MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS AMENDMENT ACT
HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION ACT
CITY OF THUNDER BAY AMENDMENT ACT
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 177, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have had the fortunate, or unfortunate, experience of having my less-than-half-hour speech divided into three parts. So I welcome the opportunity to complete it at this time.
I pointed out, just before we recognized the clock for dinner, that the bill we have before us is exceedingly inadequate in that it provides compensation only for liability but not for collision or comprehensive. It does not even provide compensation for personal injury or loss of wages.
There is one other point I want to make with regard to the bill. Unlike the other compensation bills which have been before this House, no payment into this fund is required of the insurers. There may be some relationship between the fact that we have an inadequate bill, which only covers slightly more than half the claims that could arise and the fact that there is no payment by the insurance companies.
I believe we passed the bill regarding the motor vehicle dealers' compensation fund last fall; it could have been as long ago as last spring. It required that every one of the 5,000 or so dealers in this province pay a $100 flat fee into a fund, and from it would be paid claims to car buyers in cases where the company went bankrupt and they were unable to collect on their guarantees and their service.
We also know that the Ontario travel compensation fund compensates travellers in cases where a travel agency or broker goes broke, or for that matter a travel company. Travellers are reimbursed for their losses or alternative transportation is provided. Here also firms pay in substantial funds.
I have here a statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) dated December 13, 1982. I will read just one clause from it. It states they are increasing the fees that travel agents will have to pay. It says: "Industry will finance these changes by increasing contributions to the fund. Travel agents will pay $3 for every $10,000 gross sales; wholesalers, $12 for every $10,000 of gross sales. Newly registered agents will also have to pay $2,000, double the usual $1,000 initiation fee, to be considered in good standing with the fund."
So here we have these businessmen, many of whom are relatively small businessmen, having to pay substantial amounts of money into funds to protect their customers and the consumers. Now we have a bill before us that reputedly is to compensate motorists when an insurance company goes broke. Not only does it do that very ineffectively and only partially but it assesses no costs against the insurance companies. They should be paying into a pool, as many of the other businesses have to do for their colleagues who may go under for whatever reason.
We even have the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations increasing -- and we support this -- the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. and the provincial fund that compensates credit unions and caisses populaires from $20,000 to $60,000. No depositors are excluded from that. It is more adequate coverage.
Yet here we have an accident fund that excludes 45 per cent of the people who have accidents. I do not know how the minister can possibly justify the inadequacy and the shortcomings of that program. By what strange logic does he not include 45 per cent of those victims involved in accidents?
There is a real issue of justice here. People across this province are buying auto insurance, paying for it on average about $600 or $700 a year now. They not only take responsibility for providing liability insurance and personal injury in case they do damage to another person or to another person's car, but they also must have insurance in case they are in a collision. Most of this is in the $100 deductible range -- as this bill provides, incidentally, in liability -- and they are paying for that.
So if one demolishes his car or has an accident, they pay comprehensive damages. If the car is stolen or there is vandalism to the car, they provide that coverage. They provide the accident coverage; which as I have said is compulsory, one has to carry insurance. Yet when it comes to compensating these people if their insurance company goes broke the government just writes that off. There is no compensation for the accident. They do not get their $140 a week. They do not get their medical bills -- the $25,000 over and above the Ontario health insurance plan for medical and health services, dental services or whatever the case may be. I suggest this bill in its present form is not only inadequate but unjust.
8:10 p.m.
I have asked the parliamentary assistant and the minister privately on two or three occasions, as well as publicly, will the government reconsider this? It has done it in other areas; why not do it for compensation to victims of automobile accidents? For some strange reason I cannot understand the government simply refuses to amend this bill.
The additional moneys that would be required could easily be obtained from the insurance companies. We do not know how many insurance companies are going broke, but we are not likely talking about big sums of money. What we are talking about here is justice, the kind of justice the government has introduced and incorporated in the other compensation bills.
I make a last plea here and now for the government to reconsider its obstinate refusal to change this bill and make it realistic and satisfactory. I will withdraw my amendment; I will give all the credit to the government as long as it will change this into a bill that will provide compensation to insured victims of accidents. Some people -- and I know some of them -- are going to be badly hurt. They will be out not only the pain and injury, but tens of thousands of dollars because of the inadequacy of this bill. The parliamentary assistant knows that to be the case. I would like to hear what --
Mr. Martel: He has his marching orders.
Mr. Swart: Yes, he has his marching orders. The government has decided that is the way it will be and I suppose this is the way it will be. I simply do not understand it. Why would the government be so unreasonable and not follow the pattern it has set elsewhere?
This fund has been set up for liability in the past for those who did not carry auto insurance before we had compulsory auto insurance and the liabilities were to be paid out of it. Most of them had to sue to get it and this bill is an improvement on that. They may not have to sue to get a settlement out of this, but that was only a liability fund.
There is no reason that cannot be changed now to make it a fully compensatory fund. The need that existed before does not exist to the same degree at this time because of compulsory insurance. There is a substantial amount in that fund. If the government needs additional funds to give full compensation it should get them from the insurance companies. Let us not have a half-baked bill passed by this House.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) referred to the unsatisfied claims fund and to the current insurance fund. He knows what was intended to be covered by that fund were third party claims. If we were to go the route the member suggests it would require totally new legislation. What is being done here is an amendment arising from a situation where we could have been considered legally liable in any event. We are attempting to cover that issue, and that issue only, through this amendment.
In all honesty, I admit the honourable member is correct and we have talked about this in private. However, to go to the extent he proposes, I suppose we could be heading for government insurance, and that is not the line I would support.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
House in committee of the whole.
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 177, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.
Mr. Chairman: I see before me a proposed amendment to section 4. Are there any proposed amendments up to but not including section 4?
Mr. Mitchell: There are no amendments being proposed by the government. However, if I may have the concurrence of the House, should there be some questions asked for which I do not have immediate answers I would appreciate it if I could move down closer to the staff.
Mr. Chairman: Agreed.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:
"4. The said act is amended by adding thereto the following section:
"4b(1) Where damage to a motor vehicle insured under an owner's policy issued by a designated insurer is occasioned in Ontario, the insured may make application in a form prescribed by the minister for payment out of the fund of the damages in respect of such damage to the motor vehicle.
"(2) Where personal injury to any person is occasioned in Ontario by a motor vehicle insured under an owner's policy issued by a designated insurer, any person who would have a claim against a designated insurer under the owner's policy in respect of the personal injury may make application in a form prescribed by the minister for payment out of the fund of the damages in respect of the personal injury.
"(3) Only an amount by which the loss or damage exceeds $100 shall be paid out of the fund under this section.
"(4) The minister may, in respect of an application made under subsections (1) or (2), make payment out of the fund for an amount that he considers proper in all the circumstances if,
"(a) the receiver or liquidator of the designated insurer irrevocably agrees to the validity and amount of the claim; and
"(b) the applicant excuses a release and direction for payment in a form prescribed by the minister to permit the minister to claim from the designated insurer the amount paid by him to the applicant;
"and by renumbering sections 4 to 9 of the bill as printed accordingly."
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, this amendment corresponds with the other sections of the act with the $100 deductible, but it also extends it to cover personal injury and property damage from any of those coverages, in addition to the liability.
The section may appear complicated, but it is actually very simple. I gave the reasons for this before and I will not take up the time of this chamber by repeating them.
I think this proposal is valid. I cannot accept the parliamentary assistant's reason for not moving in this direction. In effect he said the old motor vehicle claims fund paid out only for liability. The reason it only paid out for liability was to cover uninsured people who did not take the responsibility of getting insurance on their own. Therefore, if they were involved in an accident with somebody else, the other person would be covered as if he did have insurance -- not to the same limit perhaps but he would be covered.
8:20 p.m.
What we have here are people who have undertaken the responsibility to cover themselves with a variety of insurance against all kinds of claims. If their insurer goes bankrupt or goes into receivership they will find they may not be able to collect for anything other than liability. That is not a massive change. I suggest it is reasonable to change the fund that was set up for one purpose to correspond now to a new purpose. It is for that reason that we move this amendment and, for that matter, the subsequent amendments I have tabled.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, when this fund was originally established it was determined that the inclusion of collision, comprehensive and all those other things would seriously jeopardize the solvency of the fund. Because of that, such claims have never been paid since the inception. As I pointed out, this legislation is not designed specifically for trips. It is in here because there are people who otherwise might be sued and lose their licences. This is an attempt to protect that third party liability. We cannot support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman: All those favour of Mr. Swart's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Sections 4 agreed to.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, the key to the amendments I proposed was the first amendment. The others are really all subsequent to that, to change other sections of the act to conform. Since the key amendment has not carried, I will not take the time of the House to move the other amendments.
Mr. Chairman: That is awfully considerate.
Sections 5 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 177 reported.
HEALTH PROTECTION ACT
Consideration of Bill 138, An Act respecting the Protection of the Health of the Public.
Mr. Chairman: Will members of committee of the whole House give me some instruction? Are there any proposed amendments to Bill 138?
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to Section 5 of the bill.
Ms. Copps: I tabled three amendments with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Which ones?
Ms. Copps: There are amendments to the title and to part I, sections 1 and 5. I would like to speak to the first amendment.
Mr. Chairman: No, we do not do the titles until the end.
On section 1:
Ms. Copps: I am speaking to the amendment to part I, paragraph 1(1)(3). We have gone into quite a lengthy debate in the committee and I do not want to reiterate much of that debate in the House. Nevertheless, the part I, paragraph 1(1)(3) amendment basically states that the words "chief medical officer of health" should be replaced with the words "provincial health officer."
