Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MEETING WITH ASSESSMENT COMMISSIONER

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. As you know, I am very much interested in assessment in this province. During the last few weeks, my staff tried to obtain a meeting with the commissioner of assessment in the region of York. In trying to get an appointment with the commissioner, we spoke with his staff and with the commissioner himself. At that time, the commissioner indicated he needed permission from the minister before he could meet with the public or with public representatives.

I do not believe it is necessary --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. With all due respect to the member, I have to advise him this is not a point of personal privilege. It really does not affect his personal rights as a member, according to what I have heard thus far. Perhaps it would be better to raise the matter in question period.

Mr. Epp: With all due respect, I believe it is a point of personal privilege. The public service of Ontario is supposed to be exactly that, public, and it is supposed to be accessible to members of the opposition as well as to members of the government. It should not be necessary for members to have to clear every meeting they want to have with public servants with the minister himself. I have not encountered this in the past, but the commissioner clearly indicated we needed to get permission from the minister before we could speak to him about the very important subject of assessment.

I want to get some clarification from you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether this should be followed and whether this is going to be a practice among all the ministries. As I indicated --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully. I did not want to enter into a debate about whether it was a point of personal privilege. I think the member has had ample opportunity to make his point. All members, including myself, have duly noted same. I suggest question period will give him an excellent opportunity to pursue the matter further.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENTS (UK) BILL

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I have two statements to make, which will be statements leading up to the introduction of two pieces of legislation later this morning.

I will be introducing for first reading the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgements (UK) Act, 1984. This act will permit Ontario to come within the scope of a convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgements recently concluded between Canada and Britain.

The convention codifies the rules that the courts will apply in the recognition and enforcement of judgements. It also has the effect of neutralizing prejudice to Canadian interests resulting from a common market agreement. Under that agreement, Canadian residents and companies with assets in Britain may have those assets seized to satisfy court judgements from other European countries which previously could not be enforced in Britain. This result will be avoided by our implementing the Canada-United Kingdom convention, which is attached as a schedule to the bill I am tabling today.

The bill was drafted by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and recommended for enactment in every Canadian province. Nova Scotia introduced a similar bill during the last week of April 1984. This is a highly technical area of the law, but we are satisfied that implementing the convention is necessary to protect the interests of Ontario companies and individuals carrying on business in Europe.

TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION RECIPROCAL ACCESS BILL

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I shall be introducing for first reading the Transboundary Pollution Reciprocal Access Act. This act is part of Ontario’s continuing program of measures concerning transboundary pollution. The act claims to provide more effective access to the courts where pollution from one jurisdiction causes harm in another.

Mr. Renwick: That means an interchange of pollution.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Currently, technical barriers prevent Canadians from suing for damage when the pollution comes from across a provincial or international border.

This act permits the extension of equal access to courts and tribunals for nonresidents affected by pollution. It does so on a reciprocal basis, granting rights only to residents of jurisdictions that give similar rights to Ontario residents. The act indirectly gives the people of Ontario new rights to sue outside Ontario if they are damaged by pollution coming from a reciprocating jurisdiction.

The act is significant in other ways. It has been recommended by both the American and Canadian Uniform Law Conferences and is the outcome of three years’ collaboration between American and Canadian representatives. I believe this is the first time we in this House have joined in this sort of bilateral lawmaking.

Ontario is the first province in Canada to consider the legislation. We follow the states of Montana and New Jersey, which have already passed the bill.

INVITATION TO OPENING

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I waited until the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) came into the House -- as he did, but he has left just momentarily -- thinking he might be sending an invitation across to this member, but it has not happened.

This afternoon at the Centralia College of Agricultural Technology the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe) will be participating in the opening of a new agricultural engineering facility, which is in my riding and to which I did not receive an invitation.

I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food about a week ago, and the minister indicated he would look into it immediately. I still do not have the invitation to attend this opening. I think this kind of discourtesy is inexcusable and unacceptable.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member please take his seat for a moment.

Mr. Riddell: Frankly, it speaks to the integrity of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member is out of order.

Mr. Riddell: It does nothing more than reflect the arrogant, pompous nature of this government.

The Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of personal privilege, with all due respect.

10:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, and I will not succumb to the temptation to respond in kind: When the honourable member drew this matter to my attention, I pointed out to him that invitations for official openings are not handled by the client ministry, in this case my own, but rather by staff in the Ministry of Government Services.

I had my officials call officials in the Ministry of Government Services. They found that there had been an error and the member had not been issued an invitation. That was an error, and they indicated to us it would he corrected.

I also indicated to the member on the phone that certainly he would be and is, notwithstanding this morning, most welcome.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of personal privilege either.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: At the outset of today’s proceedings, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) rose on a point of privilege regarding the opening today of the new agricultural building at Centralia College of Agricultural Technology. I want to report --

The Deputy Speaker: It really was not a point of privilege. Unless it had to do with something in question period, I would ask that we reserve those questions of privilege or responses to a so-called question of privilege until after question period.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, it is a question of privilege inasmuch as the honourable member made allegations of arrogance and pompousness and so forth.

I want to point out that following the telephone call the member made to me 10 days ago, an invitation was mailed and the invitation is in his constituency office, as I confirmed with his constituency assistant.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat? The comments the minister refers to had to do with something that happened prior to question period.

Mr. Riddell: Did it get there this morning? Did you check that out?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

[Later]

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I questioned the integrity of the Minister of Agriculture and Food in an earlier point of privilege today. I now want to thank the minister for his intervention. The invitation did arrive at 10:30 this morning in my constituency office and was opened at that time. That was about the same time the minister phoned my constituency office.

I want to say I am very appreciative of such advance notice. I also want to congratulate the minister on the announcement just made by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch). Becoming a married man just a few years ago and now being a grandparent is a feat not all of us can brag about.

ONTARIO PLACE PASSES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege concerning Ontario Place passes. You will be aware that all members have received a note from the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz). I will just read one sentence of it, which says, “It is my pleasure to enclose a complimentary pass to Ontario Place for the 1984 season.”

I am wondering whether you are aware whether Fraser Kelly has had his pass restored.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege under standing order 81(d) regarding written questions. More than six months ago I put in written questions 250 to 256. I resubmitted them on March 27 because they were not answered in the last session. As of April 13, it was indicated in Orders and Notices that I would be receiving an answer by May 4. It is May 11, I have not received an answer and I believe my privileges have been abrogated.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s comments are duly noted.

[Later]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I rose before question period about written questions that had not been responded to for six months. I have now got a supposed response which says that because of the complicated nature of the questions, they are going to try to get the answers for me by the time the estimates come up.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing going on here but a coverup. I have asked questions about the misspending of money in the triministry project -- and I believe they are trying to cover that up -- and about the misallocation of money in that program.

I believe they are evading questions that are easily answered. They should have been able to pull them together in the evaluation of their initial project. This is nothing but a coverup by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) on the excuse that he is supposedly, at some point, going to give me the information. Six months is long enough for any minister to get basic financial answers to questions asked by any member on this side.

The Deputy Speaker: As the honourable member knows, the chair has no authority over answers that come either in question period or as written responses. The member has had an opportunity to express himself on that matter.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CURRICULUM GUIDELINES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister will recall that we have been having some discussions in this House about the antiquated course curricula and leadership by her ministry.

I am sure she has now had an opportunity to look at the 1970 curriculum, the most recent curriculum for elements of computer technology. Has she now discovered, I am sure to her chagrin, that this document is completely out of date? This is not a course on the history of computers but on the elements of computer technology.

Is she aware that it talks about wiring rooms with electric circuits and does not even mention the microchip, that it talks about programming with paper tape and punch cards, yet there is nothing about floppy discs? How can she go on and teach with this antiquated set of rules? When is she going to change it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted the Leader of the Opposition has asked that question because he has been suggesting strongly that we are not keeping up with a review of guidelines. I should like to present him with the intermediate and senior divisions computer studies guidelines, issued in December 1983 in English and in March 1984 in French. I wonder if one of the pages would come and deliver them to the Leader of the Opposition. They are brand new.

I may say that is typical of the criticism the honourable leader has been providing. His sentence regarding the remarks of the Science Council of Canada about our science guidelines is nowhere to be found in the science council report. What has happened is that we were in the midst of the senior science guideline review. We were about two years through it at the time the science council inquired of us whether we wanted to share the guidelines. We said we would be willing to share them, but the council decided it did not need them at that point.

Mr. Peterson: The reality of the science council’s report is that those guidelines were not published in its report because the minister was too embarrassed to publish them; that is why. She should look at them. How can the minister justify the inattention to that and to science training in Ontario when she is so good and so thorough at so many other things?

For example, I point to these marvellous guidelines, up to date and current, on golf professionals -- a training profile published in 1983. They are excellently prepared and talk about how one should represent oneself on a golf course, how one can manage a fleet of golf carts and how one can determine and promote the social aspects of the game of golf. It is thoughtfully and well done for a course such as that. Why then are so many other courses so far out of date? Where are her priorities?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It would be very pleasant if, for once, the honourable member understood that he is talking about apples and oranges, as usual. As a matter of fact, most of his thinking is in the state of a fruit salad rather than anything else. The guidelines he is talking about were developed by the college system for a program delivered at the colleges of applied arts and technology, not in the elementary-secondary system, which is the other area he keeps criticizing.

We are in the process of renewal of all guidelines for all courses of study for secondary schools and have been in that process now for more than two years. The member knows that has been going on. He is aware that the timetable with the details of those course guidelines is forthcoming. Some are ready now, some will be in September and some in December, including those related to technological studies, of which parts A and C will be ready by the end of this year.

