot be in every truck. In the case of the example the member gave, if that individual carried a substance and illegally dumped it, the member is anticipating the powerful provisions in the latter part of the bill, that we will get to, to enforce situations like that. I am sure the member will accept it with great praise when he sees what we are getting to.

Mr. Chairman: We have allowed some latitude. Now we are on to subsection 5.

Mr. Nixon: Are you implying we have read no further in the bill than this?

Mr. Chairman: This is it. Shall subsection 4 carry? Carried.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, the minister said liability is dealt with in subsection 5 but, as I read it, it says: "Subsections 1 to 4 do not relieve any person from liability except liability as owner of waste that is delivered to and accepted by the operator of a waste disposal site in accordance with law If it is delivered in accordance with law, liability is transferred from the generator.

My worry is the $37-million loss that Harwich township possibly faces. It seems unlikely that they are going to able to get that from the Ridge Landfill Corporation, because as a corporation it could fold. It seems to me, as a resident of Harwich township, that I would want to feel I could go back after the Ford Motor Company, Imperial Oil, Dow Chemical or whoever was the generator; but I am precluded from doing that because it was put in legally.

I suppose there are arguments about that too, whether it was legal or not. But assuming it did go in legally, then who could the township go after, unless perhaps the ministry itself is willing to assume that obligation? That is a question that should be resolved before we pass this section of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That question is not going to be resolved in this bill at this time because, as the member is probably aware, we are working on the matter of a perpetual care provision which would deal with that specifically. That is not something that is dealt with in this bill.

Mr. Chairman: Shall subsections 5 and 6 carry? Carried.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 47a(1) carry? Carried.

Shall section 47a(2)(a) carry? Carried.

Shall section 47a(2)(b) carry?

Mr. Kerrio: I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman; it is only to keep some sort of similarity between the Environmental Protection Act and this act. It is minor, but under section I in the Environmental Protection Act -- in comparing the two, the Chairman will find that where this bill uses the wording "will result or is likely to result in," in the Environmental Protection Act they describe it as "operation of the vehicle will result or may result in." It is just a matter of bookkeeping and a feeling that if the minister accepts this amendment, we might get the ministry moving in the right direction.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The minister has an inquiry of you.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Which section is the member reading from? He is referring to another section; is it section I of the Environmental Protection Act?

Mr. Kerrio: Section 1(1)(c). In the last line it uses the word "may."

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not see what the member is referring to.

Mr. Chairman: Actually, I am missing the point too, Mr. Kerrio.

Mr. Kerrio: In this bill, section 47a(2)(b) reads, "that the continued operation of the vehicle will result or is likely to result in ... " In our amendment we are saying "that the continued operation of the vehicle will result or may result in instead of "likely."

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member, as I understood him, said that for consistency it ought to be worded the same way as section I of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Kerrio: Section 1(1)(c).

Hon. Mr. Norton: Section 1(1)(c) is a definition of "environment" in my copy of the bill.

Mr. Kerrio: Yes. We are only suggesting that the word should be "may" rather than the way it is written.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I must be blind, but I cannot see what he is referring to. Can my friend see what he is referring to?

An hon. member: Yes. Do you want me to explain it to you?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I do not want him to explain it. I just want to see it.

Let me read into the record, my section 1(c).

Mr. Chairman: Section 1(1)(c), apparently.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Section 1(1)(c)?

Mr. Chairman: That is what he said.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Section 1 in the Environmental Protection Act -- is he talking about the Environmental Protection Act?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Okay. I thought he was trying to get a cross-reference to the other act.

Let me address the point I think makes the member's amendment particularly problematic. We are talking here about the enforcement provisions and the authority to seize the permit and number plates of a vehicle under certain circumstances. The wording we have in our bill says that where "the continued operation of the vehicle will result or is likely to result in," and there is a list of possibilities.

The member has to bear in mind we could have a situation where the vehicle involved was a rental vehicle. For example, it could be a vehicle that someone rented from the member, or from Budget or one of the other people in the business. If that is the case, the owner of the vehicle may not have been a party directly to the act; he may not have known precisely what his vehicle was being used for. Under circumstances like that, it may well be worth while to consider the possibility that as long as the vehicle is not used for that kind of purpose, the permit could be returned to the owner.

4:30 p.m.

However, the member's amendment would take in such a wide scope -- not that it is likely to be used, but it may. Who can say? I hate that word "may," because it is grammatically incorrect, I think, as an old English teacher. Maybe there is some legalese I am not familiar with. I suspect people just have not checked their grammar recently.

Does the member intend that every time a vehicle is capable of being used for a repeated offence, one should not give the permit back or should not allow it to go? Or is the member suggesting if there is any real likelihood?

Mr. Kerrio: I am thinking more of a real likelihood.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes. If the member would substitute for the word "may" the word "might" -- does he really mean to say in every case where a vehicle might be used, that one should seize the permits? I do not think that is what he means.

Mr. Kerrio: No. It isn't.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No. Therefore, I recommend highly that the member stick with our wording.

Mr. Chairman: All in favour of Mr. Kerrio's amendment to section 47a(2)(b) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

The amendment is lost.

Shall section 47a(2)(b) carry? Carried.

Shall sections 47a(3) and 47a(4) carry? Carried.

Mr. Kerrio: I have an amendment to section 47b(1).

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is actually the same amendment. Is the member willing to accept the same decision?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: So the amendment is withdrawn.

Shall sections 47b(1) to 47b(4) carry? Carried.

Mr. Kerrio: I move that section 47b(5) be amended by adding thereto: "and the court shall order that the owner of the permit, its employees, agents and representatives are prohibited from operating a vehicle within Ontario for a period of time not exceeding five years."

Mr. Chairman: Hold it. The member for Niagara Falls has introduced an amendment to section 47b(5). I will dispense with the reading. I just want that on the record.

Mr. Kerrio: What we are concerned about is how the ministry treats a truck that comes in from out of the province. We are suggesting that we would like to be a little firmer on the use of those out-of-province vehicles in the manner we have described here.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I got the message that was what the member was trying to do. But I think it is a case of potentially massive overkill.

Mr. Nixon: Five years?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Five years is our provision, but your extension in this amendment suggests that in the case where the permit is returned to jurisdiction of the issuer of the permit, "the court shall order that the owner of the permit, its employees, agents and representatives are prohibited from operating a vehicle within Ontario for a period of time not exceeding five years."

Just imagine this scenario. Imagine we have a national company -- is Smith Transport nationwide?

Mr. Nixon: They should not be midnight dumpers.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, they should not be. I am using an outfit like Smith Transport as an example. I am sure Smith Transport would never engage in this kind of activity. But if an employee decided one evening when he had the truck at his disposal to go out, pick up some waste at a friend's, and illegally dump it -- except he happened to be visiting Ontario with a vehicle registered across the border in Manitoba, or he had been working in Ontario on the basis of his licence -- can you imagine --

Mr. Nixon: Capital punishment.