This is in an effort to allow that the position of the chief executive officer within a public health unit be not necessarily drawn from the medical profession. We feel that in many cases medical doctors may be extremely and eminently well- qualified to carry out the position of chief executive officer, but that the position should be left open to a number of individuals. Many non-doctors may be well qualified with masters degrees in public administration, etc., to occupy the position of the chief executive officer.
This is just an attempt to clarify the wording in the definition before we actually get into the body of the legislation. The argument has been well aired, but for those in the House who have not had an opportunity to be involved with the actual decision, I think that at one time --
Mr. Chairman: The honourable member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has indicated he does not have a copy of the amendment and I think we have failed to read it. I am wondering if you could read the amendment. Would that help?
Ms. Copps: I did read the amendment.
Mr. Chairman: Oh, I am sorry.
Ms. Copps: The amendment is that the words "chief medical officer of health" be replaced with the words "provincial health officer."
Mr. Chairman: Ms. Copps moves that part I, paragraph 1(1)(3) be amended by replacing the words "chief medical officer of health" with the words "provincial health officer."
Ms. Copps: Sorry, I must be much clearer. I am trying to make sure I am clear and succinct but not shrewish. I have to be careful of that. We have been through the debate in committee, as I have stated. The Liberal Party has taken the position there was at one time a consideration that a director of a hospital need of necessity be a medical doctor. We feel it is in this climate that the tradition of having a chief executive officer as a medical doctor has persisted.
We recognize that the minister has not modified this legislation for almost 100 years, and we should bear in mind the new realities. There are people who may have masters degrees in public administration or in public health, or who may otherwise be very involved in the delivery of services in a public health unit. We do not feel the chief executive officer position need of necessity be restricted to a medical doctor. If a medical doctor does apply for the position, so be it, but we feel it should be opened up for other members of the public who would be well qualified to serve in what is essentially an administrative position in the 1980s. It is not simply a position where a medical doctor offers prognoses and diagnoses. It is in that context we have introduced this amendment.
Mr. McClellan: I am having a little bit of difficulty. I thought it was a different section of the act that established a licentiate by statute -- that is that the chief medical officer has to be a medical doctor. I suspect I have not followed the argument. However, my own view is that there should be flexibility in the statute to permit a local health unit to make the choice themselves as to whether they want their chief executive officer to be an MD, or whether they want him to have other kinds of training, experience, background and expertise.
The arguments have been made many times in committee and they do not have to be rehashed. However, I am confused, because part I, paragraph 1(1)(3) refers to the chief medical officer of health who is sort of the super commissar under the act, rather than to the medical officer of health of an individual health unit.
At any rate, it is possible that I am confused.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I share some of the concerns of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). In any case, the motivation behind this, as I listened to the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), was to deal with the question raised by the committee about moving some of these responsibilities away from a medical doctor in all instances as the act provides. Without repeating everything that was said at committee, I must say it remains the view of the government that it would be best for all concerned if we stayed with the current provisions as drafted. It biases the entire system in favour of luring more and better doctors into the roles, beginning with the chief medical officer of health and on down to each of the MOHs through the system. For that reason we will be opposing the amendment.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton Centre has another proposed amendment.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to part II, adding subparagraph 5(4)(vii), which would include the prevention of adolescent pregnancy as part of the core programming, including the provision of family planning services and public education in human sexuality and in family planning.
This is basically an extension of the mandate which has already been struck by the Minister of Health in his mandated health programs and services. In paragraph 5(4), he is suggesting that we have the provision of family health as part of the mandatory core programming, including provision of counselling services, establishment of family planning services, programs to identify pregnant women in high-risk health categories, provision of health services to infants, provision of preschool and school health services and collection and analysis of epidemiological data.
My amendment would see the prevention of adolescent pregnancy incorporated as part of that particular core program. The minister is no doubt aware, as are all of the committee members, that the regulations that have been developed by the ministry incorporate the notion of primary prevention of adolescent pregnancy as one of the guidelines under which they must be monitored. However, it is the concern of those of us who were privy to the presentations given in committee, that it is very important that prevention of adolescent pregnancy actually be included in part of the legislation itself and not simply left to the regulations.
Because this is a very important issue and because the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) and other committee members were very concerned when we dealt with this issue, I would like to read a few facts into the record. I think these are facts which affect us all as Ontarians, particularly those of us who are charged with the responsibility of trying to develop health programs for this province.
There are 20,000 adolescent pregnancies in this province every year. Of these pregnancies, 4,000 occur to women between the ages of 12 and 16 years. Basically, we are talking about children having children. Half of those pregnancies now end in abortion.
Mr. Chairman: We have a problem. I was under the impression that your proposed amendment was to section 1, but it is to section 5; is it not?
Ms. Copps: It is part II, paragraph 5(4). There are no other amendments.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, but technically we have not even got there yet, because we have not even passed any section up to that section. Thank you.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 5:
Ms. Copps: These 5,000 young women, who are basically children, become single parent families. We have to look at the consequences of children bearing children, because lack of maturity and parenting skills leads to a higher incidence of child abuse. We know that with young children having children, there is a higher incidence of child abuse. We realize there is an increased incidence of morbidity and mortality for mother and child and that there are increased incidents of physical and mental handicaps in the children.
This is an issue that should touch all of us who are dealing with the business of trying to run the government in an efficient and effective manner. For every dollar that is currently spent on prevention, $10 is spent on abortion services and welfare in Ontario. Adolescent pregnancy is frequently a major obstacle to personal growth and emotional maturity, to completion of education and to development of employment skills.
Every year we have 4,000 to 5,000 such single-parent families created in this province. Ninety per cent of those who have babies keep them. Pregnancies are declining in county areas where there are public health planning services, including clinics, in more than one location, and those with schools which have an approved curriculum outline incorporating sexuality topics and which teach the concepts of family planning and contraception.
We are talking about a situation in Ontario where, although the numbers have not been increasing substantially, the fact that 90 per cent of those young children choose to keep their children, is leading to a financial and social problem of epidemic proportions.
I believe the minister has gone some measure towards recognizing this by including within the regulations a framework to spell out the importance of primary prevention of adolescent pregnancies; but we believe, and I think the minister would also agree, that with a change of minister we could see a change in policy. What we would like to achieve with this particular piece of legislation is that the primary prevention of adolescent pregnancy be incorporated as part of the core programming within the legislation itself; that it not be left to the regulations so that the whim of a minister from time to time may be the decisive factor in terms of changes.
As a woman and as a member of the Legislature, I feel this is a very critical issue. I realize it is also an extremely sensitive issue. In that context, I think it behooves us to congratulate the minister for including in the legislation a section which sets out very clearly that, in areas where a school system or a particular school is not interested in having the public health unit come and present a program, the option to accept or invite the public health unit into the school remains an option available to each school.
To suggest, for example, that the public health unit is going to come in and try to ram certain ideas and concepts down the throats of any student is simply not correct. I think the minister has been wise in allowing the schools this opt-out provision. At the same time, I think it is critical that we endorse and accept this amendment. I cannot stress how important it is that we as a Legislature take a position on the 1983 reality, which is that every day in this province, there are children who are having children.
It is not simply a question of those children and what happens to them in terms of mother's allowance and of the whole syndrome of financial dependence that they get themselves into. It is that we can prove that a great percentage of the children of those relationships will become subject to child abuse.
We know that after approximately one year, 60 per cent of the fathers of babies who have been the issue of adolescent pregnancies will never see their children. Those of us who have worked with this problem in our own constituencies and communities understand the tremendous social cost that is involved with this very singular and critical problem in the 1980s.
By endorsing this amendment, we are endorsing the recognition of the problem as set out by the ministry in the amendment to the Public Health Act.
At the same time, we are taking it one step further. We are saying that we want this prevention included in the list of mandatory core programs so that young women and, in fact, children across Ontario, will have uniform access to services as the first step in curbing a problem that is wreaking tremendous social costs on our generation, and will wreak an even greater social cost on the generations to come. In this context, I ask all members to consider supporting this amendment, because, believe me, for the young women of Ontario, this is a very important amendment.
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: Just before we do anything else, for the edification and clarification of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), I would like to point out to him that the proposed amendment actually does say part I, which was the confusing part, because what the member for Hamilton Centre is speaking to actually is in part II.
Furthermore, I did not want to interrupt her fine discourse and proposed amendment, but we should have got that before the committee by saying that the member for Hamilton Centre moves an amendment to part II, paragraph 5(4), with the addition of --
Is this what you want to do? I think it is part II. Do you want to add subparagraph (vii)? Is that what we are trying to do here?
Ms. Copps: Part II, subparagraph 5(4)(vii).
Mr. Chairman: Right, but you want to add it to this section, right?
Mr. Breithaupt: That is correct.
Ms. Copps: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you. You want to add a subparagraph (vii), "prevention of adolescent pregnancy, including the provision of family planning services and public education in human sexuality and family planning."
The amendment has been put and members have heard the discussion put forward by the member who has put the amendment. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre has put, somewhat cryptically, the identical amendment I had intended to move. I have no particular pride of authorship or language, but if the amendment is carried, obviously there will have to be some drafting changes in the wording proposed by the member for Hamilton Centre.
If I had the opportunity, I would have moved the wording I had distributed to my colleagues in the House who were interested in this matter, that paragraph 5(4), "family health," be amended by adding to the existing subparagraph (ii), "establishment of family planning services," the words "including family services especially addressed to the needs of adolescents."