That activity is ongoing within the Ministry of Education. Of course, we are doing curriculum guideline development within the colleges of applied arts and technology at the same time. We on this side of the House can chew and write at the same time, unlike the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, why has it taken the minister 15 to 20 years to develop curriculum guidelines for so many of these subjects? Why has it taken the secondary education review project report, the Renewal of Secondary Education report and the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions report to start her to work on these things, which have been out of date for so long?

Yesterday I attended a conference of guidance counsellors, who would certainly be in agreement with what those on this side of the House are saying, contrary to what the minister contends in the House.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, because he was a teacher, the honourable member should know that the course guidelines present the objectives and goals of the curriculum. Traditionally, course development has occurred primarily at the teacher level or at the school board level.

Under the rules of the educational program, that was happening at the secondary school level until the changes were introduced. Knowing we were in the process of revamping the secondary school educational system in Ontario, we began the renewal process some time ago. A part of that renewal process includes a program for constant renewal of secondary school guidelines and resource materials on a regular basis in the future.

JUNCTION TRIANGLE

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I see he is preparing himself now.

Mr. McClellan: The minister was supposed to resign if this was not cleaned up.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: The $200,000 study that was made public last night verifies what all of us really have known since 1979, namely, that exposure to chemical pollutants causes health problems.

The study further indicates that the children living in the Junction triangle area are six times more likely to suffer from health problems than are other children. I can go on and give the minister the exact list, which he probably has on his desk right now.

In the light of these findings and of what has been known since 1979, what actions will the minister now undertake to ensure it is safe for children to live in the area without health problems?

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity of the question being asked by the honourable member. First of all, if he is not aware of this, I want to advise him that the $200,000 study to which he refers was paid for in part by the Ministry of the Environment with the specific purpose of attempting to identify problems in the Junction triangle.

The study and the report do not come as a surprise to us. As the member well knows, and I believe he is being co-operative on this, we are attempting to find out what the problems are so we can take some remedial action where necessary.

In specific response to the question, we are going to review the report in detail and analyse it in co-operation with the Ministry of Health and the medical officer of health for Metro Toronto. We are also going to continue with abatement programs.

It is unfair to say we have not done anything since 1979. We have done a number of things. In addition to forming a committee of voluntary citizens to give us input in the area, industry, my ministry and the Ministry of Health and various departments of Metro Toronto are all working towards identifying specific sources of chemical contamination and emissions to control them when possible and when identified.

I am concerned about the indication in the report that there are some minor skin and eye irritations in children that could result from chemical contamination, as the member has indicated. I am very pleased about certain parts of the report that indicate adults do not suffer from any health effects of an unusual nature above and beyond those found in any other area of the community. In addition, the report stated mothers in the area suffer far fewer miscarriages than they do in other areas.

There are some good parts in the report and there are some that cause me concern. I can assure the member we will take action on the latter areas of the report.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister realizes this is a very serious problem. He has been told repeatedly of the situation that exists in the Junction triangle area. He made a promise to us not too long ago that he would respond to some of the recommendations we made to the previous Minister of the Environment.

Despite that promise, we have not heard the minister telling us what he thought about the 24-hour monitoring system, the rooftop monitoring system or the 24-hour emergency line that should be turned into an emergency answering service. He has not given us answers to these questions.

What will the minister consider in his range of options? He has a whole range of options before him. One is to crack down under the Environmental Assessment Act; he can be much tougher. Another is to give us a promise that he will be tougher about the inspection of chemical spills and air emissions. As I told the minister two weeks ago, sometimes it takes two or three days before his ministry responds to the problems of Junction triangle area residents.

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Ruprecht: Would the minister consider assisting what may be the worst polluter in that area to relocate by giving it some financial assistance or some other assistance? Would the minister consider that within his range of options?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I have indicated previously that we will consider any and all proposals to improve the situation in the Junction triangle. Because there was originally an industrial area in place and a residential area was allowed to develop in close proximity to that industrial area as a result of what I consider to be improper planning, we will continue to have complications. I hope we can minimize any health impact with respect to any emissions or discharges from those industries.

We are doing many of the things the member is talking about. We have taken a great many actions that are specifically in line with the suggestions the member is making. We do monitor the air on a 24-hour basis in that area. We do have a very strong abatement, control and surveillance program in that area. We do respond quickly, other than in the one instance the member mentioned where there was a two-day delay as a result of illnesses on the part of two of my staff. Normally our response is virtually immediate.

I want to do what is possible and what is achievable with respect to the Junction triangle, but to suggest that at some early point we are going to have a pristine environment, I have to say it is just not going to happen; it is just not possible with the circumstances as we have them.

I can assure the member, and I want to say this as sincerely as I can, that we will take whatever steps are necessary. I am prepared to meet with him privately on that. I am prepared, within the next couple of weeks, to visit the area personally and to tour each and every industry in that area. I intend to do that as well.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister will also realize that in the report, recommendation 1 says, “The department of public health of the city of Toronto should organize a comprehensive health promotion program for children.” We want to know whether the minister is prepared to talk to his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) and get him directly involved in a program that will mitigate the problems these children are experiencing living in the Junction triangle area.

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister further realizes that when we compare children in the control area around Main Street and the Danforth and those living in the Junction triangle area, some of the health problems of some 12 of the children living in that type of environment are identified as skin irritation, eye irritation, burning of the skin and vomiting. All those kinds of problems are related to the Junction triangle area.

Is the minister prepared to involve the Ministry of Health and his government in this project? Will the minister give us the assurance that he will act speedily in convincing that minister to produce the desired results?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I want to give the member the assurance that the Ministry of Health and my colleague are already involved in the Junction triangle. As my immediate predecessor in this portfolio, he is familiar with it and he is even more aware of it now as the Minister of Health.

I can assure the member that I will be discussing the findings of that report with my colleague as well as some alternative actions we might be able to take jointly between our ministries.

In addition to that, we will consult with the medical officer of health from the Metro Toronto area to determine what course of action may be appropriate in this particular circumstance.

I also want to respond, and the member did not raise this in his question, to the concerns that were raised with respect to further information on cancer-related incidents in that area. We will do that as well.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up with the Minister of the Environment with respect to the report of Dr. Spitzer on the Junction triangle.

The minister will be aware of the major finding with respect to children. I am sure he shares the concern that there are children in the area who appear to be suffering in terms of the quality of their lives in comparison with other kids in the city of Toronto.

Specifically, a member of my staff phoned Mr. Singh, who is the manager of the industrial abatement office, with respect to the smells in the adjoining area, which happens to be in my riding, as the minister will know. These smells are a constant problem during the winter and the summer and the subject of many complaints from local residents.

Mr. Singh said he did not think much could be done about the smells in the area. He said they do not always have monitoring equipment available; he said they might have to call it back from out of town on an emergency basis. Second, he said they cannot always calibrate their instruments to pick up a specific chemical. Third, he said if they do find a particular chemical, it does not mean they can pinpoint the source.

Is that really the state of the art of the Ministry of the Environment’s response when residents phone to complain with respect to noxious fumes and smells which are causing such concern in that whole area?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the leader of the third party the assurance that we do try to respond to smells and odour complaints on an immediate basis to the extent that we can. In addition, let me assure him that I intend to intensify our surveillance of the area with what is really state of the art equipment, which is able to determine in many instances the source of the pollutant in question and to identify what that substance is in very direct terms.

The only assurance I can give the honourable member is that we will take whatever actions are possible, but we are using the best equipment, and I believe the response has been reasonably adequate in the past. If there are complaints, I ask only that he direct those to the Minister of the Environment so we can pursue them as quickly as possible; but we will respond to them as we have in the past.

Mr. Rae: I can only say to the minister that there is an enormous sense of frustration, not only from the residents in the Junction triangle area immediately but also from those in the area surrounding it, with respect to the response and the ability, once they have found that there is a smell, to pinpoint what the source of the smell is and then to do something about it.

Specifically, how does the minister feel about the fact that the Glidden paint company was fined only $2,000 for polluting the air on June 24, 1982? Does that level of fine not give the companies a licence to pollute in the area?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The question of fines is under review, as I reported to this House earlier. But I want the member for York South to be aware of the fact, as I am sure he is, that my ministry does not establish the level of fines; the courts determine what the level of fines is going to be. The extent of the fines that are determined by the existing regulations is in fact under review.

I agree with the member. Where a serious matter of contamination or environmental upset has occurred, I do not believe a $2,000 fine is appropriate, and I am looking into that very matter. But the fact is that the very paint company the member mentioned has already taken measures to control some of the environmental upsets it has been responsible for in the area, along with a number of the other 20 or so companies in the Junction triangle. We have made some very substantial progress, but we still have some distance to go yet.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree with me that one of the problems with his ministry has been the fact that he and his predecessor, the present Minister of Health, have been unable to maintain an adequate level of funding to deal with the very serious question of monitoring and supervising the types of spills that have occurred not just from time to time but frequently in the Junction triangles of this province?

Does the minister not think the commitment of this government to maintaining a monitoring system and developing the type of equipment that is required by the ministry’s field officers and supervisors to deal with these spills has not been there or has not been felt by the Treasurers in these past few years?

Can the minister commit to this House that he will ensure the level of funding for the Ministry of the Environment and for the preservation of the environment of this province will be supported by increased funding through the allocations of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) for this year and for the coming years to make sure that the future generations of Ontarians do not have to suffer because of the government’s past inadequacies?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the honourable member that the level of funding that has been provided to my ministry by the Treasury is inadequate. No member of my staff has indicated he is unable to respond to the kinds of concerns that have been communicated to us by way of complaint.