Hon. Mr. Norton: All I am saying is one must be reasonable in these things and look at the possible consequences of hastily thought up amendments.

Mr. Nixon: Hastily thought up. Why this is even mimeographed.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can see the wrinkles in your researcher's brow now. I know he worked night and day thinking about this for the last month.

Mr. Nixon: They are not made up that hastily, I assure you.

Mr. Kerrio: We do not have the people at our disposal that you have. We have to work overtime.

Hon. Mr. Norton: What would happen if your amendment passed? Theoretically, in the scenario I have just described, every employee of Smith Transport in Ontario would not be able to drive a vehicle.

Mr. Nixon: That is preposterous. It is preposterous to put it in those terms.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I suggest it is a preposterous amendment. I think this is one that was drafted at three o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Nixon: Your whole scenario is overkill.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, it is not at all, if you believe there are some national firms in this country. There are firms that work across provincial boundaries.

Mr. Nixon: They should not employ irresponsible drivers.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Are you suggesting that because they happen to have employed an irresponsible driver in Manitoba that every employee in Ontario should be out of work?

Mr. Nixon: If it happened in Ontario, yes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Come on now, let's be reasonable.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Minister, if I may make one comment. These are not vehicles that normally carry grain, or something else. When they are handling the kind of chemicals we are concerned about, they are going to be specifically designed to do those things. We want to put a cap on them if we are going to have good environmental protection. We are not going to allow somebody to come in there, and then excuse them because it was somebody using the truck at night, a truck that had all the capacity to do the job.

Mr. Nixon: Just because it was Smith's fly-by-night trucking.

Mr. Kerrio: How do we protect ourselves against this happening?

Hon. Mr. Norton: You can carry a barrel of toxic liquid waste on the back of a stake truck. You do not necessarily have to have a sophisticated tank truck if you are doing it illegally. All I am saying is you must --

Mr. Nixon: It could even be the minister's tent trailer.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The minister's tent trailer? I do not even have one. I go right to the ground. I pitch my tent wherever --

Mr. Nixon: The minister should hold his breath until he gets home.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is right. I hope the member understands what I am trying to say about the real shortfall of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Kerrio's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

The amendment is lost.

Shall subsection 5 carry? Carried. Shall subsection 6 carry? Carried. Shall subsections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 carry? Carried.

We now go to section 47c(1).

Mr. Kerrio moves that section 47c( 1) as in the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:


"(a) a person is convicted of an offence in respect of hauled liquid industrial waste or hazardous waste; and

"(b) the court is satisfied,

"(i) that the permit and the number plates for a vehicle used in the commission of the offence are in the possession of the registrar or are the subject of an order for seizure and delivery to the registrar, and

"(ii) that the person to whom the permit and the number plates were issued was notified that a penalty would be sought under section 47b,

"the court shall order the Registrar to detain the permit and the number plates until any fine imposed upon the conviction mentioned in clause (a) is paid."

Mr. Kerrio: What we are doing here is we drafted the whole section, but the last part is the effective part of what we are suggesting should be in this bill.

4:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: My concern is that if this amendment were to be accepted, it would remove from the court the discretion to apply what courts are normally vested with discretion to do: that is equity and justice. If one looks at the amendment as proposed, one might well have a situation where an individual, in the opinion of the court, for whatever reason ought to have some degree of leniency displayed in terms of time to pay the fine.

For example, it may be a fairly severe fine given the penalties we are talking about. By my interpretation of the section, if the individual makes a commitment to pay $500 now and so much a week for the next period of time, you would deny him the opportunity to get his permit back until he had paid the whole of the fine.

I think that kind of discretion ought to be left with the courts. When one gets into the business of trying to make the law too absolute, and not allowing a judge to hear the facts and make his determination on the basis of that, one runs the risk of becoming too heavy-handed. I am not making a pitch for people who may be convicted of these kinds of offences by any means but I think the place for that to be argued is in court.

The prosecution ought to argue for a very severe penalty and no leniency if it is convinced it is a situation where it is appropriate. On the other hand, the judge ought, in some cases, to be able to exercise discretion.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to support my colleague who moved the amendment. I have listened to the minister's comments and I think what we are saying is that after a charge has been laid and he has been convicted in the courts, the licence plates should be removed. The minister is suggesting all these matters will be referred to the courts at a cost to the province and perhaps even to the municipality. I do not think that is the way we should be looking at it.

Using a parallel, if I pollute my body by over-indulging in alcohol and I am charged, I automatically lose my licence. It is suspended for three or six months. It depends whether it is a first or second offence. I do not have to go to court. It is automatically taken away from me.

If it is under the Highway Traffic Act, when an offence has occurred, a charge has been laid and one has been convicted, one's licence is suspended. That is what we are asking here, that the licence be suspended. We should not wait for the court action to find out if he is going to be fined the maximum $50,000 for his convicted charge of dumping liquid waste some place that was illegal.

I suggest you have an example in the Highway Traffic Act under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. It relates to impaired ability. It is similar. Where a person has been convicted of that charge under the impaired ability section of the act, he automatically loses his licence for a period of three or six months.

We are suggesting the same thing apply here, that the licence be removed. If it is for one or two years, that is fine. I do not think we can take it lightly. This is a serious problem and I think the intent of the legislation is to say that we are not going to stand for any more of this dumping of liquid waste that may be of toxic nature which can cause serious health effects, from drinking water, breathing the air or whatever it may be. I suggest it is a reasoned amendment and should be accepted.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I appreciate the strong stand, but I think the strong stand is being taken on the wrong section. I think you are misinterpreting here. What you are focusing on is using the suspension of the permit as a means of enforcing the payment of a penalty, for example, a fine. The court still has the discretion, although this section does not refer specifically to it, to suspend the permit for up to five years.

This section says that where there is a penalty, a fine, the court may, if it is necessary to ensure the payment of the fine, withhold the permit until the fine is paid. On the other hand, where they make a decision that it is not a situation for a five year or even a shorter period of suspension, they therefore levy a fine. If the fellow says, "Look, I will pay my fine. I can pay $500 now and $500 at the end of the month," the court can say, "All right, you pay your $500 now, but make sure you get the other $500 in by the end of the month. You can have your permit back and carry on, but do not engage in this kind of activity again."

The honourable member would not give the guy that break. The honourable member argues that if they have said, "It is not a situation which is appropriate for suspension, so we are fining you," and the poor guy has $500 in his pocket and says, "Your Honour, I would like to pay. Here is my $500." He says, "Fine. You are going to be Out of business until you pay the rest." The guy has no way of earning his other $500.