My wording also states that paragraph 5(7), "public health education," be divided into two subparagraphs, the first one to be the wording that is currently under paragraph 7, "public health education, including, i education in the prevention and control of lifestyle diseases" and adding, "ii education in human sexuality in the prevention of adolescent pregnancy."
Mr. Chairman, you will see that the amendment significantly overlaps with the amendment proposed by the member for Hamilton Centre. It would not be my wish to clutter up the proceedings of the House other than to have expressed for the record the concern which I have and the need to have, perhaps, some greater care placed when amendments are put before the assembly so that we know where we are in the process.
I want to support what the member for Hamilton Centre has said about the concern which I share and which, indeed, is the reason this bill is in committee of the whole House at this particular period of time.
Perhaps members of the House who were not in the standing committee on social development during the periods when this bill was being reviewed are not aware that we received a significant number of very excellent briefs and presentations to the committee, but none which compared with the submissions which are numbered 35 and 64 in the records of that committee and which dealt with the statistical and scientific study which was carried out in the school of social work at McMaster University to illustrate the extent and depth of the problem.
In supporting the amendment of my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre, I do not happen to belong to any group which may be promoting any particular view on the topic which is the subject of these amendments, that is, the question of adolescent pregnancy. Nor am I particularly concerned to get involved with being on one side or another of an argument about it. I am saying to the Minister of Health and his colleague that we had anticipated in the standing committee on social development that a reasonable response should have been forthcoming from the ministry in the face of the one and only scientific study that we had before the committee on any aspect of health care in the province.
This is not an extrapolation from some study which may have been done somewhere else in one of the United States of America or Great Britain or Sweden, or in one of the minister's favourite places, British Columbia or some other jurisdiction.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mine is Saskatchewan.
Mr. Renwick: Or southern California, probably.
In any event, this was a study done in Ontario on accepted scientific methodology at a respected school of social work attached to one of the major universities in the province. It does not deal with an extrapolation from an isolated study in one part of the province. It is a study which derives its conclusions firmly and securely from information available through the statistical work of the Ministry of Health and Statistics Canada across the whole of the province. It makes no distinction with respect to any area of the province.
It affects the territories represented by each and every member of the assembly and it portrays to the assembly, as it did to the committee, a social problem of exceptional seriousness. If we do not deal with it in this assembly by facing up to it as one aspect of one of the core programs, then we are defaulting. I do not know what the default is. I do not know why the obstacle has arisen.
I cannot understand what went on in the committee that the reasonableness of the discussion, the information which was available to us, the unchallenged accuracy of that information, the fact that the study is going to be an ongoing one -- it is not completed in any sense -- the very study which commended itself to so many members of the committee seemed to run into some kind of a roadblock with the members of the government party. I do not understand it.
I do not know whether, for example, my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) thinks that his riding is exempt from the tragedy which is inherent in the question of adolescent pregnancy and the tragedy it means for the individual lives of the people in his riding. The member sat on the committee.
The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) sat on the committee and expressed something about his own family and the concern and empathy which he naturally brings to the topic, but as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, for some reason or another, he could not bring himself to say: "This is a problem. Let us deal with it up front. Let us deal with it as one of the core programs."
I am not speaking about making it a core program. I am speaking, as my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre spoke, about amending a core program to include a reference to the needs of education in the prevention of adolescent pregnancy and the need for family services especially addressed to the needs of adolescents.
I do not know what is scary about that. I do not understand why it is that the government feels it cannot deal up front with that kind of topic. All we are asking is a very simple, obvious amendment.
8:50 p.m.
I was so naive as to believe the government would have seen the reasonableness of the position. I was so naive as to believe that, in the one area of health care in this province on which there was this kind of scientific study with a proven methodology, a proven scope and a proven result, it would have appealed to the ministry. I would have expected that if the ministry were not prepared to accept this study, it would have challenged the veracity of the study. But no such challenge ever came forward.
So I am taking it that in the face of the horrendous statistics this particular study illustrates, the minister and his government are not interested in dealing with a tragedy in the province, the consequences of which will be of immense dimensions for us all and are continuing to be so.
I do not believe that my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre dealt with this particular part of the methodology, but concerning the methodology that was used the study has this to say:
"Following from our assumption that society should encourage and enable the avoidance and postponement of pregnancy until after age 20 we have developed an adolescent pregnancy rate irrespective of pregnancy outcome or marital status. This is the number of pregnancies to women under age 20 -- that is, live births plus abortions -- per 1,000 female population in the age range from 15 to 19. The rate thus takes into account shifts in adolescent population size and provides a standardized measure of the actual extent of the problem as we have defined it.
"Adolescent pregnancy rates for the grouped age unit 15 to 19 and for each age-specific level -- that is, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 -- were calculated for 55 Ontario localities and 44 public health units. Direct local accountability for the development of preventive community resources is thus facilitated. We have a basis for general comparison around the province, keeping in mind local differences of population density, culture, religion and socioeconomic factors. In time we hope to be able to assess the relative effectiveness of specific components within sex education and family planning services in each locality.
"Our data covered the four-year period 1975 to 1978 by necessity and by design. 1975 is the first complete year for which Ontario abortions are classified by age of the woman. 1978 is the last year for which birth data is available at the time of this project. 1975 was also the beginning year of family planning policy by the government of Ontario."
Then it goes on later to state simply: "All data were coded and keypunched onto IBM cards for computer analysis. The demographic information in particular will provide the basis for continuing study of adolescent pregnancy trends as data becomes available year by year."
My colleague the member for Hamilton Centre has quoted the extent and nature of the problem and the crying need for the government to have the courage to accept amendments, whatever the language may be, that recognize this requirement. I simply want to repeat for the record what has been said:
"When we talk about adolescent pregnancy in Ontario we are talking about approximately and annually 20,000 adolescent pregnancies, 4,000 of these to girls aged 12 to 16. Nine thousand of these end in abortion; 5,000 of these become adolescent single-parent families. The short and long-term consequences to women and children are as intolerable as they are lengthy."
I will not go on to repeat portions of that report which have been read.
The minister knows as well as I know that if we are not very careful in this province we are going to be faced with nothing but a single-issue confrontation, and that is not what is needed.
It is not a question of whether we are for or against abortion in some circumstances or in others. The question is whether we have the courage in this assembly, in advance of the problem, to provide for the young people of the province the opportunity to be able to so conduct their lives that they will not be faced with what for most women under 20 years of age will be a tragedy. If I can appeal on no other basis, if we in this province fail to pass an amendment such as has been proposed tonight, in whatever wording the government might like to have to satisfy its need, then what we are saying is that there will be a problem in community and social services on a financial scale that this province should not have to undertake, simply because of the failure in courage of the government.
I do not know whether the minister is going to change his mind tonight. I doubt it very much. The trauma of the events leading up to the introduction of these amendments and the discussions I have had with the minister and others over the course of the past several days would indicate to me that, for some reason or other, the government believes itself to be in a position where it can be terrorized on this issue. The minister has a responsibility, in a real and positive way, either to tell me in this assembly tonight that the study by the McMaster school of social work is not scientific, that its methodology is faulty, that the information it contains is wrong and that the figures I and others have used are wrong, or that he will accept this amendment.
I happen to believe that this assembly has enough sense to understand that the problem we are facing in the province, as exhibited by this study, is one that only we can deal with. I ask the minister and the parliamentary assistant who is sitting with him tonight, the member for Sudbury, to face up to the problem, to accept the amendment, to stand the bill down if necessary until the minister has the wording that fits his real needs so that up front in the statute there will be, as we pass this modern, updated version of a public health bill, the sense that the people of Ontario and their representatives in this assembly were prepared to put up front and centre a major social problem, an immense tragedy to the individuals who are concerned.
It is one of the tragedies of this House, and I do not know how it will ever be rectified, that I cannot conceive for one single moment, if this House were equally representative of men and women across Ontario, instead of being for practical purposes substantially male dominated, that this amendment would not pass simply because of the pressure that would be brought to bear. It does not happen to be a male problem. It happens to be a problem women suffer in this society, and it is not a problem that very many men in this House are prepared to even face up to or to consider.
I do not know whether they are shy about it, whether they do not want to talk about it, whether they believe it does not exist, whether they put their heads in the sand or whether they believe the province is exempted from the problem. I do not know where they think the tragedy of single-parent families, in which the parent in the family is under 20 years of age, is going to be dealt with.
I think the government must soon understand that this is not a black-and-white situation of fighting some question on a single issue basis. It is not a question that relates in any way to other sections of the bill dealing with the educational relationship with the medical officers of health. It is a single, solitary request to ask that one provision relating to the core program of family health be amended in the way that has been suggested in substance by my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre, and in somewhat more detail by the proposed amendment I read into the record a little while ago.
I will listen with a great deal of interest to what the minister has to say about this amendment and what his thoughts are on it.
9 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully this evening and have read the highlights of the study. As a matter of fact, I reviewed the study in some depth and I also read the transcript of the committee hearings. As well, I discussed this matter at length with my parliamentary assistant as we reviewed the events at the committee and the proposals that were put there.
Having considered the matter at some length, I must say we can see no reason why the provisions as they exist in the proposed guidelines and regulations, which really track very much the concerns raised here tonight, should not be sufficient.
To read the guidelines, part II, it simply says under family planning services:
"The board of health shall ensure:
"(1) That information on family planning services be available and promoted to the community with emphasis on groups with special needs such as adolescents.
