Hansard Transcript 1986-Nov-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Gordon: I would like to draw to the attention of the House a matter that I know is of concern to the parents in this province. It is an issue we have brought up many times in this House over the past year, that of low-alcohol drinks being sold to children.

Parents are very worried about these low-alcohol drinks, in that very young children in particular, children who may be on medication, children who are taking cough medicine or children who are very low in body weight will be impaired and will have their balance or judgement affected by them. We know children who are on medication should not have any alcohol given to them.

Will the minister take steps? It is obvious the Royal Canadian Legion is going to boycott Labatt's as a result of this. It is talking about it. Something has to be done about this whole topic and this drink called Sarasoda.

It has gone on for over a year. The minister said he was going to talk to the stores about the product. A year has passed, and we have not seen any real action on the subject. We believe this is a danger to young children. We want something done about it right now.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Today I am going to move a private bill to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I find it a strange irony that in our society the people who are in the work place have absolutely no control over the injuries they sustain or the toxic substances to which they are exposed.

It is a real oddity that in our society we plough $31 million into the Industrial Accident Prevention Association to teach health and safety, but to the workers we give absolutely nothing save $1.7 million. Workers have no control over the work place environment; the Ministry of Labour constantly refuses to assist them; and the very people who are fighting occupational health and safety, the management in this society, get the benefits with which to protect themselves.

I intend to move this bill today. It is going to do a number of things for workers. First, it is going to give them a predominance on the health and safety committees whereby they can control some of the things to which they are exposed. I want to give the committee the power to identify situations that may be a threat to their health; conduct tests of the work place conditions; hire independent agencies to conduct tests of the work place conditions; and approve any machinery, chemicals or innovations before they are introduced to the work place. It will provide a whole series of things that, for the first time, will give workers protection in this province.

ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS

Mr. Andrewes: November is Alzheimer's Month. It provides us an opportunity to raise the level of awareness of and knowledge about a disease from which an estimated 300,000 Canadians suffer. Few other diseases challenge to the same degree the diagnostic skills of doctors or the patience and understanding of the families of those whom it afflicts.

The Progressive Conservative Party recently called for the implementation of a $15-million fund to address specific needs of Alzheimer's patients. The fund would be directed towards special training in detection, assessment and care; the training of families of Alzheimer's victims; the expansion of present day care and day hospitals to accommodate patients; and respite care for Alzheimer's victims so that their families might have some relief from their day-to-day responsibilities.

In heightening the awareness of the disease, Alzheimer's societies across Ontario act as advocates on behalf of victims and provide support for the victims' families. The government has an obligation to parallel this excellent work.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Breaugh: I want to make some remarks today about the Canada-US auto pact. The reason to do so is that last week we were rather surprised to find out that the federal government was indeed negotiating the auto pact under its free trade agreement.

It was compounded even further by a visit by the federal Minister of Finance through my area, where he reiterated that the federal government was interested in renegotiating the auto pact and thought this was a good idea. It is compounded even more by statements made by our chief negotiator in these talks, who again reiterated that he too thought renegotiating the auto pact was a good idea.

I want to make it clear that I do not, nor to my knowledge does any knowledgeable person in the Canadian auto industry, believe this is a good time to renegotiate the auto pact, particularly for my community where General Motors is sinking $2-billion worth of investment into new plant facilities in Canada. That same corporation is closing 11 plants in the United States.

I do not think we should renegotiate the auto pact. If we do anything around the auto pact, it should be to bring all offshore producers who are now manufacturing products in Canada under the auto pact, something we have not done. I believe it is a matter of great importance to the people of Ontario. I would like to see the Premier (Mr. Peterson) make statements in this House to indicate firmly his position on the auto pact and these renegotiations and what his proposals are to correct what I consider to be a very serious mistake on the part of the federal government.

MISSISSAUGA CITIZENS OF THE YEAR

Mr. Offer: It is my pleasure to inform the House of the 1986 Outstanding Young Citizens of Mississauga Awards, which were handed out last week.

The quality of life in any community depends a great deal upon the spirit of goodwill and co-operation that exists among its residents and on their willingness to assist their fellow man. Each year the Mississauga Jaycees pay tribute to three individuals who exemplify this spirit and who have helped to make their city a better place in which to live.