The honourable member has to see that this section really applies to simply enforcing, where necessary, payment of the fine. If there was an operator the court knew could well afford to pay and he was making excuses, then the court could say, "All right, no money --

Mr. Nixon: No tickee.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- no tickee." That is right.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Niagara Falls has again proposed a further amendment to subsection I of section 47c of Bill 143, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act. I am bringing that forward to refresh all honourable members' memories as to what act we are dealing with and for the benefit of those who have joined us in the public gallery.

All those in favour of the proposed amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Shall all of section 47c (1)(a) and (b) carry? Carried. Shall 47c (2) carry? Carried. Shall all of 47d, 47e, and 47f carry? Carried. Is the minister following me? Shall 47g carry? Carried. Shall 47h carry? Carried.

Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: I think before we get to section 7 we will probably have proposed amendments from the member for Niagara Falls.

An hon. member: You were supposed to be following what was said.

Mr. Chairman: You are right. We will slip it in between section 6 and 7.

Mr. Nixon: You are altogether too accommodating.

Mr. Chairman: The chair was in error. It was brought to my attention that --

Hon. Mr. Norton: I could challenge the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Do not. The member for Niagara Falls brought to my attention certain amendments that he wanted to put forward --

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, though it is not correct, to reopen at this stage would require the unanimous consent of the House. Surely, I think that would be the case.

Mr. Kerrio: He does agree.

Mr. Chairman: No, do not agree to that, because he is not going to agree.

Mr. Kerrio: In keeping with his intent to bring up the Environmental Protection Act for the good of the people of Ontario, I am certain he would --

Mr. Chairman: Do not get into instigating a controversy.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In keeping with the spirit of notice, since I got the copy of the amendments at the end of the question period, it really put me in a very co-operative mood for the rest of the afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Well, the chairman is going to make a crucial ruling here. The ruling is that I see no reason why we cannot hear these amendments after section 6.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think you are the epitome of generosity, and I must support you. I could never challenge that.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Niagara Falls.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, as is suggested with these amendments to the bill, we feel that now that the bill is before us it could certainly add a great many dimensions of importance if people are very willing and able to accept some of the amendments we are proposing.

We have a problem with some areas of the bill that relate to excluding certain parties from participation in the tribunal hearings. That is why I am moving the first amendment as it relates to parties and so on, which I would like to read into the record.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is not the first one.

Mr. Chairman: Wait, please. That is not the first one I have, either. So you are going to forget about section 78(3)? At least, that is the first one I have. You are reading the parties one?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: How accommodating we are.

Mr. Nixon: You're doing an excellent job.

Mr. Kerrio: Well, that's right.

Mr. Nixon: And you need a raise.

Mr. Kerrio: Aren't we all keen about the environment, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Kerrio: I certainly think you have the best interests of the people of Ontario at heart.

With that in mind, I move that section 78(3) be amended to read, "That where the director refuses to amend a control order such refusal is not appealable to the board."

Mi. Chairman: Before you continue, the chair has difficulty with this proposed amendment, as with some of your other proposed amendments. The difficulty is that upon refreshing my memory in reference to that distinguished 5,000 page book, May's Parliamentary Practice -- I will not read it verbatim -- I find that basically where an amendment does not relate specifically to the bill in front of us it is difficult to accept the amendment.

It is my understanding that although this is of great interest and concern, you are not going to be overly upset if I rule that this proposal will not be accepted by the chair because it is not in reference to the bill in front of us.

Mr. Kerrio: That is your decision, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nixon: In that connection we must surely point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that since the amendments proposed by my colleague --

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing just with this one.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order:

Mr. Chairman: Yes, but having to do with section 78(3).

Mr. Nixon: Yes, having to do with that. Since the amendments have been mimeographed and placed before the minister so he would have an opportunity more or less to collect his thoughts on these matters, there would be no way the minister would deny unanimous consent to continue with the further amendment of this important bill. After all, he is the Minister of the Environment; he has already shown his initiative and aggressiveness in charging his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications, hauling him off to jail and fining him. Obviously he has a strong and independent approach to these matters, and for him to deny unanimous consent for the well-thought-out and necessary amendments put forward by my colleague is practically unimaginable.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister want to speak to this?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, obviously I am very grateful for the glowing praise the honourable member casts in my direction. It is not the first time, but I always get suspicious whenever he does it.

Mr. Nixon: You are not leading up to denying unanimous consent, are you?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am torn, because in addition to that, I also have a very strong commitment to the principles of parliamentary democracy and to the traditions of this House and of parliaments around the world, and I think that to agree to accept amendments that are as irrelevant to this bill as that would just fly in the face of that tradition.

Mr. Nixon: No, no. They are relevant to the Environmental Protection Act.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As a Conservative who believes in the traditions of this august body, I really must --

Mr. Nixon: You know what happened to Harry Parrott. He used to deny unanimous consent.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Listen, I do not think that even with unanimous consent you could get away with it. It is so blatant.

Mr. Chairman: Speaking to section 78(3), the proposed amendment, I am going to rule that this does not relate to the bill that is in front of us. Now, is there a further amendment?

Hon. Mr. Norton: You might as well throw the rest of them out: they are all the same.

Mr. Kerrio: No, Mr. Chairman. My amendments now are additions to what has been presented here, and I wonder if you are going to rule on those.

Mr. Chairman: One at a time; we will rule as they come up. So let us hear the next one.

Mr. Kerrio: All right. I have an amendment as it relates to parties, Mr. Chairman.

I move that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section: "Whenever a proceeding before any board, tribunal, commission or court, or any appeal or review thereof is authorized under the provisions of this act; the board, tribunal, commission or court may permit any person to join as a party, intervenor or amicus curiae to the proceeding, appeal or review as the board, tribunal, commission or court may consider appropriate having regard to the purpose of this act."

Friends of the court, in these particular areas of environmental protection are including interested parties --

Hon. Mr. Norton: Point of order.

Mr. Chairman: We have a point of order. We are going to hear the point of order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I allowed the honourable member to go this far without rising on a point of order because, knowing his reputation as a party man, I thought if he was going to introduce amendments relating to parties, I would not want to stand in his way, but then I got a little further on and I realized what it is he is up to.

It seems to me that this falls into the same category as the previous amendment in being irrelevant and not touching upon any principle that is contained in this bill. I might point out to him that if he is referring back to the Environmental Protection Act, that act does allow the board to specify anyone as a party. To include this amendment in this bill would be out of order.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, what we are really talking about is in certain appeal procedures all the parties are not able to attend. In fact, only the applicant is going to attend to the exclusion of everyone else. I think that in matters of the environment, we have to have any party who is interested in the proceedings up here.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The honourable member is --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I have heard arguments from all sides, and the member for Niagara Falls, to me, has failed to specifically relate the section that this is in reference to under Bill 143. On the other hand, I think it fair to say that the proposed amendment is, indeed, so general that maybe it could, under all circumstances --

You are shaking your head.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not agree.