"2(a) Educational programs and family planning be made available to both sexes with priority being given to groups at high risk and special needs such as adolescents."
It goes on. I would say, too, that when I review the provisions of the core programs, particularly as they are enumerated under paragraph 5(4), "family health," we see subparagraph (i), "establishment of family planning services," and subparagraph (v), "provision of preschool and school health services," and so on. Then it says in paragraph 5(7), "Public health education, including education in the prevention and control of lifestyle diseases."
Taking it all in total, we can see nothing there, obviously, which is contradictory to the report the members have referred to and on which this amendment is based. The concerns that have been raised are, I suggest, reflected quite adequately in the planned guidelines and regulations.
I should also point out we have assured the groups involved in the study, as well as many other groups that perhaps do not see the situation through the same eyes, that they will have all sorts of input into firming up these guidelines in one way or the other as times goes on.
I have to say I reject many of the comments the member for Riverdale made which suggest we are rejecting the study. We are not rejecting the study. We are working at it carefully and reviewing it carefully.
We have met with all those interested and are very concerned about the implications of that study. In sum, we are satisfied it appears to be adequately dealt with in the guidelines. Therefore, we do not think this amendment is appropriate or necessary under the circumstances.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the discussion. The minister was good enough to provide us with something called part II, family planning services standard, from which he read certain comments. I assume those are or are supposed to be the guidelines which will be promulgated by the ministry in this core program. I understand that to be so.
The very point I wanted to make was how long the Public Health Act, the act which is at present in force and which will be repealed when this comes into force, lasted. If this lasts as long as that act, we will then have for the next 20, 30 or 40 years a Health Protection Act in Ontario which has no reference to a real upfront problem of an immense social nature.
The government ought to understand that it controls the guidelines and regulations. There is nothing to indicate anywhere that this statute will embody the concerns so there will be the essential requirement of a mandate of this assembly so those regulations and guidelines are not subject to change at the whim of a particular Minister of Health. We have had several Ministers of Health during the course of the time I and other members have been in the assembly.
We know it is a difficult problem. We happen to believe this assembly cannot duck its head on difficult problems that require a display of courage. I am surprised the minister this evening would have thought his proposal was a sufficient answer to the question which was put by the amendment.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I really cannot add very much except to say that we are acting in good faith in this circumstance. This act does go much farther in terms of family planning than we have seen before in terms of making it a mandatory program and I think the concerns of the member will be safeguarded in the hands of this government, the civil service, and certainly this minister. I see no reason to fear any change in the future.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Grossman moves that subsection 6(4) of the bill be amended by inserting after "regulations" in the second line the words "on request of a person or organization that operates a school."
Motion agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 112, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 113:
Mr. Chairman: Ms. Copps moves that the words "and promotion" be inserted after the word "protection" in the short title of the bill.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Chairman, the title should reflect some of the realities that have actually been incorporated into the act. To be very brief: we were able, in committee, to get certain amendments incorporated to include the notion of promotion, which we feel is extremely important in developing a new Public Health Act that will relate to the realities of the 1980s.
Obviously, if we can incorporate not only the notion but the reality of promotion into the act then we will begin the long road towards providing a health system that is not only delivering the highest level of service possible but is also doing it at a reasonable cost. We feel that health promotion is critical to developing that system and that is why we would like to see the notion of health promotion incorporated not only in the substance of the legislation but also in the title to reflect the new realities of the 1980s.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I should simply add that I share the sentiments of the member for Hamilton Centre on the subject of promotion. It is simply our view that this is not appropriate in all the circumstances. It is a Health Protection Act. There will be many other opportunities to deal with the promotion question other than in titles to legislation. Although we do believe this bill goes a long way towards health promotion, we think it is inappropriate it be in the title of the bill.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Chairman, it is important that the notion of promotion not only be incorporated in the substance but in the title. It would seem to me that if the minister is really concerned that the notion of promotion be enshrined in the legislation it should be accorded that notion not only in the substance but in the title. I really do not think that is a major amendment to pass in this House.
9:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am persuaded by those eloquent arguments. We will accept that.
Motion agreed to.
Section 113, as amended, agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, if I might, with the forbearance of the House I would like to comment in one or two sentences that I think the work done by all members of the committee and of this House in putting through what is a major piece of complex legislation with far-reaching implications for perhaps every home in the province is to be commended. My able parliamentary assistant, too, as he took it through the committee, did prodigious work in getting the bill ready and in guiding it through committee.
We agreed at the start to accept a great number of amendments, and we agreed to listen carefully --
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Indeed, as colleagues of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) will tell him, we accepted some very fundamental amendments, even those proposed by your party.
So I would like to thank my parliamentary assistant for his excellent work, and all members of the House for working very sincerely, and in a dedicated and mostly nonpartisan way, to produce what I consider to be the best bill possible for the people of this province. I would like to thank all members for their participation.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: We would just like to say we hope it helps the minister in his campaign.
Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: It looks as if nothing helped him in his campaign.
Bill 138, as amended, reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Grossman, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment and one bill with certain amendments.
HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION ACT
Hon. Mr. Grossman moved third reading of Bill 138, An Act respecting the Protection and Promotion of the Health of the Public.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind you with respect to the amended title to ensure that the Clerk call the bill under the amended form of the title.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak for a minute or two about this bill before it is finally passed by the assembly tonight.
I think there have been some significant changes in the bill since it was first introduced last June. My colleagues voted against it on a division at that time because of a number of major concerns we had. Some of those concerns have been addressed and some have not.
The principal concern that has been addressed is in the amendments to sections 11 and 12, which for the first time place in statutory language an obligation upon the public health unit and the medical officer of health to engage themselves in problems relating to occupational and environmental health. While it might have been preferable to have these amendments made to section 5 so that they become part of the mandatory core programs, nevertheless we recognize that the ministry in accepting our suggestions has made a major change to the bill.
In particular, it is important to note that for the first time the definition of "health hazard" is clearly related in the language of the bill to occupational or environmental concerns, and those words are actually used in the bill. The minister argues that this was their intention in the first place, and perhaps it was. It certainly is there now in sections 11 and 12. Of significance, of course, are the powers of the medical officer of health with respect to health hazards, those very considerable powers that are set out in section 13 of the bill, which gives the medical officer of health great power and authority to deal with health hazards.
Under the terms of our new Public Health Act, there is no mistake at all that the medical officer of health will have the opportunity to exercise those powers, not just in relation to the traditional public health concerns but also to the new public health concerns resulting from environmental chemical contamination and hazards that exist either in the work place or which spill over to communities.
My colleagues in this party also welcome the ministry's initiative to set out a series of mandatory core programs. For that, the minister and the ministry must take the credit and our accolades. I think it is very important that core programs be established from one end of the province to the other. We will no longer have the situation where some boards of health are running good, thorough, comprehensive, progressive and tough public health programs and other public health departments are running bare minimum. The unevenness of the program across the province has been a very real problem.
I would just finish by saying there is still a major concern that has not been addressed and that has to do with the funding arrangements under the bill. Time and time again, my colleagues in this party have said it is completely unreasonable for the provincial government to impose additional burdens and responsibilities on municipal and local governments and then fail to provide additional resources to enable them to meet these additional responsibilities.
We continue to have a very deep concern. While the government has moved to impose new obligations through the core programs in section 5, I would remind members that the ministry intends to spell out the new obligations in considerable detail through guidelines and regulations. So in a very real sense the public health program for Ontario will be written and authored here at Queen's Park. A series of directives will be given to public health units telling them to run these programs in a particular specific way, yet the funding arrangements remain archaic.
Ontario continues to pretend that with the needs of modern government in a complicated, urban, industrial society or in rural areas with large, complicated, complex regional governments, these programs can somehow be adequately funded through a major reliance on property tax. We do not share that view. For that reason, we intend to register our concern in the only way we can, through voicing our opposition to the passage of the bill.
Ms. Copps: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, we too enjoyed the extensive work that was done on this legislation in committee. On behalf of my party, I can say that although I feel there are many areas where the act could go further, we will be supporting the legislation.
I am surprised the New Democratic Party is not supporting the legislation on the basis of funding, because during the sittings of the committee our party introduced many amendments which would have allowed the local option factor to enter into it, including an appeal to the minister himself or herself if they felt the program would be burdensome, etc. At that time, the amendments we proposed -- approximately 35 to 40 different amendments, many of which related specifically to the issue of funding -- were not supported by the NDP. At this point, I find it impossible --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.
Ms. Copps: Considering that the member for Scarborough West was not there when the amendments were put, I can understand why he would think they were ridiculous.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) showed them to me --
The Acting Speaker: Order.
9:20 p.m.
Ms. Copps: Bearing in mind the amendments and the issues that we attempted to address in committee, and I believe they were extensive, on second reading and in the discussions in committee, I feel that we attempted, as did the New Democratic Party and I think the minister as well, to move in a major direction on the issue of environmental legislation. I am surprised that the New Democratic Party, which did not vote on second reading on the issue of the environmental subject, is now choosing not to support the legislation on another issue.
I simply wish the NDP members would make up their minds where they stand on the issue whether they are for or ag'in it because of the environmental issues, or whether they are for it or ag'in it because of the financial aspect.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Ms. Copps: I am sure the minister will remember very clearly that we sat in this House and discussed the reasons we were or were not supporting the legislation and the amendments. At that time the NDP said they were not supporting the legislation because there was no environmental consideration. The minister moved on that issue. While we feel he may not have moved enough in many areas, he did move on the environmental issue to address the concerns that were rightfully expressed by the NDP.