It is my pleasure to congratulate this year's three Outstanding Young Citizens Awards winners. Bradley Wickham-Butt has been an exemplary student and citizen in the community. Michael Parsons's fund-raising efforts on behalf of many worthwhile causes have been very successful. Glen Charles was instrumental in founding the Credit Valley Golf Tournament and the Mississauga Rotoract Club.

It is my pleasure to congratulate these young men and wish them well as they represent Mississauga at the upcoming Vanier Awards.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr. Hennessy: I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) the lack of safety on the Lakehead Expressway and the Harbour Expressway in Thunder Bay. During the second weekend in November, there was a serious accident on the expressway that could have been prevented had the highway been properly lighted.

Unfortunately, this accident was not the first. I have written to the minister asking for a study of the situation. At the very least, there should be vapour lights at each intersection and concrete divider lines similar to those found on Highway 400.

The Thunder Bay Expressway is a very important road for tourism and business. It is a key transportation artery. This government claims to have the concerns of northern Ontario close at heart. To this effect, I have written my concerns to the Minister of Transportation and Communications and gave them to him yesterday.

With the winter weather closing in, I ask the minister for an immediate study on the Lakehead Expressway, the Harbour Expressway and Golf Links Road. It is unacceptable that motorists travelling on these highways should have to drive in these unsafe conditions.

I ask the minister to look into this matter as soon as possible.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Warner: I was very disappointed with the response of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) when I asked a question last Thursday regarding the renal dialysis program at Scarborough General Hospital. His answer is not one whit different from the answers we got when the Conservatives were in charge of the health care system, namely, leave it up to a district health council, even if it does not seem to be sufficiently organized to make a decision.

This program is desperately needed, not only in Scarborough but also in the surrounding area. The time for leadership is now. It is not enough to hide behind some council that simply delays and delays. The time for leadership is now, and this minister has the responsibility to exercise that leadership.

I ask him once again to make a decision on behalf of more than half a million people in Scarborough. We need the renal dialysis program.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We are about to start ministerial statements and we are ready to move into question period. There are about five ministers of the crown in the Legislature. This is one of the problems we talked about. We were willing to start at 1:30, providing the government was prepared to deal with business at 1:30. They had five people from the government benches in the House at 1:30. They do not have ministers in here. They do not have statements. I suggest we adjourn for 10 minutes until they get their act together and we can proceed with the business in an orderly way.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the comments of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris); however, l will call for ministerial statements.

13:43

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have the honour of releasing the report prepared by the Task Force on Representation and Accountability in Metropolitan Toronto. That report was presented to Metro and area councillors earlier today. Entitled Analysis and Options for the Government of Metropolitan Toronto, the report is the work of staff representatives from Metro, the six area municipalities and from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Le groupe de travail a consacré 10 mois à l'étude de la structure actuelle et des options qui s'offrent dans le cas du gouvernement de cette municipalité, qui compte plus de deux millions et demi de personnes. Il a exposé en détail différents modes de sélection du Conseil de la communauté urbaine et de son président.

J'aimerais expliquer aux députés pourquoi j'ai choisi cette approche consultative pour essayer de résoudre les questions de sélection et de fonctionnement du Conseil de la communauté urbaine de Toronto.

This government has a clear commitment to open government, to a process that constantly seeks dialogue with those who will ultimately be affected by the decisions we make.

In the case of accountability and representation in Metropolitan Toronto, clearly the opinions of those living the system, the municipal politicians, are vital to this process.

Before the government and this House make a final decision, we must have the benefit of their expertise and experience. The task force report details a number of options for selection of council and for choosing the chairman. Some of the options fit each other better than others. I told them we will all have our own opinions on which combination of options is the best to serve the people who live in this complex and dynamic municipality. Indeed, I have mine. I would like to see the chairman elected somehow and I would like to see what can be done to allow metropolitan councillors to devote more time and be more accountable for how they deal with Metro issues.

These changes could have a number of ramifications. Indeed, if the option of direct election is chosen, and this is something that has been given a great deal of consideration and support from some municipalities, this might necessitate a change in the size and structure of Metro council to ensure efficient and responsive government.