We do respond very quickly, other than in the isolated incident the member’s colleague has brought to my attention. We are using the best equipment, the best-trained manpower and we do respond quickly.

I do not know what more the member can ask of the ministry than what we are doing at the present time. I intend to step that up to the extent I can, to intensify it. But I want to assure the member at this point that I cannot blame it on a lack of funding or inadequate support to my ministry on the part of the Treasurer.

Mr. Rae: What the minister is saying in the House is directly contrary in a sense to what Mr. Singh has said to members of my staff with respect to the amount of equipment that is available and the ability of the ministry to respond to those complaints when they are made.

What specifically is the minister going to do, apart from reviewing and thinking about it? The residents have been complaining for years. The antipollution committee in the area documented exactly the problems that have been described by Dr. Spitzer.

What specifically is the minister going to do, first of all, to increase the level of fines and to increase the enforcement? Second, what is he going to do to provide for the kind of inspection that has to be done to get at the source of these problems?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I seem to have had an improvement in my hearing over the past couple of minutes. I noticed the level of audio went up rather substantially.

I thought I had in part answered some of those questions. I indicated the matter of fines was under review. Perhaps I did not yell it loudly enough, but I will reiterate what I said before with respect to that. I indicated I would intensify the inspections in the area to make sure they were totally and completely appropriate, which I believe they are at present.

I would like to share with the leader of the third party the kind of response time that my staff now gives to any of the complaints he is talking about. What he does not know, and what I am going to inform him about this morning, is that each and every phone call is recorded, and our response time is also recorded. Those responses are more than adequate and more than satisfactory from my review of the situation.

I do not want to leave the impression that the leader of the third party is giving that we are doing nothing. We have taken some very substantive and very positive steps with respect to cleaning up the Junction triangle. I have admitted there is more to be done, and we intend to do that. But to suggest in any way, shape or form that we are not either concerned or taking action in the Junction triangle is simply incorrect.

Mr. Riddell: The minister should show his appreciation to the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht).

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I will take him on a tour, along with other members.

Mr. Rae: We will be glad to go on any tour the minister puts on.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for York South with a new question.

Mr. Rae: Let me say to the minister that it is not he who has to be satisfied by the response of the inspectors; it is the people living in the area who have to be satisfied. I will tell the minister that they simply are not satisfied and the level of frustration is very high.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member put his new question.

SOCIAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE TAX

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my new question is for the Treasurer. How can the Treasurer justify the fact that the social services maintenance tax, the surtax imposed by his government, applies at $111 of taxation, which means it applies to taxable income of $12,000, whereas the other three provinces that impose a surtax -- Manitoba, British Columbia and Saskatchewan -- have that surtax kick in at far higher levels of income?

How can the Treasurer justify imposing a surtax on lower-income people when those other provinces that have chosen to go the surtax route have at least focused it on those who are the most able to pay?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, every province has to devise both its tax programs and its delivery programs to suit its own particular needs. I am very comfortable in saying one will find in Ontario the best array of services and programs for those very people that one will find anywhere in the country.

It is appropriate, therefore, that all our citizens pay a little bit more than others to fund those greatly improved services, almost all of which accrue to the very people the honourable member is talking about. I think it is fair.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer says he is very comfortable; that may be part of the problem. It is the lower-income people in this province who are not very comfortable.

I can show the Treasurer figures establishing that when the health premiums are included -- they are established in only three provinces, and the Ontario rate is almost twice as high as that which is paid in British Columbia -- low- and middle-income taxpayers in Ontario pay higher taxes. People in Ontario earning $15,000 a year with a family of four pay higher and more taxes than those in any other province, including Quebec.

How can the Treasurer justify the fact that at a level of $15,000, Ontario is the leader of the pack in terms of the imposition of taxes with $1,432 tax payable, but when it comes to taxes paid by those making $100,000, Ontario ranks number eight, exceeded only by the government’s friends in British Columbia and Alberta? The Treasurer may be comfortable, but that may be part of the problem.

10:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What gives me a great deal of comfort is to know that those dollars are being used to provide a bigger array of tax credits and a bigger, better and broader range of services than is provided by any other government in the country. When one wants a better and more complete array of services, it is appropriate those have to be paid for.

I would agree with the leader of the third party there is an option. The option is to run a much higher deficit per capita. Two of the provinces he names are generally thought to have low deficits. In fact, they have among the highest deficits per capita in the country. That is short-term politics at the expense of taxpayers next year and the year after.

On balance, we have chosen to provide a better range of services for those very people than any province in the country and to run a lower deficit per capita for those very people than any government in the country. I believe the range of taxes in this province, taken together with credits and programs, leaves us in circumstances where we can say very properly that the less well-off in society are better treated in Ontario than in any other jurisdiction in the land.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the minister’s social services maintenance tax will bring in so many hundreds of millions of dollars this year. The group really caught in the crunch is the working poor, who are now receiving no premium assistance on the staggering Ontario health insurance plan premiums and many of whom are not having them paid as a benefit by their employers.

Given those facts, does the Treasurer not think it is appropriate that we have the social services maintenance tax in place until the end of this year to increase sharply the level of assistance to the working poor, so they will not be crushed by the level of OHIP premiums?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with respect, approximately two million of the 8.5 million people in Ontario are on OHIP premium assistance, either full or partial, and almost all of those are on full premium assistance. In other words, they are not paying OHIP premiums. In addition --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The fact is almost a quarter of our population pays no OHIP premiums, which is rather remarkable.

The second thing to keep in mind is that about --

Mr. Wrye: In seven other provinces, nobody pays premiums.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let us be fair and honest, at least in this House. Everyone pays for health care. Other provinces may choose to do it through the personal income tax base, which gives rise to a higher personal income tax, which five, six or seven other provinces have; a higher corporate income tax, which several provinces have; or a higher retail sales tax, which a province such as Quebec has at nine per cent.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable members want to hear the answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let us understand at least that the discussion is only over what mechanism we are going to use to pay for our health care system. The question is how we are going to allocate those tax loads. I have to believe that when two million out of 8.5 million people do not pay OHIP premiums, that is not an unreasonable place to look for assistance in the funding of our health care system.

With regard to the social services maintenance tax, the member has shared with all of us the extreme problems we have faced in our economy over the last few years. That tax has helped us to maintain our level of services. I would not want to complete this answer to the member without taking this opportunity to invite him to join me in congratulating the performance of the Ontario economy. Today Statistics Canada reports --

Mr. Foulds: You finally got your briefing notes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, get nervous now.

Statscan reports a decline in the unemployment rate in Ontario. For April, the figures for Windsor show the unemployment rate there dropped by a full two percentage points. As we approach the budget, we find more people are employed in Ontario today than previously in our history.

Mr. Rae: I did not know one could make ministerial statements in the middle of an answer to a question, Mr. Speaker. I am intrigued by that ruling on your part.

If I could get back to the point the minister made, first of all I would simply rebut him by saying that on a per capita basis Ontario spends less on social services, education, health and welfare than any other province; the minister should know that. That is the cost of running the kind of economy he chooses to run, and that is the choice he makes.

I would ask him a specific question, if I could, since he made such a point of talking about the tax credits that he says do so much for people in this province. Is the Treasurer aware that the real value of tax credits that have been available to senior citizens since 1974 has dropped by 49 per cent, for the poor the value has dropped by 53 per cent and for the hard-hit middle-income taxpayer the value of his much-vaunted tax credits has dropped by 71 per cent?

His failure to index the credits and his failure to take into account the cost of living has devastated the real value of those credits for senior citizens, for poor people and for middle-income people. Can the Treasurer confirm those facts, and tell us what he is going to do about them?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member wants to hark back to 1974 as his base, then in order to be fair and to give an honest picture of the situation he would have to look at what new programs have been introduced since 1974 to help those same people.

Let us just look at the period since 1974: enriched property tax credits; retail sales tax credits. Let us look at the amount of new housing that has been introduced. New credits have been introduced since then. Let us look at the drug benefit plan.

Mr. Rae: You do not understand. You are not listening to the question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you want the answer? You do not want the answer, do you? You only want your press release; you do not want the answer.

Let us just look at the drug benefit plan introduced since 1974, which has grown, I guess, from $6 million in the first year to $250 million this year. Does the member think those same people he is standing up and saying are less well-off today have not benefited to the tune of $250 million in the drug benefit plan alone since 1975?

How about the growth in the Ontario health insurance plan generally? How about the growth in health care since that date?

Mr. Rae: Does no other province have a drug benefit plan?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member wants to pick selectively one part of the --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The chair has permitted considerable latitude in the length of all of the questions and, indeed, in the answers. But honourable members must remember we have questions to come other than those of the leaders, and I think we should tighten up for the balance of question period.

Before proceeding, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation has the answer to a previously asked question.

CANADIAN CONTENT

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) raised a number of questions about a contract with Scientific Games. The member asked whether the Ontario Lottery Corp. contract with Scientific Games of Atlanta, Georgia, was properly tendered. The answer is a simple yes.

The Ontario Lottery Corp. invited seven companies that are leaders in the field of instant lottery ticket printing to submit proposals for its instant ticket printing contract. Three were Canadian companies: the British American Bank Note Co., Canadian Security Printers and Moore Corp. The remaining four were United States based: Scientific Games, Glendenning, Webcraft and Response Graphics.

Proposals were received from British American Bank Note, Scientific Games and a consortium of Canadian Security Printers; Moore Corp. and Response Graphics declined to bid. British American Bank Note indicated that ticket printing would be carried out in Quebec. Scientific Games and the consortium of Canadian Security Printers both indicated they would have to print the first game or two under the contract in the United States while state-of-the-art production equipment was installed at plants here in Ontario.