It behooves me to say on behalf of the Liberal Party that although we feel the funding issue has not been substantially addressed, and we are concerned because of the 75-25 split and the other issues that were rightfully raised in committee on a number of occasions by members on this side of the House, we think the bill is a substantial improvement over the legislation as it existed almost 100 years ago. Bearing that in mind, we feel we should support it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, might I simply say that I wish we could have the support of the New Democratic Party on third reading because, as the member for Hamilton Centre has pointed out, a great many of their thoughts and concerns and amendments were accepted -- we listened very carefully throughout the committee stages -- save and except for this concern, which is a valid and important one but one which we fully intend to resolve as time goes on and as the programs grow and develop.
In the fullness of time they will all be looked after. This was well discussed in cabinet, in caucus, at Management Board of Cabinet and in Treasury before the bill was introduced. So it is with some confidence that I say I am not concerned about the financial matters, though I understand why members would want to take this opportunity to raise them.
It just dawned on me in listening to my colleagues across the floor and in chatting with our House leader, who reminded me that this bill was first talked of in draft form when he was Minister of Health back in 1971, how far we have travelled to this day.
It moves me to note that we in the House this evening can all share a bit of the credit. To the list of those I mentioned I should add both the chairman of the committee, the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) and the vice-chairman of the committee, my good friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies).
It would be unfair for us, at the committee stage in this House now and for members of this current assembly, to take all the credit, because a great deal of the work that went into building this legislation was done by my predecessors, from the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) to the present time, with a great deal of work having been done by my immediate predecessor, who devoted many hours, days and weeks to putting this bill together, so that when I arrived at the ministry I found a good, solid bill awaiting introduction.
We should not complete this evening's deliberations without noting the extraordinary work and dedication which went into putting this bill together, exhibited at the staff level by my excellent staff who were present through the committee and by my predecessors, especially the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell). Thank you very much.
The Acting Speaker: The motion is for third reading of Bill 138.
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ensure that the motion before you is for the bill as it has been amended in title, in order to avoid any difficulty in the future.
The Acting Speaker: The long title is An Act respecting the Protection of the Health of the Public, as given by the table. The short title of the bill is an Act respecting the Protection and Promotion, and the long title is An Act respecting the Protection of the Health of the Public.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think if you will look at the record you will see that, contrary to the actual tabling of the wording, that basically referred to the long title as being An Act respecting the Protection and Promotion of the Health of the Public, the short title as read into the record is the Health Protection and Promotion Act.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, although it does not appear on the Order Paper, it has been agreed that we will go to the third order next, second reading of Bill 7. I am sorry, we will do Bill 177 first.
THIRD READING
The following bill was given third reading on motion:
Bill 177, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.
TORONTO FUTURES EXCHANGE ACT
Mr. Mitchell, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elgie, moved second reading of Bill 7, An Act to incorporate the Toronto Futures Exchange.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, there are many comments I could make, giving the highlights and reasons behind this bill. But since we have a number of amendments to introduce in committee of the whole, I will hold those comments until later.
Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this bill first came before us as Bill 216 well over a year ago, and has stood on the Order Paper since it was reintroduced as Bill 7 when this session began last spring. There has been the opportunity since June 1980 for interim registration, under control of the Toronto Stock Exchange, for commodity futures exchange trading in this province. This has been mainly in the contracts on government of Canada debt instruments, and we always, have had ongoing, the condition that legislation would be coming forward that would regularize and deal with this project.
There is, accordingly, a requirement for legislation for a separate exchange, dealing with commodities futures, which would be sponsored by the Toronto Stock Exchange. The bill before us, called the Toronto Futures Exchange Act, in effect, follows many of the provisions that were in place as a result of the entire review of securities legislation several years ago, when that came before us as Bill 6.
There were extensive public hearings on the bill at the time, and certainly, as one of the members of the committee who was involved in those hearings, I was quite satisfied that the variety of comments made, and the suggestions as to the updating of securities legislation within the province, were done on a sound basis and would also lead us to an opportunity to eventually deal with the matters of futures contracts.
Of course, in these circumstances, we are dealing with what many might call simple speculation as to whether prices may or may not go up for a variety of items ranging from pork bellies to, I suppose, the prices of gold and silver as they might develop in years to come.
9:30 p.m.
However, like any other project controlled or conducted by human minds there is the old adage on the market that if there have been 11 million shares traded, there have been 11 million mistakes made. Some people bought too late and others sold too soon. However, that is the opportunity our system brings and we should properly regularize dealings in futures. They are an important matter for commercial trade in this province and throughout North America.
I suppose one can plan on an orange juice crop in Florida being wiped out by a bad winter or not, or on the corn-hog ratio which may affect the cost of pork bellies a year or two along the way. In any event we are to have an exchange and it is based particularly on Bill 6 with the self-discipline proposals that were part of that legislation.
We will certainly support the bill. We believe this is a useful adjunct to a new matter of dealing with a variety of products and projects in the exchange of securities. The self-governance of that project by an 11-member board I think will be done properly and appropriately in the public interest.
As the parliamentary assistant said, a variety of amendments will come before us. They are somewhat routine and we can discuss them at the point they come before us. In any event, we will support the legislation.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to permit, facilitate and legalize what will be the biggest gambling centre in Canada. It is with considerable fervour I rise to speak on it and to oppose it. It is not that I and my party particularly dislike gamblers per se, but we do not like gamblers who play with other people's lives and with other people's incomes. That is what this amounts to in the long term. I personally abhor speculators, whether they are land speculators or stock market speculators, whether they are speculators who purchase apartment buildings to sell them a few days later for a much higher price or whether they speculate in futures.
I admit I do not know a great deal about the details of stock exchanges or commodity futures exchanges, but I know those speculators are not doing anything useful for society. There are huge gains and huge returns on speculation. It has to come out of society.
Mr. Stokes: Do they produce anything?
Mr. Swart: No, they produce nothing.
I suppose those who defend it, and perhaps the parliamentary assistant, will say the gains some speculators make will come out of other speculators. That is simply not true; at best it is only partly true. I have seen land speculation in my area in St. Catharines where land within one, two, three or four years was raised in price from $2,000 an acre to $25,000 an acre. I know who paid that. The people who bought homes on the lots paid that. Those speculators did not make that out of other speculators.
We know what has happened with Cadillac Fairview. Anybody who follows the commodity market knows what has happened with a lot of the farmers' produce at the present time. That is partly due to the commodity exchange. Soybeans, corn and other farm commodities are generally only two thirds of the price they were two years ago.
Speculation in this is not just a case of guessing future prices. Inevitably, it sets prices. Using coffee or sugar as an example, it causes widely fluctuating prices. Consumers pay and producers are victimized. Anybody who wants to look into it will find that statement is true. There is a huge spread between producers and consumers. The speculators walk off with the gains.
When the Canadian Wheat Board was formed, and I am old enough to remember when that took place, and the co-operatives were formed in the west, it was really an answer to those speculators on the commodity exchange. Yet in the United States and in many communities here, grain and other commodity exchanges carry on their insidious operation. When one has prices set by a commodities futures exchange, one can be sure that what the producer receives and what the consumer pays has no relationship to the cost of production.
A few months ago on my way to Toronto, I heard an advertisement by Merrill Lynch urging investors to speculate on inflation and write in for a book on how to be successful in doing it. It was telling us what great profits can be made. I wrote to get a copy of the booklet that was advertised. If I had not been opposed to the Commodities Futures Exchange and speculation before I received that book I sure would be after I received and read parts of it.
Just let me read a few parts to members. We are not just talking about commodities such as soybeans, corn, oats and grains. We are not even talking just about gold and silver. We are talking about a commodity exchange in foreign currencies now, as well. Let me read a few extracts from this book, if I may. It starts off telling us how futures trading works:
"There are presently over 40 different futures contracts that can be bought or sold on organized futures exchanges in the United States and abroad. The number is increasing every year. The commodities traded, including among other things such basic staples and raw materials as wheat, corn, soybeans, cocoa, eggs, cotton, pork bellies, cattle, copper, platinum, gold, silver, sugar, plywood, frozen orange juice and such noncommodities as United States treasury bills. United States treasury bonds, Ginny Maes" -- whatever they may be -- "commercial paper and foreign currency.
"Futures trading is carried on in the United States in major commodity exchanges in Chicago, New York, Minneapolis and Kansas City, as well as in other commercial centres, notably Winnipeg, Canada, and London, England." It goes on to say: "Trading in commodity futures originally sprang up between producers of commodities and users, both hedging against an unfavourable trend in prices in general -- producers hedging against lower prices and users against higher prices.
"Through trading commodity futures, hedgers relinquished the possibility of windfall profits in order to protect themselves against the possibility of adverse price movement. Of course, speculators enter into this picture to assume the risk that hedgers were seeking to reduce so that they could gain the possibility of windfall profits which hedgers were willing to forego."
Then this booklet, which is entitled Speculating On Inflation, goes on to say:
"Almost every newscast you hear relates to the trend of interest rates, the value of the dollar and the price of gold. It seems inevitable that the maximum market trading futures contracts and these (commodities) would develop; and so it has. The very fluctuations in the price of these commodities which have been so unsettling to business and the economy, have afforded an exciting and profitable trading arena to many individuals with speculative inclinations and sufficient capital to be able to afford the risks of futures trading. The magnitude of the profit potential that these markets offer is apparent in the following example; consider the profit potential demonstrated by precious metals futures in 1979.