I hope this is something the municipalities will specifically address in their response to the task force report. I look forward to all comments and suggestions. I have encouraged the municipalities to involve the public in this process. I have requested the municipalities' comments by March 31, 1987.

Having completed the consultation process, I hope to introduce legislation before the end of the spring session to meet our target of royal assent in the fall of next year and to have changes in the system in place well before the 1988 municipal elections.

Mr. Gregory: I want to make a comment or two on the remarks of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), which I find quite incredible. This honourable gentleman declares he is talking about the open government over there. We have been trying to get some information from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for weeks, with no answer whatsoever, in an area the Ministry of Municipal Affairs should be handling.

The minister has made the statement that he is going to investigate the task force report, but he has already made his decision. He says he would like to see the chairman elected directly in some fashion. I find that incredible from the minister who just appointed a mayor in Chapleau. That is quite interesting, is it not?

If he has desires for the wellbeing of Metropolitan Toronto, he might use his great influence on the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue to open up the system of tax reform in Metro Toronto, which is really needed. He should do something important instead of fooling around with this sort of thing.

Mr. Harris: I listened with interest to the minister's statement that "this government has a clear commitment to open government, to a process which constantly seeks dialogue with those who will ultimately be affected by the decisions we make."

The minister made that statement with reference to Metro Toronto. I find it absolutely appalling that while one minister is making this kind of statement, another minister is covering up and hiding a report of far more importance to Metro Torontonians, their market value assessments, and he is asking Metro council and the people of Metro Toronto to make a very important decision that affects them all while he sits on these kinds of reports.

We hear rhetoric time and again about what an open government it is, but we see example after example of important government reports, paid for by the people of this province, that are covered up and hidden and not released to them so they can make an informed decision.

Mr. Breaugh: Let me reply briefly to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the release of the report of the Task Force on Representation and Accountability in Metropolitan Toronto. There is more in the title than there is in the report.

It is one of our growth industries around Ontario to create task forces. This one is like a number of others, but some questions were raised initially as to whether it was appropriate to have staff do this report. In his statement today I wish the minister had given some faint clue to as to what his preference would be and what is the intention of his government.

From all that has been printed and said today, the most we can get out of it is that he is in favour of democracy. So are we. He is in favour of elected people at the local level being accountable. So is everybody else. The one small thing in there that is worth holding on to is that apparently he has the intention of doing something, whatever that might be, in time for the next municipal election. That is a laudable thing. It would have been useful, and it may still be useful, for the minister at least to provide us with some indication of the government's preference and let that be the discussion point.

Frankly, among people who will now be asked to comment on this report, the difficult question is, what exactly does the government intend to do? If the government were prepared to put forward the concept that there be direct election of the Metro chairman, that it would be either Metro-wide or else done from the council and let them make the choice from those two, it would have been helpful.

It would be useful from this point on to have the minister do exactly that: to lay before the council of Metropolitan Toronto what his preference is in the matter, to show them he intends to proceed in time for the next municipal election. That might be a useful exercise. I am afraid what he has done today is not very useful.

FILM INDUSTRY

Hon. Ms. Munro: This morning the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and I attended a press conference announcing the opening of the Canadian Centre for Advanced Film Studies. The centre will offer selected Canadian film makers the opportunity to hone their already well-established skills to an even higher degree of excellence. The centre will be housed at Windfields, the E. P. Taylor estate, with the city of North York maintaining the grounds as park land.

The provincial government, through the Ontario Film Development Corp., will be giving up to $1 million to the centre over the next several years. It is almost exactly one year since the Ontario Film Development Corp. was established. In that time a lot has happened both in the production and the distribution of film in Ontario. The amount of film activity in this province already attests to the reputation of our technicians and our creative talent. This new national film centre will ensure that even more high-quality films are made in Ontario.

The centre has been a dream of Norman Jewison for a long time. Jewison, a director of world acclaim, has always remained true to Canada. I think everyone in this House will join with me in wishing him and the centre every success. Film is, after all, one of the best ways of preserving and presenting Canadian culture.

Mrs. Marland: I notice in the statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture that she is saying the Ontario Film Development Corp. is going to be giving up to $1 million to this Canadian film centre over the next several years. I would be very interested to know what "up to $1 million" means -- whether it means $1, $10 or $500 -- and "over the next several years." That is a very interesting, broad, sweeping statement that does not say anything at all.