The member also questioned whether the contract was for $800,000 or for $4,279,000. The answer is that Scientific Games indicated its tickets would be printed by a subsidiary of the Canadian-owned Southam corporation, namely Dittler Brothers in Atlanta, only while production facilities were being readied at Southam’s Mississauga operation.

10:50 p.m.

I am pleased to tell members that Southam’s Mississauga plant is now ready to print future instant tickets. As I said, the total amount of the contract is $4.2 million, of which $800,000 was applied to the purchase of tickets printed in the United States, with the remaining $3.4 million going to Southam’s Mississauga plant.

Mr. Rae: Is that in the riding of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory)?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It could be. I would like to congratulate him.

Scientific Games is the largest supplier of instant lotteries in the world. Its experience and backup capabilities in game design, technology, marketing and service were also judged by the committee responsible for awarding the contract to be the best available. Because of the very judicious terms of the contract offered by the Ontario Lottery Corp., it has effectively introduced this technique and technology to Canada.

The member also asked whether the real reason for the contract going to Scientific Games was related to the fact that a Mr. Harold Freeman, a former member of the board of the Ontario Lottery Corp., was now a consultant with Scientific Games. The answer is an obvious no.

A special committee made up of the members of the Ontario Lottery Corp. board of directors and senior staff considered each of the proposals before recommending the awarding of the contract to Scientific Games. Mr. Freeman has not been a member of the board of the Ontario Lottery Corp. since 1981. Therefore, there is obviously no conflict.

The real reason for the decision to award the contract to Scientific Games was the superior security of the tickets. Under the terms of the proposal, each company submitted tickets to the Ontario Lottery Corp. for laboratory testing of security. These tickets were all tested by the official laboratory of the National Association of State Lotteries in the United States, and by the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto.

The Scientific Games tickets tested at the highest security level of four. British American Bank Note tickets tested at a low of 13. The Centre of Forensic Sciences judged Canadian-produced tickets to be not acceptable. Scientific Games was the only company to offer a dual security system and we now have that system introduced in Ontario. Scientific Games is the largest supplier of instant lottery tickets.

In summary, in examining the details of the Ontario Lottery Corp. contract for the game Shoot to Score, I cannot help but conclude that perhaps the member for Welland-Thorold was also trying to shoot to score a few points. In doing so, he fell over his own hockey stick.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that asking for submissions is not tendering? He invited submissions from only three companies in this nation. Did he ask Pollard Western Banknote Ltd.? Will he table in this House or answer when he rises what part of the application for tenders was it that Canadian companies, particularly Pollard Western Banknote Ltd., could not meet, or did the minister not even contact that company?

I have a letter from the company, dated April 11, 1984. Perhaps I may be permitted to read one short paragraph.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I note the question by the member. Would he be brief, having in mind we have run into time troubles?

Mr. Swart: With regard to security, will the minister please note the letter from Pollard Western Banknote signed by Mr. L. O. Pollard, president. It says, “At an expense to us of $10,000, we have had our tickets tested by the highest recognized laboratory in North America and we have written results which state that our technological method of reproduction is virtually perfect and unexcelled anywhere in North America.”

So that we will know, will the minister now table the three submissions made to him on Shoot to Score, those by Scientific Games and the two other companies? Will he table the contract? Will he tell us what proportion of that $4 million will be skimmed off in the United States and not come back to Canada?

The Deputy Speaker: The minister’s original answer was very complete. I suggest it could well have been a statement. Let us add four minutes to question period. Will the minister proceed with the answer?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we had to rely on the forensic sciences lab here for a judgement as to whether these tickets were secure -- we did not rely on the judgement of some other people -- and we have taken that judgement seriously. I will guarantee that if we had any difficulty with these tickets that have the scratch-off feature, the member would be the first to be screaming the tickets were not secure.

We had to take the judgement of both the forensic sciences lab here and of the Scientific Games lab in the United States. I will give the member a little food for thought which may help to dissipate the clouds of cynicism that are constantly swirling around his head and starting to skew his view of the world.

Perhaps the member should know I was also disappointed, because British American Bank Note Co., which did not win this contract, happens to be an Ottawa corporation. We have relied on the best scientific information available. We will stick to that and that is why the Ontario Lottery Corp. continues to have a great degree of trust from the people who play the game.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. The minister is aware the Niagara region has been hit with two more pieces of bad economic news: the closing of Warren Knit in St. Catharines, throwing 120 people out of work, and the closing of Welmet Industries in Welland, throwing 115 people out of work.

Would the minister be prepared to use his good offices to intervene personally to attempt to persuade these two companies to reconsider their decisions and to continue their operations in St. Catharines and Welland?

Would he undertake to convene a meeting with officials of both of these companies, along with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), at the earliest opportunity to attempt to accomplish that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I know it will be a measure of some relief to the honourable member, as it is to my colleagues the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) and the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), to note that this morning it was reported that the unemployment rate in the St. Catharines-Niagara region had reached its lowest point in three years, falling 1.6 per cent in the last month.

Mr. Bradley: That does not answer the question. It is not even a political question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me answer.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the minister completed his answer to the first question?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have completed my answer. I gave the information I wanted to get out. I would think the question should now be referred to the Minister of Labour.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for St. Catharines wish to redirect? Agreed.

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Catharines contacted me yesterday afternoon with respect to arranging a meeting with the principals involved. I agreed to do that and I started to make those arrangements the first thing this morning. At that time, in addition to myself and representatives from the Ministry of Labour, there will be representatives from the Ministry of Industry and Trade. The member for St. Catharines will be invited as well.

Mr. Bradley: My supplementary question is to the Treasurer, to whom I directed the original question, because the Minister of Labour was kind enough yesterday to give that assurance and I wanted to have the Treasurer participate in this.

Despite the figures he brags about today, which are still too high, can the Treasurer assure the House that in the budget he is going to present on Tuesday afternoon he will include measures to stimulate the provincial economy and assist industries generally in Ontario?

Will he provide special assistance to those parts of the province, such as the Niagara region, which have had a chronically high rate of unemployment, which will no doubt be reflected in the new layoffs that have taken place? Will he be considering measures to assist smaller industries that are having a difficult time competing in the world market for reasons, I think the minister would agree, that are not their own fault?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Brock and the member for Lincoln have discussed with all of us on several occasions, the Niagara area has undergone particularly difficult times because of world competition in the industries in which that part of the province happens to excel.

Notwithstanding the area’s excellent record over the years, the world situation is changing in such a way that particular pressures have been brought on that area. Quite seriously, it is of some consolation that the area is now beginning to cope and to move into some other areas and some other products, with the assistance of all three levels of government. That is reflected in the lower unemployment rate for April 1984.

None the less, the conversations I have had with my colleagues and indeed the prebudget meetings, of which I have had two with communities in the Hamilton-St. Catharines-Niagara area, have been most instructive to me and have given me the kind of advice the member is offering.

Obviously, I cannot give him any guidance with regard to what will be in the budget next Tuesday, except to say that the measures he finds in that budget will not in any way speak to stopgap measures or short-term traditional kinds of make-work projects. There will be measures which, if they are successful at all, will be pointed towards longer-term investments in the overall structuring and rebuilding of areas such as the Niagara Peninsula.

That is not to say there will be specific measures for that area, but I want to caution the member and alert him to the fact that the policy I have adopted for this coming budget will be one that speaks to long-term diversification, restructuring and transformation. It will not contain stopgap, short-term measures.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: The Treasurer left the impression with some that the member for Brock and the member for Lincoln might be the only people concerned about unemployment in Niagara. As one of the authors of some of the people’s misfortunes down there, he should realize that all of us in the peninsula feel good when the unemployment rate goes down; so he should not try to leave an impression like that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do not say we are the authors of that misfortune. If the member does not want us to do that, he should be honest and say, as his party has said for many years, the big problems are interest rates and the serious problems are those that were outlined by his colleague. He was honest.

Mr. McClellan: Why is the Treasurer’s microphone on? What a lot of nonsense around here.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. None of the members is well served with that intemperate language.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) mentioned the closing of Welmet Industries in Welland, which is going to take place in July. The minister will know this company has been a major employer in Welland for many decades and is now part of a large chain of businesses owned by the Canadian Corporate Management Co. Ltd.

Will the minister tell the House, first, when he and his government were informed about this closure? Second, in view of the fact that Canadian Corporate Management is a prosperous company and its profits in 1983 are the highest in its history, will he meet with the corporate officers of that company and diligently seek ways of keeping Welmet in operation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to meet with the corporate officers. We attempt to do that in every closure. As I said earlier in response to the member for St. Catharines, we always bring the Ministry of Industry and Trade into those conversations as well, and we would be delighted to do so in this case.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps when the minister rises again, he will let us know when the company informed him it was closing down. In spite of what the Treasurer says, the government must know the economic situation in the Niagara Peninsula is a disaster. There may be a few more people employed, but more and more people are running out of unemployment insurance and having to go on welfare.

Does the minister not think, if his government is going to have any handle on employment and develop any strategy against the deindustrialization of this province, particularly in areas outside Toronto, he and his government ought to be notified of these proposed closures well in advance and involve themselves in an attempt to prevent the industries we have from going out of business? Does he not think his government ought to give some priority to preserving some of the present industries, instead of running all over the world trying to coax new ones to come here?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I believe I heard several questions there. On the first one, which is a follow-through from the member’s initial question, as to when I found out, I am sorry I cannot give a precise date. I know I have been aware of the circumstances. I am not aware of when we were officially notified, but I will get that information and provide it to him.