"During the year, the December 1979 gold futures contracts advanced from $237 to $510 an ounce. The dollar value of this range was about $27,300 per contract; required margin range from $2,000 to $8,000 per contract. Also during the year the December, 1979, sale of futures contract increased from 575 to 2,575 per ounce. This gain represented a dollar value of $100,000 per contract. Required margin was initially only $1,500 but later in the year it was raised because of price volatility" and so on and so on in this document.
I am just going to read one more section.
"In 1979, interest rates set record highs. December 1979, treasury bill futures on the international monetary market fell from 92.26 to 86.98. As interest rates rise, treasury bill prices decline. The dollar value of this move was about $13,200 per futures contract; required margin range from $1,000 to $4,000 per contract. The profit potential of these markets has attracted a great many traders of traditional commodities such as wheat, soybeans and cotton. Perhaps more significant is their appeal to many persons who have speculative inclinations but have never participated in the commodity markets.
9:40 p.m.
"The so-called money futures have one great advantage for many speculators. They may already be familiar with the market influences. As with other commodity futures, the basic economic justification for the existence of these futures contracts is the need of sellers, producers and buyers-users of the commodities in the cash market to reduce the risk of price fluctuation. Speculators come into the market to assume those risks in hopes of reaping gains that hedgers are willing to forgo in order to minimize the risk."
I suggest that if you read the whole book through there is not one useful purpose served for society in these kinds of futures exchanges.
Mr. Conway: Have you read Shulman's stuff?
Mr. Swart: I know some of Shulman's ideas, too, with which I may have some disagreement.
Mr. Conway: You couldn't have lived in the caucus with Morty.
Mr. Swart: That perhaps is true.
I would also like to read into the record an article that was in the business section of the Toronto Star on February 8, 1983. The heading is "High-Flying Gambler in Futures Set for Another Roll of the Dice":
"Fresh from 18 months in a British prison, big Joe Tritt is back in Toronto and eager to rejoin 'the world's biggest crap game' -- gambling other people's money on commodity futures.
"The Ontario Securities Commission put him out of business in 1977. The provincial government later brought in new investor protection laws giving the OSC powers to regulate commodity dealers as it does those who sell stocks and bonds.
"Tritt plans to ask the commission for registration. It says he's welcome to apply."
Later it says:
"Tritt, who describes himself as a 'high flyer,' disapproves intensely of such regulation but says he'd abide by the rules if he set up shop again in Toronto.
"He feels it's up to the buyer to beware in a buy-cheap-sell-dear world. He believes small investors solicited by telephone must know the house always wins in the long run, just as in Vegas. No one who buys an option wants to know what it cost the dealer until he loses his money, he says."
I think anybody who does any thorough investigation of the commodity futures market will know it is nothing a place for speculators to gamble without any real benefit for society at all. They are freeloaders living basically off producers and consumers. I loathe them and I loathe the system, and that is why my party and I will not support this bill.
We know, I admit, that speculation cannot be stopped by opposing this bill. In fact the bill will give some added protection and policing. There is already a commodities exchange in Winnipeg and there are many in the United States. Futures trading is now done on the Toronto Stock Exchange, although this bill would extend it to a whole new class of traders who are not members of the Toronto Stock Exchange. It will broaden it.
But this business of the commodity futures exchange reminds me of prostitution. If you are in favour of the principle of it, then maybe you need some regulation with regard to it. The regulations can perhaps make it a bit more acceptable. You could have health tests for prostitutes. Now and then you could get them off the streets. You could put them in a certain area. So I suppose if you support prostitution, then you want to regulate and control it. If you support the principle of the commodity futures exchange then I guess perhaps you want to regulate and control it.
My party and I cannot support a commodity futures market run by speculators, because we believe these prices -- whether we are talking about soybeans, coffee, sugar or foreign exchange -- should be set by international agreement and not by speculation. So because we oppose the principle, we find it impossible to support a bill that is going to regulate and facilitate the operation of this exchange. It is bound to have a disadvantageous and a deleterious effect on producers and consumers throughout the world.
If there is any doubt we can look at what has taken place with regard to sugar and coffee. The coffee producers throughout the world have endeavoured to get a pricing arrangement so there will be no fluctuation from one year to the next. The same thing is true with the sugar producers. That is the direction society should be taking. We should not be trying to refine a system which is immoral and puts all of the common people in this world at a disadvantage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Is there any other member wishing to participate in this debate? The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), only if he promises not to go up Highway 3 again tonight.
Mr. McGuigan: I am going to take the high road, Mr. Speaker.
I do not profess to be an expert on prostitution. My knowledge of that subject is rather meagre and I do not wish to imply that I have a fantastic knowledge of the business of speculating or the business of providing commodities futures. However, I would like to point out that the Commodities Futures Exchange does provide a very real service to agriculture and, I suspect, to every other commodity that is traded amongst mankind.
A farmer with a load of soybeans in his granary -- under Ontario conditions and under most world conditions that are governed by the futures market in North America or in Europe -- does not phone his dealer and ask, "Are you buying beans today?" He does not bother to phone, although he might to ask what the price is on beans, corn or any other commodity. He simply loads his truck or wagon up, goes to the mill, dumps his load and gets a cheque.
That dealer may not have an interest in buying beans at that moment. He may not have a boat or he may not have railway cars sitting alongside his mill. He may not have orders in his order book for the beans but he buys them and gives a service to the industry because the commodities futures market is behind him. That provides the liquidity, the billions of dollars, that are necessary to buy, store and assemble these goods.
I could give members a little example of my own experience.
Interjection.
Mr. McGuigan: It is a commodity down the line of the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes).
A number of years ago, I sat on a committee of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association. We had an inquiry from the Republic of Ireland, which wanted 200,000 bushels of Greening apples, a peeling-type apple or a processing apple not normally used in the fresh market.
It so happened that at that time of the year -- I think it was probably about March, near the end of the season -- Ontario had 200,000 bushels of Greening apples in its inventory. These were listed in the statistics. There was no processing market available at that time in Ontario, so their value was really only for juice which, as I recall, would probably be in the neighbourhood of 30 cents to 40 cents a bushel. The Republic of Ireland was willing to pay $2 a bushel, which was a bit of a windfall.
The group of people said, "It seems very simple that we put together this order for 200,000 bushels and the fact is we have 200,000 bushels. Then we started to think about what happens if we, as an independent group without any finances -- this is a voluntary public group with no particular finances -- took an order for those 200,000 bushels. What would happen is that probably the first 50,000 might be bought from the producers at any price from $1.50 to $2 a bushel.
9:50 p.m.
As soon as word would spread throughout the province, that somebody was buying these apples, because growers confer with one another, they would begin to say: "Somebody knows something I don't know because I have had two calls from dealers, one in Toronto and one in London or in Montreal. There is something going on." Then they say, "These apples are now worth $2 a bushel."
A few more would sell at $2 a bushel. When they got close to the end of the 200,000 bushels there would be a scramble for those apples because the order had to be filled and they would cost from $5 to $8 a bushel on up. It was the lack of a commodity market and the ability to offset that sale for purchase on a commodity market which made it impossible for us to accept that order for 200,000 bushels. They were dumped and sent to the juice factory or whatever.
When a dealer sells a boatload of soybeans, and we are talking about millions of dollars when we are talking about a boatload of soybeans, the day he accepts that order for about $7 a bushel for sale to an overseas market, within minutes he phones the Chicago Board of Trade and purchases an equivalent amount of beans. He will lock in his profit which is probably in the order of 10 cents a bushel.
From that moment, it really does not matter to him what happens to the physical market for beans. He might be able to buy those beans from the farmers a little cheaper than he had anticipated. One would say that is a great windfall profit to that dealer, but that is offset by the loss he is going to have with his paper deal with Chicago or vice versa. He might have to pay a farmer more money than he had anticipated because the markets are rising. He is not losing on that deal while his losses are picked up on the other side of the contract.
We have a system that serves a useful purpose. I will admit to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) that on occasion this is abused as is any exercise in the world. There are people who will get into this market for whom the last thing they will ever want to do is take physical possession of the product. I could tell another story about that.
The member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) perhaps was not on hand, but a chap in Chatham years ago decided to corner the potato market. He started ordering carloads of potatoes from Prince Edward island which he never intended to receive, but the market went bad on him.
About June 1, carloads of potatoes landed in the market in Chatham and they were auctioned off for a small part of their real value because that farmer had no use for the product. He was simply gambling and never intended to receive the potatoes. Because he could not put up the money to get out of his contract, the potatoes arrived in Chatham. Those things happen but there are safeguards in the market setup that can prevent that.
The members will remember that when the Hunt brothers decided to corner the silver market a few years ago, they violated the exchange acts in the United States by acquiring a greater percentage of the silver market than an individual was supposed to have. Safeguards can be put into the system, but a person who represents himself as the spokesman for his party on agriculture should realize the very worthwhile effect the futures market has on the trading, delivery, storage and process of commodities.
I agree, like anything else, it can be abused, but without this system I do not know what we would do. The member said that we should have an international commodity agreement. We know from past experience that those international commodity agreements do not hold. They break down.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is a perfect example. Those people had overwhelming control, we thought, of the market, but when it came to the crunch it broke down. The prices that are established under the commodity market are a distillation of the thinking of all the traders of the world.
The grain traders in Amsterdam, in London, in Chicago, in Toronto, in all the major centres put their heads together, their moneys together and their projections together and the price that is established is the distillation of the thinking of all those traders of the world. They are not always correct. They are not correct any more than international agreements are always correct, but if the government is going to build a system that does bring to it the thoughts of all the best people in the world, it is the commodity market system that will bring that.