Mr. Chairman: Fine, you can take this job and I will take yours and then you can make the rulings.

Mr. Nixon: Now, that's a fair deal.

Mr. Chairman: In my learned opinion, and I know my colleague, the honourable minister, has from time to time heard those select words from different judges who he, I am sure, has appeared before, I think I am going to allow the amendment to be discussed.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I will have to challenge that ruling.

Mr. Nixon: No, wait, wait, wait.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, let's sort this out.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Are you going to vote on it?

Mr. Chairman: Well, we are --

Mr. Nixon: No, but I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the procedure that the honour- able minister is embarking on is very ill advised.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Are you going to accept a voice vote?

Mr. Nixon: No. If you challenge the chairman, then the chairman is challenged and I suggest to you that you do so at your peril.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh, come on.

Mr. Nixon: Listen, it is not a matter of "Oh, come on." The last guy who did that is not here any longer.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is fine, I intend to stay. You are not going to get rid of me in --

Mr. Nixon: They made him chairman of the heritage council. I am telling you -- it is just a little friendly advice.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is not related. I do not accept that decision and I do not think they should get away with it. It is not and if they are prepared to accept a voice vote --

Mr. Nixon: You do not have to explain it to me, you have to explain it to your colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I know it is wrong. If they are willing to accept a voice vote --

Mr. Nixon: No.

Mr. Chairman: We are getting a little bogged down here. Let us carry on. Mr. Minister --

Hon. Mr. Norton: May I --

Mr. Nixon: You withdraw your challenge and we will accept a voice vote on this section.

Mr. Kerrio: On the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is what I meant. In that case I will withdraw the challenge on that understanding.

Mr. Chairman: Where we are at now? I was taking it under consideration that the amendment would be discussed.

Mr. Nixon: If you do not want the members called in, then do not challenge the chairman.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As long as I have your undertaking that you are not going to --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order:

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Nixon: I cannot give an undertaking on whether we are going to vote on the amendment by calling in the members. We have had a number of amendments and all of them should have been accepted by the House, but having heard the minister's objections, we have accepted a voice vote. We understand if we call in the members for a vote when we are in committee, there are no names listed anyway, it is just the numbers. There is every reason to believe that although the vote would be close we might not win it. But if the minister insists we give some kind of commitment not to do that, I certainly cannot do that. He should thank me for assisting him in getting off the silly meathook he just impaled himself on. It is not everybody who gets off that hook.

5 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If I got off it, it was because I was inadvertently misled by the honourable member --

Mr. Chairman: Let's not get into all this now.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, in keeping with our policy to attempt to influence the minister, I really do not care about how we handle these amendments. What I am hoping is that the minister will take a little advice from the people sitting on these benches, who are attempting to clean up one of the very serious problems that exists here.

When we talk about parties of interest and those people who are friends of the court, I attended, in Lewiston, New York, at the invitation of our American friends, a meeting on matters of extreme importance relating to the environment. I thought it was a very significant move on their part to begin to enlarge the scope of people they are willing to have come before tribunals, hearings and appeals. I suggest to you it is time the people of Ontario were able to do the same thing. You should widen this act to accept those interested parties who have something to offer, be they citizens or members of this Legislature, who have a bona fide interest in the proceedings and a real commitment to cleaning up the environment.

When I move this amendment, I am doing it in good faith and hope you will accept it that way, to encourage people who are experts in the field and interested people to participate where they might be excluded without this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is an amendment I cannot accept for the reasons I indicated before.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) has moved a proposed amendment. I will dispense with the reading.

Those in favour of the proposed amendment will please say "aye."

Those against will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

The amendment is lost.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of amendments. If I accomplish nothing else, I think I will accomplish something on behalf of the citizens of Ontario by reading them into the record. I hope the minister might, at his leisure, read some of these amendments that have taken our research people a long time to prepare and that show our concerns about the environment. I will read into the record the next amendment we would offer. It is a review of the regulations and public notice and reporting. These things are very important.

Mr. Chairman: Let's read it.

Mr. Kerrio: You have copies, Mr. Chairman. I will just quickly read them into the record. I move that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"1. In 1982 and every fifth year thereafter, the Environmental Assessment Board shall review all regulations that relate to the quality of the environment, having regard to their adequacy to protect the environment and the public trust therein from contamination and degradation, especially in the light of technological advances that can be applied in the province of Ontario.

"2. The Environmental Assessment Board shall give public notice of the review and during the review may receive public submissions in evidence to the extent and in the manner that is considered appropriate.

"3. Upon completion of the review, the Environmental Assessment Board shall make a report therein to the minister, including in the report any recommended changes to the regulations, and the minister after receiving the report shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session, or if not, at the commencement of the next ensuing session."

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit this amendment. It shows uncommonly good sense as to how the minister should conduct himself in the future.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to hear arguments as to my acceptance of hearing the amendment. Mr. Minister, what is your view?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I think it is eminently clear there is nothing in the bill -- unless someone can show me where I have missed it -- that deals with either the power to pass --

Mr. Chairman: Why put the onus on the chair? The chair says, "I don't see anything in the bill that this cannot be related to."

Hon. Mr. Norton: Pardon?

Mr. Chairman: Double negative. I am having difficulty. If this is so general, maybe it can be related to all --

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is not general. It is very specific. It is a procedure for reviewing regulations and there is nothing that even relates to that in the bill. I am suggesting it is clearly out of order.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, the Liberal critic has put forward a number of amendments this afternoon and some of them have some serious merit, but I am afraid I have to agree with the minister that these amendments are not in order. They have no direct relationship to the principle of this bill. We are considering the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment next week. I would suggest to the Liberal critic that all of these matters should be raised next week and discussed in detail instead of this game we are playing here this afternoon.

Mr. Kerrio: We shall raise them continuously.

Mr. Chairman: I am having difficulties in terms of -- I am having difficulties.

Hon. Mr. Norton: May I assist you?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, please do.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You quoted earlier, Mr. Chairman, from May and I thought I understood what you quoted. Perhaps you could read it back for my benefit and others in the chamber and it might refresh all our memories. If this section is as completely irrelevant as it appears to me, I cannot understand how by the wildest stretch of the imagination one can relate it to any principle that is in the bill. It just is beyond my comprehension how one could see that.

Mr. Chairman: I will make the ruling that this amendment is not in conjunction with any aspects of the bill and so rule.

Are there any further amendments?

I want to advise the member for Niagara Falls that I am not going to debate the next three. I do have serious reservations about them.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think you should make him read that long --

Mr. Chairman: However, I was going to suggest in the usual unbiased nature of the chair we would give consideration if the member would like to read these very important proposed amendments for the record.