I also note with great interest that Mel Lastman will now be the perpetual gardener of the E. P. Taylor estate.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Hon. Mr. Keyes: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I beg the indulgence of this House to make a very brief statement.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of privilege or a ministerial statement?

Mr. Nixon: Privilege.

Mr. Harris: Fine.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I would like to address the House briefly regarding a newspaper report today that raises legitimate questions about the propriety of a hospitality function held on an Ontario Provincial Police patrol board last summer. As has been reported in the media, as Solicitor General, I was providing Sir Kenneth Newman, head of world-famous Scotland Yard, and his three guests six hours of patrol on the St. Lawrence River near Kingston on June 21. Rather than return to a restaurant facility during the lunch period, I directed the OPP staff to arrange a luncheon and that alcoholic beverages be provided. At the time, given that the facilities on the boat included a galley and a head, I saw nothing inappropriate about this gesture.

As the host minister, I was anxious to make the visit of our British guests as informative and pleasant as possible. Since the boat was under the capable control of OPP officers, I initially saw no cause to question the propriety of the lunch. I now know we should have put ashore for such a function. Upon reflection, I can see I may have made a mistake and I apologize to the House and to those who have been offended by my actions. I also intend to contact Sir Kenneth Newman, head of Scotland Yard, and apologize to him as well for any embarrassment caused by my actions.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You have made previous rulings in this regard, for example when the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) rose on a point of personal privilege or personal explanation, and according to Erskine May, this type of point must be made at the end of question period and before orders of the day. You have ruled that way before. There was some derision from members of the government when I rose to ask whether this was a ministerial statement during ministerial statements time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We said no.

Mr. Harris: That is right. Therefore, it was out of order, and we should not have had to listen to the garbage. I ask you to reflect on what has occurred, Mr. Speaker. If a statement has been allowed, it should be treated as a ministerial statement and we should have had an opportunity to respond to it in that way. If that is not your interpretation, I suggest it is all out of order and should be struck from the record.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called for ministerial statements, and I was informed by the minister who rose that it was a point of -- I said "personal explanation," because we do not really have a point of personal privilege, we have a point of privilege, so I accepted it as a point of personal explanation.

Mr. Harris: According to Erskine May, if the Speaker will check the record and the precedents, he will find that was a totally inappropriate ruling. There is no such thing as a point of personal explanation except at that time right before --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will be glad to check Erskine May very carefully, and I will discuss it with the member personally afterwards.

Mr. Gillies: The rather unusual ruling of a few minutes earlier leaves us in doubt on this side of the House as to whether we should be responding to the comments made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes). Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I will do so anyway.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) asked me if I would look at Erskine May. I said I would do so and discuss it with him later. I accepted that as a point of personal explanation. Therefore, I suggest a response would be out of order at the present time.

Mr. Harris: I suggest it would not be out of order to respond to the point. One member has raised the point and it is perfectly in order for other members to comment on it, and that is what my colleague will do now.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, it was not a ministerial statement.

Mr. Harris: I realize that. We are not responding to ministerial statements now. The member has a comment on the point of order that was raised, or the point of privilege or whatever you ruled it.

Mr. Speaker: I said it was a point of personal explanation.

Mr. Harris: Yes. We would like to comment on that. We do not care what you call it.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that; however, a response to that has not happened in the past.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We have a problem here that should be dealt with. If ministers are going to use time that is allocated for ministerial statements and disguise what they are saying as something other than a ministerial statement to prevent the opposition from giving a response to a ministerial statement, then we will have a great deal of difficulty here.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is that a point of order?

Mr. McClellan: It is a point of order.

Mr. Rae: They can respond to our points of order even though we cannot respond to theirs.

Mr. Davis: So much for open government.

Mr. McClellan: If I may, Mr. Speaker, because you allowed the minister to make his statement during the time that is allocated under standing orders for ministerial statements, you should allow the opposition to respond to that statement.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure all we have here is a minor misunderstanding. There were two ministerial statements and they were completed. The Solicitor General wanted to make a point of personal explanation, and because his knowledge of the rules and mine are not as encyclopaedic as that of the member for Nipissing, who knows Erskine May backwards -- some day he will find out how it reads forwards -- he got up at the appropriate time and made a statement and apologized to the House.