I know that in the Ontario agricultural farming we do not need this for corn and soybeans because we work off the Chicago Exchange, but I am sure there are many other commodities -- apples being one that I mentioned -- that could use the services of a commodity exchange. I would like to support that.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kent-Elgin. His comments were very helpful and much appreciated.
I will be brief. I would like to point out to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), that on September 1, 1979, commodity futures trading came under regulation. Since then, of course, I think it is fair to say that the Toronto Stock Exchange was granted interim registration until such time as this legislation was passed.
There are a number of highlights I could make with regard to the bill, but I think perhaps when we get to the amendments would be the more appropriate time.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour Mr. Mitchell's motion for second reading of Bill 7, An Act to incorporate the Toronto Futures Exchange, will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
CITY OF THUNDER BAY AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, moved second reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the City of Thunder Bay Act, 1968-69.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill will make two changes to the City of Thunder Bay Act. The first is to bring the act into conformity with the new Planning Act by deleting, on proclamation, the section which describes the Lakehead planning area. This will allow the minister to redefine the Lakehead planning area under the provisions of the new Planning Act.
The new act will authorize him to define a planning area in a territorial district without such terms as "designated municipality", and "subsidiary planning area," which are used in the City of Thunder Bay Act and the present Planning Act.
This amendment has been requested by the city of Thunder Bay, and is supported by its planning board. I emphasize that this provision will not come into force until the new Planning Act is proclaimed so as to ensure continuity of planning organization in the Lakehead area.
The second amendment is being made to ensure that a recently-opened expansion of the intercity shopping centre will, in future, be subject to property taxes.
In 1974, the City of Thunder Bay legislation was amended to provide that certain defined lands owned by the Canadian Lakehead Exhibition Society would be liable to municipal taxation, including business taxes, when occupied by a tenant.
The purpose of the legislation was to ensure that a shopping centre to be built by the Campeau Corp. would be subject to taxes notwithstanding the tax exempt status of agricultural societies under the Assessment Act.
Agreements have now been reached whereby additional lands, not covered by the 1974 amendment, would be conveyed to the exhibition society for leasing to Campeau as part of the shopping centre. The council of the city of Thunder Bay has requested an amendment to ensure that any additional land conveyed through the exhibition society, and leased to Campeau as part of its shopping centre, will be liable to municipal taxation, including business taxes, and this act implements that agreement.
10 p.m.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to indicate we will support this bill. As I indicated to the parliamentary assistant on a personal basis some time last year when the bill was brought forward for first reading back on June 15, 1982, we had no particular difficulty with it. The government wanted to bring this bill through in the fall of last year, but it is subject to the Planning Act, and the Planning Act had not been dealt with on a full basis, either in committee or on third reading. I did not think it was right to bring a bill forth and pass it when it was subject to another bill that had not even been brought forward. In the wisdom of the minister, who was then --
Mr. Boudria: He was not here.
Mr. Epp: Was he not?
The government decided to hold up the bill until the Planning Act went through. I believe it had third reading last week, so it is only proper to bring Bill 146 forward at this time. We have no particular difficulty with this bill, as I have indicated. It will clarify some aspects, for instance, the subsidiary planning area and designated municipality that will come out of the act. In being subject to the new Planning Act, it will clarify these terms.
With respect to Campeau having to pay taxes on a particular property, or the people who lease the property to him paying taxes because he is a private entrepreneur -- and we support private entrepreneurship, we have no difficulty with it -- nevertheless he should not get away without paying property taxes just as any other private entrepreneur should not get away without paying property taxes. We support the inclusion of this clause that would clarify the amendment of 1974. As I have indicated, we support the bill with both changes in it and expect it to receive royal assent and then become subject to the Planning Act as was intended.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) wants to participate as well.
There are just three things I want to say on the bill. First, I was just checking the Planning Act, Bill 159, as it is proposed. Certainly, the rationalization of the City of Thunder Bay Act with the Planning Act gives the minister sweeping powers in the Lakehead planning area. Anybody who knows the history of the planning area, knows that perhaps some of the rural municipalities, particularly the two unorganized townships of Gorham and Ware, will not be entirely happy with that.
Some of the actions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing have not been entirely popular in that area, so I have some minor reservations about removing the specific quality of the designation as it exists in the City of Thunder Bay Act. I want to put that on the record, because one of the great fears of people in Gorham and Ware, the two unorganized territories, are that the minister will just move in there and not only bring in regulations that make their lives difficult and miserable, but also take away some of the autonomy they now have as unorganized territories.
Second, some of the funding that is required for the planning area, which includes both organized and unorganized municipalities, has to do with roads, and those roads perhaps are not funded as properly as they should be. I think it is a matter of some concern when a road runs through organized municipalities -- the municipality of Shuniah, for example -- but largely serves unorganized territories.
I have no difficulty with the second part of the bill, which allows the municipality of Thunder Bay to tax a landholder who is leasing land to a developer for an intercity mall. I think we can all agree with the principle that the intercity mall should be paying its fair share of taxes on the land it occupies. It should not be exempt simply because the lands were assigned to an agricultural society. If the agricultural society becomes the landlord of Campeau Corp. or leases the land to them, that is obviously not for exhibition purposes.
The third thing has to do with the tax the people in the planning area in the municipality of Thunder Bay have to pay. I do not want to speak about it at great length, but I want to make one or two points under this heading.
The amalgamation which was forced on the residents of the municipality of Thunder Bay by Darcy McKeough, has never received its due share in terms of grants from the provincial level of government. The city never received any transitional grants when amalgamation was forced on it in 1970 and it has always had to play catch-up. As well, Thunder Bay has often had to provide services that could be called regional, yet they have never received grants to the level that a regional municipality receives.
Let me just cite two examples. There is no question in anybody's mind that the city of Thunder Bay polices a large geographic area, many parts of which used to be covered by the Ontario Provincial Police. That no longer happens, yet Thunder Bay receives no consideration in its per capita grant for that extra burden.
Because the city never received transitional grants in the first place, it is not receiving its fair share of capital expenditure. A new police headquarters, for example, is absolutely necessary. That necessity is apparent now, 12 years after amalgamation.
Second, it is apparent that Thunder Bay serves as a regional library centre for the outlying municipalities, many of which do not have libraries. Nevertheless, the city receives no regional grant for the library services supplied by the municipal library, for both the organized and unorganized territories.
I would suggest the grants that have been assigned for roads in the area to municipalities such as Shuniah are not sufficient. The grants that have been supplied for police services are not sufficient. The grants for library services have not been sufficient.
Finally, of particular concern to me is the matter of grants that would be available for the building of the Copenhagen Road Bridge. I raised this with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) some time ago, both in this House and through correspondence. I need not go into details here, since that will be carried out in other arenas under other votes.
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the act to amend the City of Thunder Bay Act.
For many years the agricultural land that was used by the Lakehead exhibition did not derive any taxes whatsoever. It was used for maybe two weeks a year and the rest of the time it remained idle. I think this move by the government to bring in this amendment to derive taxes for the city of Thunder Bay is a move in the right direction.
There are over 70 stores in that area that will naturally pay taxes to the municipality. I fully support the bill, and I think it is about time it did come through. I understand that there are other areas opposite this site that are going to be built up, and perhaps this will give the council the authority to bring the city of Thunder Bay more revenue, which they could use.
My colleague the member for Port Arthur was talking about the municipality of Shuniah. I support the government perhaps giving the council a grant in regard to the bridge for Shuniah. They seem to have problems with the bridge on Copenhagen Road. The people are having problems, so I just join with the member in endorsing his stand that perhaps the Ministry of Transportation and Communications could give some consideration to helping out the town of Shuniah with the bridge.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all members for their support of this bill.
I simply want to say to the member for Port Arthur that the planning section here is made consistent with the Planning Act. We had public meetings up there and, as far as I know, there was no objection. Had the member objected to the way this was handled, he should have brought this up under Bill 159.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, moved second reading of Bill 192, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill has two purposes. Section 1 will permit the Hamilton-Wentworth regional council to grant exemptions to the provisions of the region's store hours bylaw. No store will be able to receive more than two such exemptions in any one year, and the maximum length of each exemption will be two days.
A bill was introduced in 1981 to accomplish a similar purpose was not enacted. Section 1 is a revised version of that draft legislation. In a few moments I will be introducing a further amendment, as suggested, I believe, by the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) and agreed to by the regional council, to further clarify that section.
Section 2 will authorize the region to assume the city of Hamilton's indebtedness for the Hamilton Art Gallery. As in the case of section 1, this legislation has been requested by the Hamilton-Wentworth regional council.
Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate very briefly my personal support and that of my party for Bill 192. I guess I would not be uncharitable if I said it has been a long time in coming. This bill could have been passed -- of course, without the section pertaining to the art gallery -- probably a year and a half ago, I think in advance of Christmas a year ago at the minimum, in the course of 10 minutes.
Such was the offer made by this party and by the New Democratic Party to the parliamentary assistant, who I must say has taken a fair bit of the flak not only from my community but also from members of the Liberal Party and from the NDP to see this bill brought forward.
What is absolutely incredible and mind boggling is that the minister, as usual demonstrating his continuing aversion to this place, is not in his place here tonight. For my part I have some difficulty in understanding just what he is paid that extra emolument for, because the very able parliamentary assistant, who probably should be sitting in the executive council --
Mr. Rotenberg: Flattery will get you somewhere.