Earlier in this session I used some figures, and I qualified them by stating a dislocated worker would not find any solace in them, but I wanted to present them in any case. I want to repeat those figures and then give an update on them. In 1983 over 1982, there was a reduction of 67 percent in the number of closures and the number of persons affected. That is a very significant improvement. I have an update on that from figures released today. They cover the first quarter of 1984 as compared to the first quarter of 1983. They indicate that, in addition to that improvement in 1983 over 1982 of 67 per cent, there has been a further improvement in closures and persons dislocated of 36 per cent. I think those are very significant figures.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the question --

The Deputy Speaker: Before the member proceeds, could I ask other honourable members to keep their private conversations very low or nonexistent while we complete the question period?

Mr. McClellan: Why do you not name them and throw them out?

The Deputy Speaker: The problem is they are in almost every caucus, but a little more prevalent here.

Mr. Swart: I do not know. I think they have more.

Mr. McClellan: They certainly pay a lot of attention to the Speaker.

Mr. Haggerty: First of all, I want to thank the Minister of Labour and his staff for co-operating and assisting in the difficulties in the layoff of Inco employees at Port Colborne.

The facts and figures presented by the Treasurer, which indicate the employment situation in the Niagara region is turning around and more people will be employed, may well be true in St. Catharines, but when one speaks of the Niagara region, one must consider Niagara South. I do not have to remind the minister of the layoffs at lnco, the phasing out of Hart and Cooley in Fort Erie and the long strike issue at Horton CBI in Fort Erie that has been going on since last February. Has the minister provided every assistance and every means available to get back to work a company that would employ 150 persons in the area?

Can he also advise the members of the Legislature of the present contract and the funding from the federal and provincial governments in regard to the proposed new helicopter development at Fleet Industries in Fort Erie? Is that program going to get off the ground this year or not?

11:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I totally appreciate the unemployment circumstances in the honourable member’s riding. I also personally appreciate the comments he made about the efforts of my office in helping to facilitate the efforts of the United Steelworkers of America in negotiating an improved settlement with lnco. I understand the matters brought to me by the member, because my riding of Sault Ste. Marie has the highest unemployment rate in Ontario. It was as high as 30 per cent and is now around the 20 per cent mark. We are having some horrible times in Sault Ste. Marie.

I also understand his concern about Horton CBI. Algoma Steel has been in negotiations for a few weeks, and I am delighted to report to this House that a settlement was reached late last evening in those negotiations. While it has to be ratified by the workers, I am optimistic it will be.

To get to the matter of Horton CBI, I was asked whether my office was doing everything possible in the form of mediation and conciliation services. The answer is a very definite yes. It is a very troublesome work stoppage, and we wish we had the answers to it. Every effort is being made to bring the parties together.

CHRONIC CARE FACILITY

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton), I have a question for the Treasurer and former Minister of Health, if I could get his attention.

I am sure the Treasurer is aware that on Tuesday outside the House his colleague indicated that the government is now backing off the commitment the Treasurer made when he was the minister responsible to adhere to a four-year schedule to complete a new chronic care facility in Windsor.

Is the Treasurer aware of the comments of James Broderick, executive director of Windsor Western Hospital Centre, who responded by saying, “All Windsor is asking is its fair share as one of the last major centres in Ontario that does not have a new chronic care facility”? Is the Treasurer also aware of the comments of the president of the Essex County Medical Society: “It is the opinion of the medical community that we need a chronic care hospital and we need it now”?

Given those comments from the front-line health care community, can the Treasurer tell us, a dozen years after the commitment to build a chronic care hospital in a community that now has a firetrap for a hospital, why there is no allocation of money for any new chronic care beds in the province this year? That is what the Minister of Health said. Why is there no allocation of money?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have spent an extraordinary period of time in the Windsor area over the last few years, particularly visiting the hospital facilities there.

Mr. Elston: Visiting the delegates.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are none. There are just hospitals and good works put in by the government of Ontario. Often when I am down there, I take calls from the mother of the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) on the open-line program. I really enjoy it.

In fairness, I have visited all the fine hospitals in the Windsor area. I know the honourable member will agree there has been a great deal of money invested in those hospitals by the government over the last half dozen years. There has really been a remarkable rebuilding and expansion program in those areas. They are well-equipped, modern hospitals.

The chronic care facility is one that has indeed been discussed for a long time. All I can report to the member is that the funding levels for the Ministry of Health will become apparent next Tuesday. I can indicate there is an increase in the capital allocated to that ministry compared to the years I was there.

My colleague has the very difficult problem of sorting out the allocation of those limited capital resources among all the competing demands in Ontario. I am sure he will be willing to explain how he has assessed those demands in the light of changed circumstances over the past 10 or 12 months.

Mr. Wrye: The minister will be interested to know -- and I sent his colleague a note on an earlier spot check I did -- that I did another spot check on Wednesday night. I managed to get figures from three of the five Windsor hospitals. Two of the hospitals were completely full on Wednesday night and the third had empty beds only in its paediatric ward. The Treasurer will know that those three hospitals had 82 chronic care patients in active treatment beds and, as a result, at least one of them was forced to cancel elective surgery because of the backup.

The Treasurer made the promise last year that we would get a new chronic care facility. He says there is more money, but there is obviously not enough for chronic care bed allocations. He says he has to have the social services maintenance tax. Why does he not target some of that money to help the elderly people and get a chronic care facility built in Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would remind the member that the social services maintenance tax was put on during difficult economic times, those times not having passed us completely. In itself that does not fund the health care needs as to building and capital programs of the Ministry of Health. In any event, the ministry remains committed to that project. I cannot report as to its exact timing, but my colleague is equally committed to making sure that facility is built.

BIRTH OF MINISTER’S GRANDCHILD

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of information, I have just been advised that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) became a grandfather today. The information includes a report that the new mother and father and their baby daughter are doing very well and that the Minister of Agriculture and Food came through the whole experience in obviously fine form.

11:20 a.m.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) and Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), I table the following petitions:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action.”

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION RECIPROCAL ACCESS ACT

Hon. G. W. Taylor moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 64, An Act respecting Actions Arising from Transboundary Pollution between Ontario and Reciprocating Jurisdictions.

Motion agreed to.

RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENTS (UK) ACT

Hon. G. W. Taylor moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 65, An Act respecting a Convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters.

Motion agreed to.

ABSENCE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if it can it be made clear whether the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) is the acting Attorney General or whether he is just introducing the bill in the absence of his colleague.

The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has been absent now for a considerable period of time when a number of issues pertaining to his ministry have certainly been in the public eye and have been raised here in the Legislature.

It is normal in those circumstances when an important minister is absent from the House for a protracted period of time that one of his colleagues take over. I know that if the Solicitor General were away, the Attorney General would immediately become the acting Solicitor General. As a matter of fact, it appears he gave up that additional portfolio very reluctantly some years ago.

Is the Solicitor General the acting Attorney General? To whom should we turn if we want specific answers from that ministry?

The Deputy Speaker: I am not certain that is a point of order, but would the Solicitor General like to comment?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as there is a cabinet directive on this, I am sure the honourable member is aware that during the absence of the Attorney General I am the acting Attorney General.

In regard to the bills that have been introduced today, naturally one would want the Attorney General’s name on those bills. He will be bringing them through the Legislature, so his name will appear on these pieces of legislation; therefore, I introduced them in the absence of the Attorney General.

As I am sure the member is aware, I am the acting Attorney General during the absence of the Attorney General. However, if he has any questions to the Attorney General, on Monday the Attorney General will be returning, and he can put all those questions he has not been able to ask the acting Attorney General during the past two weeks to that man when he returns.

Mr. Nixon: For further clarification, Mr. Speaker: Is the Solicitor General the acting Attorney General by statute? Is that what he implies, or has there been a designation by the leader of the government?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there is a cabinet procedure as to who becomes the alternative person when the other one is absent. It is by statute that the Solicitor General takes the place of the Attorney General during his absence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I might clarify a matter again since there seems to be a little confusion.

While we did announce in the business of the House statement at six o’clock yesterday that we would start the committee of the whole House on Bill 142, An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Vespra, it became obvious that we had not allowed enough time for all those people who were interested in that bill to be notified and to appear in this House.

There was the added problem that the bill was to be called after the two orders that appear on the Orders and Notices, numbers 5 and 6, which might have meant it would never even be called today.

It was decided last night we would not schedule that bill today so people who wished to be here for that debate would be properly notified. I would think members of the House would agree with this. It is certainly our intention that the bill will be called. It will probably be called during the week of May 28.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the government House leader’s comments. I only wish I had known that last night, because there were four or five people from Vespra township who came in here this morning expecting to hear the debate on that matter. Because we were not informed until 10:30 or 10:45 this morning, they made a trip to Queen’s Park to be here to hear the debate, if it was going to come up. They have wasted a whole morning on that because we are not going to debate it.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I might say briefly that I appreciate that the government House leader did reorder the business of the day. It was at my request that the announcement was made at 10:30 last night, so it appears to me that at least there was the opportunity, if the members were present in the House, to be aware that the bill would not be called this morning.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just want to make it doubly clear, in case there is some feeling around that the government was not going to be calling the bill and we were putting it off, that it is our intention to proceed with the bill. It has just been a case of rescheduling it for a time when all those concerned could be here and present for the debate.

I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. Certainly I am sorry the people from Vespra township had to come down this morning and find that it was not scheduled. But next time we will be sure it will be scheduled in a way so everyone has a chance to know exactly when it is coming up and so it will come up and not be on the list after a number of other bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Watson moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Andrewes, second reading of Bill 36, An Act to amend the Ministry of Energy Act.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, this legislation is designed to enable the Ministry of Energy to more effectively carry out its current responsibilities. It is an updating type of legislation.