Mr. Kerrio: I shall do that, Mr. Chairman. Then I shall pursue them further and I accept your authority here.

These amendments, if I may read them into the record quickly, show the --

Mr. Chairman: We will go one at a time and I will make a ruling.

Mr. Kerrio: I move that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section -- this is now notice of proposed regulation, publication and effective contravention --

"(1) Regulation making authority means any authority designated by the act empowered to make any regulation under the act.

"(2) Where a regulation making authority proposes to make a regulation, it shall cause a proposed regulation to be published in the Ontario Gazette at least 60 days before it proposes to file the regulation with the registrar of regulations and request briefs or submissions in relation to the proposed regulation. A regulation filed in contravention of section 2 does not come into effect."

Mr. Chairman: I would point out to the member that I am sure he has many arguments as to why this should be debated. Unfortunately, I have allowed you to read it into the record. I am going to rule that it is not in relation to the bill and it is out of order.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Do you have any further amendments?

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the act and I would move the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"A right to information: Every person has the right to obtain from the minister any available information concerning the quantity, quality or concentration of contaminants emitted, issued, discharged or deposited by any source of contamination or degradation;

"The right to examine: The minister shall permit any person who applies therefor to examine any licence, permit, approval, certificate of approval, provisional certificate of approval, control order or other order, notice of intention to issue a control order, program approval, provisional certificate of approval, notice of violation of the act and any information in support of any such document and, on payment of a fee not to exceed 10 cents per page, a person shall be provided with a copy" --

5:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: As an act of generosity to the honourable member I would be willing to assent to dispensing with the reading of this section, although I understand the honourable House leader for the official opposition is keenly interested in hearing it read.

I would be willing to have it incorporated in Hansard in its written form, which we all have, to avoid the necessity of dissipating the energy of the honourable member for Niagara Falls. I can see him progressively weakening as the afternoon wears on and I do not like to be cruel.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I am afraid on behalf of my colleague we really cannot start the practice of incorporating tracts of information, no matter how valuable, simply by consent. We would get into the same situation the US Congress does when there is nobody there at all. By motion they incorporate reams and reams of good stuff. I do not think we should start doing that.

If the Chairman finds in his wisdom he can avoid the threat of the minister to challenge his ruling and call in the hordes of Tories to defeat his ruling, and if he finds in his wisdom the matter is out of order, then so be it.

Mr. Chairman: We had better not stray far from the tradition of allowing proposed amendments at random being put into Hansard. If the member for Niagara Falls would still like the proposed amendments to be on the record he may continue.

Hon. Mr. Norton: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: It would seem to me this amendment is out of order. I wondered if the Chairman might care to read it and make a ruling prior to the honourable member having further dissipated his energy. I am sure he would appreciate the ruling before the completion of the reading.

Mr. Chairman: As the table pointed out, with all the interruption we could have had it read anyway. The difficulty is I did not have the opportunity to receive any amendments until I got to the chair. Either we have a great lapse in time while I read it or we allow the member for Niagara Falls to read it so I can read along and then I will make my ruling. You can continue to read it.

Mr. Kerrio: I would like to assure the minister I am not a sprinter, I am an endurance-type person. I shall persevere and read this into the record. I submit, Mr. Minister, you would be well advised to read the amendments and incorporate some of them in your next bill.

"(3) The minister shall permit any person who applies therefor to examine any report or any test, observation, inspection or analysis carried out by or under his authority relating to any operation subject to the act and, on payment of a fee not to exceed 10 cents a copy, the person shall be provided with a copy thereof.

"(4) Notwithstanding subsections 2 and 3, the minister may refuse an application made under subsections 2 and 3 when in his opinion the information sought to be disclosed contains:

"(a) Information the disclosure of which would be injurious to law enforcement or the conduct of lawful investigations, including investigative techniques or plans for specific lawful investigations;

"(b) Information containing personal information respecting an identifiable individual including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing:

"(i) Vital statistics;

"(ii) Background personal information;

"(iii) Medical, criminal, educational or employment records or history;

(iv) The personal opinion or views of the individual, unless those opinions or views are given in the course of employment in the public service of the government of Ontario.

"(c) Information of a commercial, scientific or technical sort:

"(i) The disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, organizations or government institutions, or,

"(ii) The disclosure of which would reasonably be expected to result in undue financial loss or gain by a person, group of persons, organizations or government institutions and which, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes confidential technology, trade secrets, marketing information, customer lists, advertising budgets, and funding sources or,

"(d) records of proposals and recommendations to the deliberations and proceedings of the executive council or any committee thereof."

And dealing with notice: "5: Where the minister under subsection 4 refuses an application for disclosure of information, he shall within 20 days so inform the applicant together with written reason thereof, and he shall inform the applicant of his right of appeal to the Environmental Assessment Board hearing.

"6: Any applicant may, within 15 days of receipt of a notice under subsection 5, by written notice served upon the minister and the Environmental Assessment Board require a hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board.

"7: In a hearing under subsection 6, the Environmental Assessment Board shall take every precaution, including where appropriate receiving representations, ex parte and conducted hearings in camera to avoid disclosure by the Environmental Assessment Board or any other person of any information the disclosure of which may be refused under this section."

Onus: "8. In a hearing under subsection 6, the onus of establishing that access to the information may be refused shall be on the minister."

Order: "9. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Environmental Assessment Board may make such order as it considers appropriate having regard to the provisions of this section, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing may: (a) order the disclosure of all or part of the information sought to be disclosed; or (b) where the Environmental Assessment Board has determined the information shall not be disclosed, order that a nonconfidential summary of all or any part of the information be prepared."

Appeal: "10. An appeal lies to the divisional court of Ontario from a decision of the Environmental Assessment Board on a point of law or jurisdiction."

Hon. Mr. Norton: Since the member for Niagara Falls has done such an admirable job of reading this into the record, I wonder, given the complexity of the language, if the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk before his departure would explain it to me briefly in about three minutes or less in layman's language.

Mr. Chairman: He does not have to.

Mr. Nixon: The Chairman has already ruled it out of order.

Mr. Chairman: No, I have not. But I was just about to rule it out of order. The minister has been up --

Mr. Nixon: Is it open for debate? If it is open for debate we must assume we have unanimous consent for its inclusion --

Hon. Mr. Norton: No.

Mr. Nixon: No? He is denying unanimous consent?

Mr. Chairman: I have not ruled yet. Now having had the opportunity of reading the proposed amendment I am afraid it has no relation to the bill in front of us. We will rule it out of order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It was a good idea you must admit.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, this is the final amendment I should share with the minister, and I make the same appeal before I put this on the record, that the minister will avail himself of the kind of research and work done on these amendments, and possibly in the near future include them in amendments to further environmental protection.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I point out to the honourable member I have not yet decided whether I will allow this to be put on the record.