Mr. Davis: He made a statement.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is right; it was a declaration. It was not a question.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, you can search the provisions of the rules and advise us when this should be done specifically. We will be glad to accommodate your ruling in every particular.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on the point, you have given great flexibility on whether it is treated as a point of order, a point of explanation or a point of privilege. The point is, my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has risen on a point of order, and you have allowed the other parties time to comment on that point. I do not care what you ruled whatever it was the minister made. If it is a point of order, we would like time to comment on the point of order. If it is a point of privilege, we would like a little time to comment on that.

I will conclude by asking for unanimous consent of the House to provide time for both opposition parties to comment on the inopportunely timed statement made by the Solicitor General.

14:00

Mr. Speaker: We seem to have a little confusion as to whether it was a ministerial statement or a point of personal explanation. I called for statements. The minister said it was not a statement. I understood it to be a point of personal explanation. We have a request now from the member for Nipissing for unanimous consent to comment.

Mr. Rowe: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: No. I understand he wants that within the rules of ministerial statements. There was about a minute and a half left for responses.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if you are asking for unanimous consent, we have no problem in this regard. If the honourable members want to make some comments on it, fine. I simply say there were two statements and then a personal explanation from the minister in which he apologized to the House. Surely there could not be anything healthier than that procedure.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is there unanimous consent to complete the responses to the Solicitor General within the time for responses?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Okay. Go, Phil; come on.

Mr. Gillies: Spokesmen for the government can make light of this issue as much as they may care to. There is a very serious issue that the House has to consider at this point, that being whether the chief law enforcement officer of Ontario did willingly and knowingly partake in a breach of the law of the province.

So far, what do we know? We know that in the course of exercising his responsibilities as Solicitor General of Ontario, the minister entertained dignitaries on a vessel on the waters of this province and that alcohol was consumed on that vessel. Further, we know that the vessel was being conducted through the waters of our province at the time by two members of the Ontario Provincial Police, which then begs the question as to whether, either advertently or inadvertently, by virtue of his office the minister led two law enforcement officers of the province also to be parties to breaking the law.

I suggest it is a very serious matter. The minister quite rightly stood in his place and offered an apology to the House, but that may not be sufficient. It is the feeling of the members of the official opposition that until such time as this matter is properly investigated and cleared up to the satisfaction of the members of this House, the minister should offer his resignation.

Mr. Breaugh: I hesitate to follow that act, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: Do not try.

Mr. Davis: Which one? The one on the river?

Mr. Breaugh: If I take any of these guys on a boat cruise, I have a quick solution to some of the problems they are causing today. It does not involve giving them drinks either.

14:06

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO PLANNING

Mr. Grossman: Can the Premier tell the House how many additional megawatts of power he believes Ontario Hydro will need by the year 2000?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the honourable member knows, a demand study is going on at the moment. There is no sense that there is a crisis that has to be addressed. Hydro is working on that. It will obviously be reviewed by the government at the appropriate time, but there is a great deal of time to do that, and it will be done in the clear light of day.

As he knows, demand projections have changed quite substantially over a period of time. I remember a time, as he remembers a time, when a seven per cent growth in demand was projected, and that has changed. Therefore, I cannot answer the member's specific question today. It will be some time before we can.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier used to suggest that hardly any additional megawatts would be necessary by the year 2000. His chairman of Ontario Hydro has suggested that 3,600 additional megawatts will be required by the year 2000, and his own Ministry of Energy, in a document released by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) last fall, has indicated that, by the ministry's own analysis, 3,000 megawatts of additional uncommitted generation will be necessary in the minimum-case scenario, and it could go as high as 7,000 megawatts.