The bill before us has four aspects. The first is that of encouraging the prudent use of energy and the development of alternative sources of energy, which will be made more explicit in the ministry’s mandate. The reference to alternative sources of energy will explicitly include those sources that are renewable as well as energy recovered from waste.

Second, in the bill, the ministry will have a greater flexibility in the choice of means for carrying out its mandate and will be better able to take advantage of the wide range of participation and financing mechanisms currently in use in the private sector.

The third aspect of this bill is that those who receive financial assistance from the ministry will be obliged to account for their use of that assistance.

The fourth aspect of this bill is that the requirement of the order in council approval for any delegation of powers by the minister to the deputy or the senior officials will be deleted, which brings the Ministry of Energy Act in line with most of the acts of the other ministries.

I look forward to the participation of the opposition critics in this bill and to their comments.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to say I am very disappointed that the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) has not seen fit to carry this bill. That is not to detract from the parliamentary assistant, because I appreciate the work he does and I certainly appreciate his value to the minister.

At this time and on such a very important bill, the minister is doing what he does in that ministry. As an apologist for Ontario Hydro, he does very little but make all kinds of apologies for platforms and policies put forward by the corporation.

Why should we believe the minister at this juncture? He has done nothing to give citizens the confidence that the government will govern or that the minister will perform important tasks on behalf of the citizens. It is an indication to me that there is very little going to be done.

While we are going to support the bill and will propose an amendment to it, I cannot believe that because we print this on paper, the minister is going to do any more than ministers before him have done; that is, to play a very minor role as it relates to governing Ontario Hydro.

In recent memory, the only thing of any consequence that has been done to put the brakes on that big machine was done by a former Treasurer, and that did not seem to hurt the progress of Ontario Hydro one bit.

It seems we no longer have anyone over there with any kind of intestinal fortitude to stand up and say that the government, as represented here in this Legislature, is going to govern for the people of Ontario and not let some great monster such as Ontario Hydro do what it will, when it will and how it will.

I am very concerned that the minister is not here and is not going to play a more significant role in matters of energy.

When we begin to talk about the bill before us, we are talking about the minister becoming more involved, but I would like to say there are people involved in the same areas of responsibility that the minister speaks of in the bill. The federal government, the provincial government, Ontario Hydro, the larger municipalities, the Ontario Energy Corp. and all sorts of private sector people are involved in the very matters contained in this bill.

When are we going to get these people together to have a say in the thrust of alternative energy sources and of conservation? These are important matters to the citizens of Ontario which will relieve them of the burden of 19 different forms of governments and bureaucracies trying to do the same thing.

The thrust of my argument to the minister today is, will he give us a commitment that he will remove from the jurisdiction of Ontario Hydro and any other area over which he has some say -- if he has the will to say it -- all the things covered in this bill and give the taxpayers and power users of Ontario a bit of a break and get off their backs?

The answer I would like today on matters pertaining to this bill is that we are going to do something that might be considered efficient and governed in a way in which this government takes credit for but can hardly point to as having been effected.

I say to the parliamentary assistant that unless we relieve the taxpayers of the burden of carrying seven or eight levels of government or other jurisdictions doing the same thing this bill asks us to do, there is very little likelihood the bill will perform the task he describes in great terms as one that is going to be helpful.

I am, of course, giving the minister notice that we will put an amendment that would address itself to the concerns I have, namely, that we are going to remove from Ontario Hydro and from other jurisdictions wherever we can the overlapping bureaucracies that are going to attempt to do the same things the minister says he is going to do in the bill but in the past he has proved not to have done.

Many promises have been made by Ministers of Energy, such as developing 2,000 megawatts of some 5,000 or 6,000 that are out there potentially available to put into the grid, the best kind of power that exists today; they have not done that. They talked about putting in the lignite reserve research to get involved in doing those things that might give us a source of thermal capacity in the province, which would certainly be encouraging. They have promised at the Bruce energy development that we were going to take waste heat from some of our nuclear involvement and put it to work. Many of these things have been done in the past, but in fact none of them has reached fruition.

I say to the parliamentary assistant, with respect, that we shall support the bill; however, we will do it reluctantly because it has been proved in the past that all these great and glorious words are printed in bills and all the things described as going to happen very seldom do happen. I would like a commitment from the minister, and at the proper time in clause-by-clause consideration, I will put an amendment that deals with our concerns.

In closing, I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that if he is to provide the kind of leadership in this ministry that will more clearly define the role of Ontario Hydro and take from it all those things that are not truly the development and distribution of energy as well as taking away the hypocritical attitude in some of the ads, in which we are in one sense talking about conservation and in another sense talking about going electrical, the parliamentary assistant can see we have a long way to go to get credibility back into that ministry.

I wonder when there is going to be a day when the Minister of Energy stands up in this Legislature and truly represents the people of Ontario and not a corporation that has a mandate like very few others in the world. The mandate that was given to Ontario Hydro under the Power Corporation Act says Ontario Hydro will answer only to the commissioners. I wonder whether such a mandate ever was given that did not ultimately result in a huge bureaucratic monster. How could we expect anything less if the government has no control whatsoever?

The Conservative Party and Conservative governments expound on the virtues of the free enterprise system and how we should let it do its thing. If there were a huge company out there, that company would have to respond to the shareholders. In other areas of responsibility, it would have to come back to the House of Commons or to the Legislature of a provincial government to answer. How could we ever have assumed that Ontario Hydro would be completely responsible to the power users and citizens of Ontario if it was given such a broad and powerful mandate?

We will support the bill. We hope our amendment and some of the promises made in the bill about the minister taking the initiative will go hand in glove with relieving the burden to the taxpayers of having many other jurisdictions doing the very same things.

I expect to get into more detail in the clause-by-clause stage, and I will put my amendment at the proper time.

11:40 a.m.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, this bill is probably not a very important bill, as the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) said, but it is part of the trend that is characterizing this session. In my opinion, the bill does not mean anything, apart from subsection 3(1), which removes the requirement of approval by order in council of any delegation of power by the minister to the deputy minister and other senior officials.

The parliamentary assistant said the bill would encourage the prudent use of energy and the development of alternative sources of energy. Is this not the major task of the ministry at present? I would like to put on the record what Canadian Public Administration wrote in its fall 1983 issue. An article written by L. Graham Smith says:

“In 1981, the Ministry of Energy’s total staff was 126, organized to deliver three main programs: conservation and renewable energy (CARE), conventional energy, and strategic planning and analysis. Electric power is a component of the conventional energy program. Budget figures contained in the ministry’s 1981 annual report revealed that the conventional energy program received less than seven per cent of the ministry’s annual budget, compared to the nearly 70 per cent or $23.4 million spent annually on the CARE program.

“Clearly, the major focus of the Minister of Energy is conservation and the development of renewable energy resources. By comparison, minimal emphasis is placed upon electric power planning and respondents to this study indicated that the minister’s staff ‘in essence, leave Ontario Hydro untouched.’ With respect to electric power planning, the ministry’s role can be characterized as one of monitoring Ontario Hydro’s actions and, in the words of one respondent, ‘attempting to influence not what they do but how they go about it.’”

This may be the real problem we have in Ontario. We have a Minister of Energy who is unable to do his job, even though he devotes 70 per cent of his budget to conservation and renewable energy. The minister and the ministry are captives of Ontario Hydro. The real decisions are made by Hydro, and since it is a utility with a huge surplus at this time, Hydro is not in the least interested in conservation, so the role of the government is totally subordinate and inefficient in that respect.

On many occasions the New Democratic Party has proposed a real conservation program as well as a program on renewable resources. We think we should take that route, because the select committee indicated we still have untapped hydraulic sources in Ontario. After promising it would start moving in that direction, the government has done almost nothing. One of the aims of this bill is to give the government greater flexibility in the choice of means of carrying out its mandate. I think the Ministry of Energy has all the flexibility it needs under the Energy Act to carry out its mandate.

We have made proposals that do not need any change in the act. We have said that if the government wants to encourage conservation, it can choose several approaches, from giving a no-interest conservation loan to the people who are interested, to getting into a kind of program with retrofitting companies following experiments that have been very successful in other jurisdictions. The government has chosen not to do anything about that.

May I ask my colleagues and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) to listen to the important point I am trying to make?

The other point of the bill is that the minister proposes that those who receive financial assistance from the ministry will be obliged to account for the use of that assistance.

The practice of the government is that those who receive government assistance should not account for the use of that assistance. Everything is possible under a Tory government but I do not think the government would have been forced to explicitly admit that something went wrong that we did not know about, and the parliamentary assistant did not tell us about, so all at once the government needs this requirement.

This is a no-bill and apart from giving the minister and the deputy minister more flexibility in delegating power, there is nothing more. We support the bill but it does not solve the energy problems facing Ontario. It does not touch the major problems in the relationship between the Minister of Energy and Ontario Hydro. It does not touch the problem arising from the fact that Ontario Hydro is undertaking a course of action with which many people in Ontario do not agree, the nuclear option. Therefore, we reluctantly support the bill, hoping at a future time the government will come back with a more serious bill.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by both opposition critics. I would say to the member for Niagara Falls that I express regret on behalf of the minister who is not here, but today he happens to be attending one of those alternate energy openings which is in Elora, where they are using --

Mr. Kerrio: Why did I not get invited?

Mr. Watson: I guess they left the member’s name off the invitation list. It may not be in his riding, I do not know. This ministry is very interested in alternative energy and it just happens that event was set for today. From what I have heard during past estimates, I understand members opposite have been very great in promoting some of these small hydro projects, so we are doing something in that field.