Mr. Kerrio: I move the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

Interpretation -- this section has to do with funding: "The environmental hearing assistance fund" --

Mr. Chairman: Order. I have some bad news for the member. Having had the opportunity to read this proposed amendment, under our standing orders section 1(15) states, "Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds, shall not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown."

Under the circumstances, I am afraid I will not allow the member to read this proposed amendment into the record.

Mr. Kerrio: I accept the decision on this matter, but as long as it appears this party is prepared to have funding for interested people to help clean up our environment, enough has been said.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would like the record to show, even though the member is well aware of the standing order, at no time did he bring his amendment to me and ask me if I would introduce it for him. Surely, it is a serious oversight.

Mr. Nixon: Why should he do that? He is an elected member also.

Section 7 agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

5:20 p.m.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Norton the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

Assistant Clerk: The twenty-fourth order, second reading of Bill 167, An Act to validate certain Road Closings and Conveyances in the City of Ottawa.

Mr. Rotenberg: Bill 147.

Assistant Clerk: The thirteenth order, second reading of Bill 147, An Act to facilitate the Negotiation and Resolution of Municipal Boundary and Boundary-related Issues.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Normally we go down our Order Paper in the order in which the bills are listed. When we set aside Mr. McMurtry's bills because of the illness of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), we then moved to order 24, which is Bill 167. It may not require extensive debate, but I do not recall any agreement was made to set aside Bill 167 and move to Bill 147. I suppose it is not essential. but Bill 167 was probably put first because it may not elicit lengthy debate, whereas Bill 147 is more major in its content.

Mr. Rotenberg: The honourable minister wished to carry Bill 167 himself. He is not here this afternoon. It was indicated to the critics of the ministry that Bill 167 would not be dealt with and that we would move directly to Bill 147.


Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, moved second reading of Bill 147, An Act to facilitate the Negotiation and Resolution of Municipal Boundary and Boundary-related Issues.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated in his introductory remarks on first reading of the bill, this legislation is the product of three years of review and consultation. The review began in the fall of 1978 when spokesmen for both urban and rural municipalities called for an alternative to bitter and costly confrontations before the Ontario Municipal Board over annexations and amalgamations.

They continued through 1979, when the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) proposed a new approach to the problem. This new approach, modelled on labour- management bargaining techniques, was successfully piloted in the Brantford area. The members will recall the deliberations in the Brant-Brantford matter and the wide-ranging intermunicipal agreement that was later implemented by a special act of this House in June 1980.

In October 1980 a government position paper was released that outlined a model of the new procedure. This paper formed a companion piece to the legislation introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on November 18, 1980, which gave general application to the Brant-Brantford approach. That legislation was allowed to die on the Order Paper to afford municipalities further opportunity for comment and debate.

Over the three-year review period there has been extensive municipal consultation. A working group representing the province's three municipal associations reviewed a draft of the position paper before its release last October. This same group was recently recalled to review a draft version of the present bill. Bill 147, which is before us, incorporates a number of the suggestions made by the interassociation working group.

From all the above I think it is fair to state that we have progressed from general support of the idea of change to substantial agreement on the specifics of a new procedure. Bill 147 represents the results of that consensus and incorporates changes intended to simplify and strengthen the procedure as well as to render it more politically accountable.

In general the bill serves three basic ends. First, it provides a process for the negotiation of intermunicipal boundary and boundary-related issues in a way that ensures that elected politicians, rather than lawyers and consultants, will determine the nature and shape of our communities.

Second, it provides an extended frame of reference from which municipalities can draw to find solutions to their common boundary problems. Some boundary problems may not need to be solved by moving jurisdictional lines on a map. Bill 147 provides for municipalities to come to agreement on a wide range of topics including but not limited to boundary changes.

Third, the bill provides a mechanism in the form of an order in council for giving effect to simple boundary agreements.

The bill also empowers the cabinet to make use of orders in council to provide solutions to boundary problems which cannot be resolved through local negotiations. This will occur whenever the minister has referred unresolved issues to the municipal board, the board has made recommendations and cabinet has decided to act. This expansion of cabinet's order-making powers will represent a significant change from the earlier bill in which the Ontario Municipal Board retained decision-making power in the event local negotiations failed to produce agreement.

Under Bill 147, a municipality that has a boundary problem or a boundary-related problem would apply directly to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing rather than to the 0MB. The only exception would be where problems involved unorganized territory. In such latter cases, the municipality would continue to seek direct access to the board for a hearing and decision under the Municipal Act. However, in the majority of cases, application would be made to the minister. The revised bill leaves it up to the minister to decide whether to proceed with any application and if the minister does so decide to proceed, an inquiry would be conducted by staff from the ministry's municipal boundary secretariat.

On an application for a simple boundary change which involves no special planning arrangements and which was readily agreed to by the municipality and owner/owners of the lands in question, this inquiry stage might last a few days or weeks at the most. Implementation by order in council could then follow fairly quickly as long as there was no significant citizen opposition.

This is similar to the way in which matters are now handled by the Ontario Municipal Board. The 0MB directs that public notice be given on each annexation application. If no individual objections are received, the board dispenses with the hearing and proceeds to put the change into effect by order.

If a situation were more complex, involving a multitude of issues and interested and affected municipalities, the inquiry stage would be more comprehensive. In such cases, in-depth research might be carried out under the direction of the municipal boundary secretariat and detailed documentation produced on the issues and particular points of view.

It is not anticipated that the inquiry stage will generate early agreement in these more complex cases. It is more reasonable to expect that formal face-to-face negotiation will be required. Once this has been determined, the minister could direct the party municipalities to name members of their council to sit on a negotiating team and recommend agreements on their behalf. These representatives, together with a chief negotiator from the municipal boundary secretariat, would then constitute the negotiating committee. An advisory panel of experts would be available to advise this committee at their request.

Formal negotiations would end with the release of a report from the chief negotiator, setting out the extent of agreement or disagreement within the negotiating committee on the issues negotiated and any tentative agreement reached. If negotiations ended in agreement on one issue or a package of issues, as was the case in Brant-Brantford, the agreement would become subject to mandatory provisions regarding public notice, public meetings and meetings of council.

At the conclusion of this period of public debate, the councils of the party municipalities could move to ratify the agreement and the minister proceed to legislate the changes agreed upon or in certain circumstances to recommend implementation by order.

If the formal negotiations fail to produce agreement or at least left certain issues unresolved, the minister would have a number of options available. He could refer the issue back to the negotiating committee or to the municipalities for renegotiation. He could seek advice of an issues review panel. He could terminate the application or he could introduce legislation. Alternatively, he could refer the party municipalities to the Ontario Municipal Board.