Mr. Robinson: You have been reading the press releases.
Mr. Cunningham: Well, he certainly will be in the executive council before the member for Scarborough-UTDC, or whatever.
Mr. Robinson: That will be long before you are there.
Mr. Cunningham: That may well be, sir.
The harsh facts of reality are that this is a bill that requires -- well, it is one page and change. I can recall that the regional chairman in our community was very concerned about this bill becoming reality. In fact, this bill necessitated the first occasion for me to be summoned to her office in the new provincial building, where we had a little sitdown, a cup of coffee, and she wanted to know what the impediments were to this bill being passed.
The harsh facts of reality are that the only impediment was that it was poorly drafted in its original form. Its inadequacies were brought to the attention of the government by the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) on one occasion. Other members of the third party and members of our party also indicated some minor failings in the bill. The harsh reality is that this bill could have been passed in very short order.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the parliamentary assistant really should be on the executive council. He should be getting the extra emolument that we afford the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) on an annual basis. I believe it is $18,000 and change. His benefits should be conferred upon the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), who dutifully carried all the legislation for his colleague in this House.
I do not mean to be gratuitous in the presence of that honourable member, but I really am wondering just what the honourable minister does. He is rarely here in the evening. He has an aversion to this place. He has absolutely nothing to do with the legislative process, which is what this place is all about.
I would indicate very clearly that we have no hesitation in supporting this legislation.
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief as well. We will be supporting Bill 192 and will be supporting the amendment which the parliamentary assistant alluded to in his comments on second reading. I would like to make a couple of brief comments.
First, I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) who said this bill could have been passed a year and a half ago. The initial bill that was introduced almost two years ago was deficient in our opinion and in the opinion of the Liberal Party. Ultimately, through a process of negotiation involving ourselves, the parliamentary assistant and the region, we got that all sorted out. The bill was not passed a year and a half ago, because the minister, and perhaps the government House leader, were reluctant to proceed.
I also thank and compliment the parliamentary assistant for his role in this whole process. We finally have a piece of legislation which we all can support and which the region will be very happy to have. I also thank the member for Wentworth North for his participation in the negotiation process to get this bill through.
In addition to our criticisms of the minister and perhaps the government House leader, who were the major causes of delay of this bill, one other criticism I would like to level is with the member for Hamilton Centre, who unfortunately is not here tonight. I think perhaps she has learned her lesson.
The parliamentary assistant is correct; the amendment that will be moved tonight is an amendment that was suggested by the member for Hamilton Centre and has been accepted into the process. It is with some degree of sadness that she has had to learn that if she had involved herself in the process of negotiation that was going on a year and a half ago and up to two years ago, we could have had this whole matter resolved very quickly.
At any rate, it has been a useful process. We now have a piece of legislation which everybody can feel comfortable with and the region of Hamilton-Wentworth will now have a process in place which is useful to the merchants in our area.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I have two very brief points. Even though the honourable minister is not here tonight, his wise counsel, experience and knowledge are very much a feed-in to all legislation in this ministry. He is a very major and valuable part, and the most important part of the legislation coming into the ministry.
Second, I am not pointing any fingers, but a year and change ago there was not unanimous agreement to bring this bill forward in a short period of time. That is why it did not come forward. With that, I commend this bill.
Mr. Epp: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could indicate when this House required unanimous consent in order to pass a piece of legislation.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
10:20 p.m.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, moved second reading of Bill 195, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the bill will establish a new 14-member board of governors for Exhibition Place, as outlined in the bill. The new board will consolidate the management at Exhibition Place, including the stadium, and will meet the need for more efficient and accountable management agreement than at present.
The proposed legislation will also permit agreements with the key parties to continue traditional uses of the site, most notably, the annual Canadian National Exhibition itself and the Royal Winter Fair.
Legislation to accomplish these objectives has been requested by Metro council and the CNE association and the specific provisions for Exhibition Place, which are the product of extensive consultation, have their support.
The bill has a few other technical amendments. These are to remove the reference to the two-year term of office to permit the awarding of legal costs to a local board of Metro, and to allow Metro sewage plants to receive septic tank wastes directly from private haulers.
There is a provision in the bill's sections 4 and 5 to make the term of the library board coincident with that of its appointing bodies. However, there have been some second thoughts by some of the constituent municipalities and library people. With the consent of the Metro chairman, I am going to move that those two amendment sections be withdrawn and, after further consideration by Metro council, we will bring back a suggestion for appointments to the library board.
There is also an amendment to clarify the term of office at the CNE, which I will be introducing in committee of the whole.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief with respect to this bill. Although it has a myriad of amendments, none of them is very earth shattering. I think they have the support of the municipalities and, of course, we are going to support this particular bill.
I would just ask the parliamentary assistant whether he would elaborate in his closing remarks on why the sinking fund rates for interest have been increased from five per cent to eight per cent as a new yardstick, and what criteria have been used to arrive at eight per cent. If five per cent was sufficient before, when we had 18 and 20 and 22 per cent interest rates only a year ago, I am wondering, now that interest rates are down to 12 per cent, why eight per cent is sufficient now.
Maybe he could clarify that particular inconsistency with respect to the proposed legislation.
It is also gratifying to see, as I understand the explanation, that people who will be serving on the staff of Metropolitan Toronto, for instance, will not be able to receive double pay when they are receiving court costs and so forth as well as being remunerated by their municipality.
As to the other matters, with respect to septic wastes and the library, etc., these things have been clarified by the parliamentary assistant and, as I have indicated earlier, we do support the proposed legislation.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the debate on --
Mr. Mitchell: Very briefly.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Very briefly, yes; the time allocation, as I understand it, is the coming thing and I would not want to offend the new principles of the House. But I did want to make a few comments on Bill 195. Oh, I have been given later instruction; I will now proceed for six hours.
We will support this bill to deal primarily with the CNE board -- revising it -- although I must say I am not convinced a revision of the board in terms of some more accountability and a few other changes is in fact going to do what is needed for Exhibition Place. I have a feeling, the way this is all constituted, that we are going to find Paul Godfrey's very heavy hand laid on the direction of the redevelopment of Exhibition Place. No doubt it might be retitled "Godfrey Place" or "Domed Stadium Inc." I gather his other big thrust to readapt the CNE is going to be to have an international trade centre there, a very useful thing, to help us develop Canadian goods.
Mr. Epp: That's Godfrey with a halo.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Godfrey with a halo, yes, helping us to help imports in this country, to bring in more imports so we will have more international exhibitions here so we can buy more foreign goods and improve the CNE by having a domed stadium.
I am not too sure I see the kind of major revitalization that is needed for the CNE encompassed in the restructuring of the board that we have here in this bill.
We must understand Mr. Godfrey has this incredible thing about the CNE. He wants us to have elevated transportation to the CNE, financed by Ontario, a very meaningful development in urban transportation downtown so everybody can get into the domed stadium on this elevated trackway, then walk over to the international trade centre and buy some more foreign goods. That is essentially what we will end up with after this.
I cannot help but make a couple of these relatively facetious remarks at this point as I rise to otherwise support this piece of legislation. I hope we will find a bit more creativity and imagination put into the revitalization of Exhibition Place than we are likely to, even with the new board.
The one thing I am in favour of here, and the one thing I would like to stress in serious terms, is the provision in this bill for protection of the present workers as the corporation changes its name. That is an excellent principle, laid out clearly as to how there is a good year's protection for anybody who is working there now.
They can be fired for cause but in no other way, exactly the sort of thing we should have seen recently in legislation in terms of taking over certain trust and mortgage companies in the province. I commend this as the kind of precedent we might use in those situations in the future.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to answer the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp). This amendment is probably overdue but it is always a conservative figure because the actuarial rate is always conservative and is always somewhat behind the interest rate on the market.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
House in committee of the whole.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 192, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act.
On section 1:
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): Mr. Rotenberg moves that subsection 134(4) of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by inserting after "year" in the fifth line, "and for such special occasions."
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment. I understand the amendment came from the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) and I assume the Liberal Party will do the same.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I discussed this with the member for Hamilton Centre. She is pleased the government accepted her amendment. If she were here, she would be pleased to speak in support of it.
Motion agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 12, as amended, reported.
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 195, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
On sections 4 and 5:
The Acting Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that sections 4 and 5 be struck out and the remaining sections of the bill be renumbered accordingly.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I gave my reasons during the second reading debate. There was some controversy about this, so we are withdrawing this section and Metro will come forward a little later with what it really wants on the library board appointments.
Motion agreed to.
Section 4, as renumbered, agreed to.
On section 5, as renumbered:
The Acting Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that subsection 210(5) of the act as set out in section 7 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"(5) The members of the board appointed by the metropolitan council under clause (4)(a) shall hold office for a term not exceeding the term of the council that appointed them, and until their successors are appointed all such members are eligible for reappointment."
Mr. Rotenberg: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, this means the Canadian National Exhibition people will be appointed for the same term as council or until a successor is reappointed for the maximum three-year term. This is as requested by the metropolitan council.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment. It is in keeping with what the council wanted. I will leave it at that.
Motion agreed to.
Section 5, as renumbered and amended, agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, as renumbered, agreed to.
Bill 195, as amended, reported.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, we are approaching 10:30. Would my friends like to finish the one remaining bill in committee?
Mr. Laughren: No.
Hon. Mr. Wells: No?
The Acting Chairman: Apparently not.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported two bills with certain amendments.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.