I would remind the honourable member we do have a lot of other programs to promote conservation and efficiency in our homes and we have Trucksave and some of the developments in heat pumps. There are certainly a lot of promotions in the Ministry of Energy, and we are investing some of the money we have at our disposal in the promotion of those.

I would remind the member that some of the things he has made reference to with regard to Ontario Hydro would come under the Power Corporation Act rather than under this bill, which is an updating bill.

I appreciate the comments of the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) and that he does recognize it is an updating and clarification. Most of the things that are done in here with regard to the activities of the Ministry of Energy are probably being currently done through the authority of the estimates in that process, but members would like it clarified, and this is a matter of clarifying it, making it a little clearer. Times have changed and we wanted to put in words to more aptly represent what is actually going on.

I appreciate the comments of both critics and hope the matter can proceed forthwith.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

11:50 a.m.

MINISTRY OF ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 36, An Act to amend the Ministry of Energy Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Kerrio moves that the said act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:

“8b(1) The minister shall issue on behalf of the government of Ontario a comprehensive policy directive in the form of a statement setting out the policy framework in respect of the production, generation, transmission, distribution, supply, sale, use and development of energy resources in Ontario within which Ontario Hydro formulates operational and management decisions.

“Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the policy directive shall contain:

“(a) a statement of the respective duties and functions of the government of Ontario and Ontario Hydro in relation to energy matters;

“(b) a specification of the policy objectives of the government of Ontario in relation to energy matters;

“(c) a specification of the financial objectives of Ontario Hydro;

“(d) a specification of the limitations that may be imposed upon Ontario Hydro operations and borrowings by the government of Ontario and the conditions under which these limitations may be imposed.

“(e) a description of the further operations to be constructed by Ontario Hydro in order to fulfil its responsibilities and assist in achieving the policy objectives established by the government of Ontario, including an estimate of the extent to which these operations will require financial assistance from the government of Ontario.

“(2) The policy directive shall be amended or revised from time to time to reflect any change in the policy of the government of Ontario concerning the matters referred to in subsection 1.

“(3) The minister shall lay the policy directive and every amendment or revised policy directive before the assembly if it is in session, or if not, at the commencement of the next ensuing session.”

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief because, as the parliamentary assistant is well aware, we went in depth into the concerns we had regarding the bill.

We in this party have over many years attempted to put into place a reasonable energy policy for Ontario, one which, if the minister has the initiative and will to pursue, would certainly not accept the furthering of Ontario Hydro’s ambitions, but rather would draw a kind of policy framework within which Hydro would more purposefully discharge its initial intent. That intent basically was to produce power at the lowest possible price for the users of Ontario and nowhere else.

Having said that, I would hope the government would accept this very worthwhile amendment and so, carrying on from a very responsible involvement of a former Treasurer, the Honourable Darcy McKeough, begin to put just a few levers or reins on this great and wonderful asset of the people of Ontario.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to speak on the amendment that has just been provided to us. While we have not had long to study it, it seems as though it is a reasonable and sensible proposal, which has amazed and surprised us.

One of the problems with Ontario Hydro, and this may serve at least to highlight and illustrate the problem, is that Hydro is a government within a government, a power unto itself. Over the course of the last 15 to 20 years it has successfully resisted all attempts of the elected government of Ontario to bring it under control.

We have seen a succession of efforts being made by the government to try to bring a greater measure of accountability to Ontario Hydro, including the ultimate act by the Premier (Mr. Davis) of appointing one of his very closest personal and political advisers to head this great corporation. That has not worked either.

How to control the large crown corporations that have developed in the latter part of this century remains a major problem for democratic governments. I know this is also a problem in Quebec. Some people argue Hydro-Québec is a larger government than the government of Quebec itself, because of the size of its projects.

At any rate, we have a situation in which Hydro has historically been allowed to go its own way, to commit this province to a policy of absolute reliance on nuclear to the exclusion of other more rational and sensible and less costly alternatives. Either the government finds itself locked into a position or it is leading us to a position of 70 per cent reliance on nuclear generation.

12 noon

Hydro has committed us to billions of dollars in public borrowing to finance this exclusive reliance on nuclear and the government is in the process of mothballing the nuclear facilities which it finds it does not need because of oversupply. It is an absolutely Kafka-esque kind of scenario. This huge corporation has undeniable technical and management skills that are in the forefront of world technology, but the one thing that is lacking is accountability and clear political control.

This amendment obviously is not going to achieve that long-sought objective, but at least it states clearly that it is the responsibility of the government of Ontario to control, direct and set policy for Ontario Hydro and not the other way around. The tail has to stop wagging the dog, and the sooner the government recognizes this, the sooner it may be able to reverse the historic and confused errors it has allowed Ontario Hydro to drag it into. We are now mired in billions of dollars of unnecessary expenditures and in the mothballing of billions of dollars’ worth of unnecessary equipment at a time when Ontario Hydro finds it does not have the wherewithal to develop more rational, less polluting and less dangerous alternatives.

To come to the nut of my speech, we will support this amendment.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the member for Niagara Falls for putting forward such a useful amendment. As a matter of fact, in many respects it is one of the most important topics that has been presented to the Legislature in this session. Those who have followed it carefully must realize that if it is accepted -- and we certainly expect it will be accepted by government members opposite -- it will restore a modicum of legislative and government control to the basic decisions taken by Ontario Hydro.

I am particularly pleased that the New Democratic Party is supporting the amendment as well because I believe very strongly it is essential that some government operation or control of Hydro decisions be re-established.

It is not very many years ago when the constitution of Ontario Hydro was essentially the Hydro-Electric Power Commission Act of Ontario. Under that act the commission members were appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and always included either a cabinet minister or a member of the government party. I never felt it was sufficient simply to have a nice, tame Tory on the board of Hydro, but it simply meant that sitting in the Legislature was an individual to whom questions could be directed who had direct and legal responsibility for the decisions taken by the Ontario Hydro of the day.

With the coming of the Power Corporation Act, we in the Liberal Party objected that this integral and important connection with the political arm would be lost. Considerable debate went on about the view expressed by the government which, incidentally, was supported by the NDP of the day. I do not see anybody from that time still sitting in the chamber as their numbers slowly reduce. Those NDP members of the day who joined the Conservatives in severing this political connection have simply been lost to the wind or have been forced out by the political requirements of changing leadership. But I certainly do recall the debate then and the fact that the NDP voted with the Conservatives to remove the political control that we as Liberals felt was essential then and certainly is even more essential today.

With the power of the appointment of the board, when the Premier (Mr. Davis) crooks his little finger, we know the Ontario Hydro board gets the shivers. But they realize that the Premier has only a passing interest in these things and that he plays it best politically by simply letting Hydro do its own thing and mumbling: “Of course, I am not an engineer. I do not know about these complex matters.”

Over the years since the commission was abolished, Hydro has been making a succession of bad decisions, however good its motivation might be. The grand tradition of keeping on the lights at all costs is one we support; we expect the energy to be flowing when the switch is flipped.

At the same time, we have seen tremendous erosion in the cost balance of Ontario Hydro and, unfortunately, some of the major technological decisions that have been made by Ontario Hydro have not worked out as successfully as all of us would have wished. Now all of us are even praying. The problems Ontario Hydro has experienced with its nuclear technology is not providing any joy in opposition party circles or anywhere else. We wish them well in their efforts to get the machinery and its design improved.

I feel strongly that this amendment which, in a modest and moderate way, re-establishes some government control of Ontario Hydro decisions is one that should be supported by reasonable members on all sides. We see that there are a few of the reasonable Tories in the House today. It may be that they can strengthen the backbone of the parliamentary assistant who no doubt has been given the usual instruction not to accept any amendment. In this particular case, since the initiative and the concept have to be so important, attractive and acceptable to this House, we can go forward with a voice vote that will generally accept it and put Ontario Hydro back on the rails with at least moderate government control.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to say about the amendment is that I feel we do not need legislative directives to direct the policy, and this seems to be a matter of policy. All the debate I have heard concerning this amendment has to do with the Power Corporation Act, as if we were talking about it, which we are not. I noted the Chairman did not rule it out of order, but it would deal with the Power Corporation Act, if we were talking about that, rather than a bill affecting the Ministry of Energy Act.

I realize that the member for Niagara Falls has strong opinions on this. I have had the opportunity to debate those opinions a few times on Metro Morning and places such as that and I am quite aware of his thoughts. On behalf of the ministry and the government, I would say this amendment does not fit into this bill and therefore we are in opposition to it.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I was surprised at the comment of the parliamentary assistant when he said we cannot get this proposed amendment in the present act. He did not say what act it could fit into or be placed under. He said something about the Power Corporation Act. I believe we have moved or proposed similar amendments at different times for the government to accept.

If the member look at the amendment, it follows the principle of section 8a, and that is accountability. If they are going to take public funds and hand it out to some corporation such as Ontario Hydro there has to be some public accountability in that area.

As a member of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs for a period of about five years -- and it was not re-established after the last election -- I am aware of the comments of the majority of committee members at that time. They wanted some accountability brought about and placed on the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro.

I suppose we are looking at other energy resources. All we have to do is look at Suncor and the concern about the expenditure of public funds there. The public will never be reimbursed for that financial disaster. It seems to be a continual practice of the government of the day that it can always look to the public and tax it to death for some areas of misjudgement in the programs it is trying to implement and which it says are a good thing for Ontario.

12:10 p.m.

I am concerned about the expenditures of Ontario Hydro and particularly about the nuclear development program. As a select committee of the Legislature, we dealt with the heavy water plants at Douglas Point. Comments by experts from Ontario Hydro and by experts from outside the country or the province indicated to Ontario Hydro that at that time it had built too large a plant. In other words, instead of having one plant producing heavy water, if Ontario Hydro had built three small ones to compensate for that one large one, it would have had a sufficient supply of heavy water without the expenditure on the other three plants. Part of one was put in mothballs, and I do not know what is going to be done with the second phase of the other one. It has not been functioning since the day it was constructed. That is a waste of public funds.