As outlined above, the board would hear the municipalities and make recommendations. Following upon these recommendations, cabinet could move to impose a solution by order or decline to issue such order.

The legislation contains a number of procedural safeguards which ensure that objections from individual residents and property owners are considered before any final decisions are made.

5:30 p.m.

As I mentioned earlier, any tentative agreement recommended by a negotiating committee would become subject to mandatory provisions regarding notice and public debate. Under these provisions the council of each party municipality would be obliged to explain the agreement at one or more public meetings and to seek out and consider any subsequent objections at an open meeting of council. This would provide more protection than residents and property owners have under existing procedures. A municipality is now under no legal obligation to consult with its constituents before deciding to pursue or resist a controversial annexation application.

A further opportunity for public input is provided prior to the issuance of an order in council. Citizens' objections received at this stage would be handled by referral to the party municipalities to see if they could be met by way of amendment to the intermunicipal agreement or by referral to an issues review panel, the Ontario Municipal Board or a hearing officer for hearing and recommendations.

Before concluding, I would like to comment on the kind of agreement we expect to see negotiated under the authority of this bill. Both the minister and I expect the bulk of the agreements will involve simple boundary changes. Changes like those to accommodate industrial sites or residential subdivisions now account for more than 70 per cent of all annexations processed by the 0MB each year. These boundary adjustments will continue to proceed by order.

A second category might include agreements that contain special planning provisions involving official plan zoning bylaw revisions or a land-use freeze. Agreements involving official plan revisions could be effected by order in the same way as simple boundary adjustments. The only different thing is that final implementation would have to await the outcome of 0MB hearings and other proceedings provided under the Planning Act. In other words, agreements under this act do not supersede the Planning Act, and do not take away from anyone the right of a hearing on official plan amendments or zoning amendments under the Planning Act.

Agreements involving a more or less permanent restricted-to-agriculture related area, along the lines of the Brantford-Brant Annexation Act, would have to be implemented by an act of the legislature. This legislation is clearly the appropriate forum for dealing with changes that have such major implications on property rights. Bill 147 does not vest such authority with the minister or with the cabinet.

I have given notice to the opposition critics of two minor amendments, which clarify a couple of sections of this act. With those amendments, I would commend this act to the members of the Legislature, as I have said, as the result of about three years of negotiation with all the municipal associations. We feel this will make the whole process of boundary disputes and boundary negotiations much simpler, much more in the political forum, and much more available to the public for discussion. I commend this act to the Legislature.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this piece of legislation and to indicate at the outset this party will be supporting Bill 147. We believe this bill is long overdue. We have said for some years the process that was in vogue for a number of decades, where municipalities wanted to annex some property, whether a small piece or a large piece, was very antiquated, very expensive, and certainly very time- consuming. We encouraged the government -- as the former leader of this party and the present leader, as well as different caucus members, have done over a number of years -- to take some important forward-stepping progressive action in order to expedite those kind of disputes, the ones the parliamentary assistant was addressing his attention to.

We feel that theoretically this piece of legislation should work very well, and we hope that it does so in practice. We know the model legislation that was applied to Brant township and Brantford has been in place for close to a year, and I understand it is working relatively well. We debated that in this Legislature and at that time the legislation got the support of the whole House with certain reservations.

We also know there are some places in the province that have gone the long and expensive route of having 0MB hearings. For instance, if we look at the Barrie-Innisfil situation, we have to look at the expenses those two municipalities encountered during the Ontario Municipal Board hearing and prior to it. A conservative figure used in that annexation battle has been $1 million. That $1 million only produced more expensive lawyers and consultants because that is where the money really went, through the various hearings they had -- the appeals and so forth. We feel this legislation will not only expedite some of the problems encountered in inter-municipal boundary disputes, but will also be a lot less expensive.

We also know there has been a working group on this piece of legislation. The government, to its credit, has consulted with the municipalities over a number of years on this matter. For instance, it has consulted with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario which is the largest of the municipal organizations. It consulted with the Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario. It also consulted with the Rural Ontario Municipal Association.

It had a working committee of about 12 to 14 people made up of both elected municipal representatives and staff. Some of their recommendations have been adopted by the province. It is to the government's credit that at least it did some consulting with the municipalities before it brought in this piece of legislation.

Because of that consultation and because the municipalities have had some input, which is not always the case, this legislation has a much better chance of being successful in the long run. It is the municipal representatives who have had the best opportunity of dealing with the inter-municipal problems and of trying to inject some kind of expertise, wisdom and experience to try to make the proposed legislation work.

We are also quite pleased the school boards are going to have some say in the negotiations before they come to fruition, before the final decision is made or legislation is introduced in those cases where it has to be introduced.

Had this legislation been in place maybe 10 or 15 years ago, we might well have avoided a number of the regional governments we have in the province. It was because of the many boundary disputes encountered in the 1960s and the early 1970s that this government brought in regional government. Although it might not have avoided all the regional structures in the province, I am confident it would have avoided some of them. That in itself would have saved millions of dollars because all of us know regional government has been a very expensive toy this government has put in place.

There are a number of warts that I see in the legislation itself. Under the bill the minister has a large amount of power. He is extremely powerful from the standpoint of being able to make a lot of decisions and recommend certain things to the cabinet which will come forth in orders in council. Mr. Speaker, I know you are very interested in this because you would not want the minister to have too much power or abuse his authority.

If we look at section 6(1) it says, "Following the sending of a report under section 4, the minister may" do certain things. If we look at section 6(2), "the minister may appoint." Section 7 says "the minister shall appoint a person to serve as chief negotiator." Section 9(1) says "the minister may, at anytime, constitute one or more issues review panels." Section 9(2) says "the minister shall constitute an issues review panel." Section 10(1) says "the minister may." Section 13 says "the minister may." Section 14 says "the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order." Section 19 says "the Lieutenant Governor in Council may."

5:40 p.m.

So it gives a lot of prerogative to the minister, and through him to the cabinet. I would doubt very much when the issues come before the cabinet that every minister who is there making a judgement on a particular matter is going to be fully knowledgable about it. As a result of that, the minister who should be acquainted with the whole matter usually makes a recommendation and I am sure that nine times out of 10 that recommendation carries.

So the minister has an extreme amount of power and it may be necessary to bring in some kind of amendment which would limit that power. I know municipal representatives have reservations about this. Some of them are prepared to wait and see how the legislation works out. Others feel corrective action should be taken in this Legislature to make the minister more accountable to public opinion, rather than depending on his own wishes or prejudices.

Another concern municipal politicians have, and that our party has, is about the policy and guidelines manual we are told will be coming out sometime in January. This is very vague. We have not seen that manual and it is very ironic that legislation is always passed before the guidelines come out. Often the guidelines are as important, if not more important, than the actual legislation. It is those policies the minister disseminates and the guidelines he draws up that often determine whether a municipality is going to have certain freedoms or rights or win or lose certain cases.

We only wish the parliamentary assistant who is here today speaking on behalf of the minister could assure us that in January the municipalities' representatives, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, will be fully consulted with respect to the guidelines and policies the minister is going to articulate and disseminate. If he is not in a position to give that assurance, it would make us even more suspicious that the kinds of policies that are going to be disseminated are not going to be in the best interests of the municipalities of this province.

We also have a problem with this legislation because of the final appeal. If there has been some violation in law in the perception of some people who are concerned, we would like to be sure there is going to be some kind of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board in order to clarify that. It would be better still to have some kind of judge, or somebody with a good knowledge of the law, to rectify that situation. The last thing we would want is a violation of law as far as the legislation is concerned and no clear body to clarify that piece of legislation or violation.

We may finish second reading today or maybe on another day, but when the amendments come up we may very well introduce some amendments directed to some of the points I have raised in second reading.

Ms. Bryden: This is a very important bill because it is breaking new ground in the settlement of disputes over boundaries or in the changing of boundaries. But as the saying goes -- territorial changes are a major cause of disagreement -- fences make bad neighbours. It is a very sensitive area and it must be dealt with in a way that will bring maximum satisfaction to all parties concerned. It must also make sure all their concerns are considered.

As the parliamentary assistant mentioned, it has been preceded by a lot of study, by a government position paper, by consultation with the municipal organizations and by a pilot project in the Brantford-Brant area. It was also preceded by a bill introduced last fall and this has given the public an opportunity to see the shape of the legislation.

We now come to the 1981 version of the bill in Bill 147. We intend to support the bill as a worthwhile movement in this field -- to produce procedures resulting in speedier handling of changes in boundaries and also in more satisfaction to the parties concerned. Having said that, we feel there are quite a lot of deficiencies in the bill and we would hope some of them may be corrected by amendments.

First there is the application of the bill. It appears to be limited to municipalities that are not part of a regional government, a district municipality or the county of Oxford. This cuts out a very wide group of municipalities. Presumably these regions operate under their own acts and they can apply for their own amendments if they wish to change boundaries within the region.

It would appear the collective bargaining procedure is not going to be applied within those regions. They will work out their own procedures. If the collective bargaining procedure is a good process, I question why it should not be extended to the regional municipalities in some form. Perhaps it would require amendments to their particular act.

It is not clear whether the act applies to counties but I presume it does, since they are not specifically mentioned as the excepted areas. The act does apply to the regions when in the opinion of the minister the boundary issue is of a minor nature. I would like the minister to clarify what he means by a minor nature. That is not defined anywhere in the bill. It may produce considerable uncertainty within the regions as to whether any boundary issue is or is not covered by this bill.

There is another area of coverage that raises a question. It appears school boards are to be consulted when a boundary issue comes up, if the minister thinks they are affected. But they cannot be a party to the negotiations. They are not listed as a party under party municipality and presumably they cannot be a party.

It seems to me any local body within the geographic region being considered for a boundary adjustment should be notified there is going to be a determination of a boundary change. It should not just be left to the minister to decide which local bodies shall be consulted. All local bodies within the geographic area affected should automatically be notified. That area of the bill should be amended.

5:50 p.m.

However, the question of coverage is only one of the areas where we feel there is some questioning of the general principles. Our main concern is that this bill gives too much discretionary power to the minister. I draw your attention to two or three clauses which really underline this criticism. For instance, section 6(1)(d) gives the minister power to "take such other action as the minister considers appropriate." Section 13(g) has the same phrase in it. Section 21 is the overall ministerial discretion clause. I am sure if we had it in every act we really would not need the Legislature around. Section 21 says:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, may authorize all such acts or things not specifically provided for in this act that in the minister's opinion are necessary or advisable to carry out effectively the purposes or intent of this act."

While it is true the Lieutenant Governor in Council more or less has to rubberstamp what the minister recommends, it does mean the minister can do anything under this act that he says was not provided for but is necessary to implement and carry out the act. I submit that the minister should have to come back to the Legislature if there are things he has forgotten. He should have to come back when he discovers there are deficiencies in his bill that require additional legislation.

I think the practice of giving this kind of sweeping power to either the minister or the Lieutenant Governor in Council is simply raising the executive council to the position of almost a dictator in the province. It is eliminating the power of the Legislature to determine what the law of the land shall be. I think those very sweeping clauses should be stricken from the act.

The Liberal Party Critic (Mr. Epp) has mentioned that a great deal of the implementation of this bill will be done through a manual which the ministry intends to issue after the bill is passed. This is another area of ministerial power. We really should have the manual in front of us while we are considering the bill because we have no idea what a lot of the procedural details will be until we see that manual. I think it would have been desirable if the manual could have been produced along with the legislation.

If it cannot come until the legislation is passed, there should at least be an opportunity for it to be submitted to opposition members and to the public. There should be some time to object to procedures in it before it becomes adopted as a manual of procedure. In effect, without the manual, we are really buying a pig in a poke. We do not know exactly what the procedures will be. We do not know how the people who investigate the applications from the minister will be chosen for example.

Another area where we think the bill is deficient is in the question of public input. It is true that after an agreement has been reached, there will be a requirement that a public meeting be held to inform the public of the proposed settlement. The council of the municipality will have to hold an open meeting of council -- I hope all the meetings of council are open. They certainly should be. The public could find out at that time what the proposal is and could make objections after an order is issued.

But I submit this is too late in the process for the public to be involved. The public should be involved at the time the first proposal is made to effect a boundary change. When an application is submitted to the minister for a boundary change, the public should be informed that an application has been made. The minister is given power to consult local boards at that time and to consult school boards. I think he should be required to notify all local boards in the area, including school boards, and all municipalities affected by the geographical area, not just the ones he decides should be party municipalities. At the same time, he should notify the public that an application has been made, and what the application seeks to do.

It would be desirable if a public meeting was provided for at that time, so that the public could have a chance to ask questions and find out more details. I think simply an advertisement in the newspaper that an application has been made would tend to be inadequate, unless the minister took a whole page of the newspaper in some cases. The public should have the right to know what is being planned for their boundaries.

After the settlement has been agreed upon through the negotiation process, the minister is given the power to make orders implementing it. At that stage the public is notified and may make objections. The minister may then follow one of five courses in dealing with the objections. The fifth course he is given under the legislation is to decide that "The objection or objections is or are outweighed by the public interest." That simply means he can brush aside all objections and not have any further investigation.

Mr. Speaker: I would direct the member's attention to the clock.

On motion by Ms. Bryden, the debate was adjourned.

The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.