The amendment proposed under section 8b of the act is that this government and this ministry have to have some accountability to Ontario and its taxpayers. It is too bad we did not have proposition 13 here in Ontario. It would have shaken some of the government members over there. Every time one turns around to look there is an increase in municipal taxes of eight or nine or 10 per cent.

We have seen increases year after year in hydro rates. I can recall that one of the reasons the select committee was established was that Hydro was wanting a 30 per cent hike in the annual rate for the users of hydro in Ontario, which was damned well ridiculous at that time. We see it is gradually coming again. Ontario Hydro uses the same principle as Bell Canada uses. Hydro has a rate application every year before the Ontario Energy Board.

Someplace along the line the government is going to have to have some real, sincere accountability. This amendment will provide the opportunity for the Legislature to have that input. Subsection 8a(3) of the proposed amendment to the act says, “The minister shall lay the policy directive and every amendment or revised policy directive before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the commencement of the next ensuing session.”

That is not asking the government for anything. It is not costing the government one cent. If the minister or the parliamentary assistant has the courage to accept the amendment, he will find out it will save money for the taxpayers and there will be accountability attached to it.

Our critic, my colleague the member for Niagara Falls, who introduced the amendment, said something about the former Minister of Energy, Darcy McKeough. When one is talking about a leadership race over on that side, there are many persons today out on the street and in the general public across the province who would like to have Darcy McKeough back on that side leading that party so he could bring about some accountability in the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. If the members are not aware of that, they should check on Bay Street and they will find there is quite a bit of truth in what I am saying.

I suggest to the minister and the parliamentary assistant that this costs the government not one cent. Accepting the amendment will save money for the taxpayers. I suggest to the government members that they should support something for a change that is really going to provide some benefit to the taxpayers of the province.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Kerrio has moved an amendment to section 2.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

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

ONTARIO PENSIONERS PROPERTY TAX ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved second reading of Bill 37, An Act to amend the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, this bill will amend the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act to introduce a deadline for claiming sales tax grants and to provide administrative authority for waiving collection of overpaid grants in special circumstances.

As it stands, the act requires timely application for property tax grants while allowing an unlimited period during which to establish eligibility for sales tax grants.

Although almost all the 900,000 eligible seniors receive their sales tax grants within a few months of the year to which they apply, my ministry must go to the expense of maintaining records indefinitely on the contingency that relatively few seniors might have delayed in establishing their eligibility for the grant.

This bill will remedy the current situation by requiring that requests for sales tax grant eligibility be made within one year of the period to which the grant applies. This is the same deadline that currently applies for property grant application purposes.

With more than 600,000 property grant applications, a similar number of interim payments and around 900,000 sales tax grants to be handled each year, it is unavoidable that some incorrect payments to seniors will occur as a consequence of human or system error.

However, the current provisions of the act do not allow my ministry’s officials any latitude in dealing with the inevitable cases where seniors are paid amounts for which they are later found to be ineligible.

The second amendment included in this bill will provide for flexibility in collecting overpaid grants in those special circumstances where I deem it would be unreasonable to request full repayment of the overpaid senior.

These two measures reflect my ministry’s commitment to the ongoing refinement of this important program.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we have no substantial objection to the amendments which in a minor way make the operation of the ministry a little more convenient for the officials and do away with a need to maintain extensive and, I suppose, unnecessary records.

However, the minister and his staff have just moved into an administrative Taj Mahal, a veritable Canadian Pentagon, to the east of Toronto and bought a computer facility so complex that evidently no one in North America was able to operate it.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that the minister and his predecessors authorized a special delegation --

Mr. Breaugh: The member is driving them out of here, one by one.

Mr. Nixon: I thought I was doing rather well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order.

Mr. Nixon: The minister in his wisdom, and his predecessor, have gone to the United Kingdom to get the kind of brainpower that evidently we do not have or train in this country to operate this computer. Having been provided with the last word in accommodation and computer facilities by the taxpayers and having taken the initiative on his own and with his predecessors to go to the United Kingdom at a large public expense and hire some people over there to run the computer, I would have thought he would not come to the House complaining that he had to keep records for an extra year or two for a paltry 600,000 applicants. I thought that would be done in the twinkling of an eye, or in a quarter of a chip as far as we are concerned, with the facilities he has.

If the Minister of Revenue considers this is the legislative program he wants to put forward during this session of the Legislature, all we can do is express some regret that perhaps we are not moving forward in the principle of assisting senior citizens rather than this footling and, I suppose, inadequate content to simply improve the efficiency in some small way.

We are very glad to respond to the minister’s request with our consent, but we want to express some regret that he found it even necessary under these circumstances. As members of the House, we ought to be treated to something more effective and more important for the utilization of programs to assist our seniors.

12:20 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, for far too long we have been faced with a situation where our seniors are persecuted by the Ministry of Revenue. Agents and operators working for the ministry actually persecute senior citizens for mistakes made within the ministry.

I am glad to see the minister is before the House this morning on bended knees, begging for our co-operation in ceasing this persecution of senior citizens. I think there are adequate instances on the record of this Legislature to show that it was clearly a stupid and unfair process that was at work.

A mistake was made by ministry officials, not by seniors, where the ministry officials seemed bound and bent to get their pound of flesh from some poor senior citizen who, through no fault of his own, had a cheque mailed to him and then had to give the money back. It seems to me that is an unfair, insane way to process all these cheques.

We would be remiss if we did not note in passing that this government persists in setting up a tremendous operation at rather colossal expense to give people back their own money. That is essentially what this exercise is all about. This is a process whereby the government of Ontario collects money from our seniors and then gives them back a portion of that money, for which the seniors in Ontario are supposed to be immensely grateful.

Of course, it is a political exercise, and when the amounts of money have been thrown at the system to make this little process work, all our seniors will know is that the good old government of Ontario -- Big Brother and Big Sister -- is looking after their best interests. Also, our citizens will know that the Tories in Ontario have given them a cheque.

We think there may be better ways to proceed in providing substantial amounts of assistance to our seniors and to others in our community, but we recognize that this has been a Tory tradition in Ontario; it takes a dollar from somebody and sends back a cheque for a quarter, so to speak. The premise is that at election time they will be reminded through a constant barrage of newspaper advertisements, television ads, etc., that the government of Ontario is giving them back at least a little of their own tax dollars.

That process has been an incredibly awkward one in the last few years. The minister has his bunker headquarters across the road from my humble little office in Oshawa. It is a magnificent white iceberg with whirring computers. The minister has a magnificent operation. It is by and large a political operation to see that people in Ontario are constantly reminded how friendly and good the Tories are at administering things.

This program is probably the most bungled administrative attempt ever put forward by any government anywhere. To relieve itself of its bungling, it threw untold millions of dollars at the program to make it work. From the last report I received from the ministry, it would appear the difficulties it had initially are dying down. The millions of dollars have worked; they have finally learned how to put out a cheque properly.

In the last report I saw, I think only a half dozen or so people from my constituency office were at the point where they had to use the member’s office to rectify a problem. It appears that after about four years of operation the minister has begun to figure out how to do this. He has brought in sufficient computers, manpower and imported expertise finally to get the cheques out.

We are happy this morning to see that the minister is once again begging our forgiveness. We are in a very kind mood this morning, and while he is on both knees praying for forgiveness for past sins, we are happy to give that privilege to him. We are happy to see that some little bit of common sense has finally entered the picture.

There are a couple of other ramifications of this bill that may not be quite so pleasant. We will wait to see whether the requirement to register within the year works out. I am somewhat fearful that this ministry would have a little difficulty organizing the traditional one-car funeral, but I see them across the road from my office and I have been through that building. It is an impressive sight to see all that computerization and technology at work. I have some hope that in the end, despite the best efforts of the ministry, this program will actually work. That will be an amazing day.

We will support the amendments that are before us, and we are happy to see that once again the Ministry of Revenue is admitting that its past tactics with senior citizens were wrong, that its attempts to threaten and malign them were wrong and that it is better simply to forgive them when the ministry has made a mistake. We heartily endorse that proposal.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I should inform the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that the Ontario pensioners property tax assistance program runs through the Queen’s Park computing centre as opposed to the Ministry of Revenue. That is not a criticism of that computer, but I think the honourable member will agree that the handling of the Ontario tax grants this past year and at present has been improved quite substantially.

I have tried to keep all the members aware of the progress in their individual ridings, so they know not only how many complaints have come to us from the ridings but also the names. We do that as a way of helping them to secure their position in their ridings. I know how appreciative the members are, and I appreciate the vote of confidence of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) brought up a rather interesting point; that is, as he puts it, the persecution of our senior citizens by these mad giants of Revenue people who come in and persecute, torture and all that. Because of this very problem we have with the sales tax branch, there are some unavoidable instances of cheques being applied for by mistake after the death of one of the seniors. This does happen. By law we are required, when we discover that error, to make an attempt to recover.

The auditors, as the members well know, bring up points such as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk did about our trip to England. It is brought very forcibly to our attention if we do not make an attempt. The practice of this ministry with these cases over the last several months has been to go through the routine of making that attempt. A letter is sent, but it is followed very soon by a letter saying we are taking no further action.

I do not know how else we can do it in terms of the Provincial Auditor, other than to have a change in the act in the future to enable us to write it off more quickly. I would suggest that is an improvement that might well come.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

The House adjourned at 12:28 p.m.