My simple question for the Premier is this: he has cast doubt upon Mr. Campbell's suggestion that 3,600 megawatts would be necessary; his own Ministry of Energy speculates that, on average, it will be higher than that; surely the Premier, after a year a half in office and after these reports, is able to tell us today how many megawatts he believes at present, on the basis of these reports, will be necessary?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not helpful to the member, and I wish I could be so today, but as I said, these matters have not been determined finally. A lot of analysis is going on, a lot of new approaches are being considered by Ontario Hydro and I do not think there is a definitive answer to his question. As he knows, those long-term projections are only that: long-term projections. When we look back in history, we see that many of them have been wrong. At this point, an operating scenario has not been developed either by Hydro or by the government. When it is we will happily share that information with the member.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has the responsibility, I hope, for influencing the decisions that Hydro has to make now to be ready for the year 2000. They may be long range, but they require a Premier who is actually going to take responsibility to make the decision now. It is a tough part of the job, but he has to face up to it, and his own ministry and Hydro disagree with him on the energy demand.

Given the Premier's own statements when he was not Premier and given the ruminations of the Minister of Energy about Hydro being a Goliath that needs to be brought under control, I wonder whether later this week the Premier will agree to support an amendment to Bill 142, which will be before this House, to require that rate and strategic planning decisions of Ontario Hydro require the final approval of the Ontario Energy Board and to allow an appeal to cabinet.

If he means what he has been saying all these years, will he support that amendment, which will bring all of Hydro's rates and long-term projects to the energy board and to the Ontario cabinet? My party will be moving that amendment later this week. Will he support it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I never cease to be amazed at the honourable member and his party. He keeps changing his mind on those things that he did not support in government but that he supports in opposition. I never cease to be amazed at the road to Damascus --

Mr. Grossman: Does the Premier remember when he was going to fire Tom Campbell? Does he remember when Hydro was a Goliath? Does he remember when he was in favour of extra billing?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I respect Tom Campbell very much. After all, he helped the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) take over the premiership; so I owe him a great deal. The member should call on his help in that particular regard.

We are looking at the relationship of the energy board, the government and Ontario Hydro. We assume the responsibility for a number of these things as they come back, and we do not deny or try to escape that responsibility. If the member just wants to transfer responsibility from one group to another group, ultimately the responsibility comes back to the government and we are prepared to accept that responsibility.

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier. This is one issue on which I hope he will change his position, because he has been making a habit of changing his position on Hydro and many other issues.

Will the Premier reconsider his over-hasty response to the people of Sudbury and accept the request of the representatives of the people of Sudbury to have an inquiry into the affairs of Falconbridge Ltd. and the future plans for the Sudbury basin?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Falconbridge is only one part of the long-term plans for the Sudbury basin area. I am very much familiar with the circumstances that brought this current concern about Falconbridge.

As the honourable member knows, I had a chat with Mr. James not too long ago and I told him --

Mr. Martel: Jesse.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I understand it, his name is Bill James, but I could be mistaken; I have not seen his birth certificate.

I suggested to Mr. James that he go to the community and lay forward his plans for Falconbridge and what is involved in the Sudbury area. I gather he followed that advice. I believe that happened last Saturday. The ministry organized that.

I also understand that some of the people who were most vocal locally did not show up. As I understand it, they, like the honourable member who is making noise on the bench opposite, and his colleague as well, did not show up at that meeting. Obviously, they were not interested in the facts of the situation.

Mr. Martel: We know he would tell lies.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will tell them what the member said in that particular regard.

As I said, if this House can be helpful in focusing Falconbridge, I have no problem with that. Maybe the member will want to have another meeting with Falconbridge, which we will arrange at his convenience, to try to focus those issues he would like to discuss.

Mr. Pope: I know the Premier has talked to Mr. James. I believe the people from Sudbury would like him to talk to them and to their elected representatives. That is the entire point. Will he reconsider his position and allow the inquiry which has been demanded by the representatives of the people of Sudbury to go ahead?

Second, will he indicate clearly for the people of Sudbury who are watching this what his long-term solutions are to economic diversification for the Sudbury basin?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, I am prepared to look at the Falconbridge situation.

Mr. Martel: He does not have any plans.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the member is asking me whether our plans are angora goats the answer is wrong. The only thing the Tories contributed in 40 years was a few angora goats.

Mr. Davis: The Premier has looked into his bag of goodies and he has given them all away.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let us look at some of the initiatives we have undertaken in Sudbury: the contributions in terms of the university, the building up of the mining sector; the moving of civil service jobs and a variety of other things. I know the member is very negative about these things. He will stand up and yap no matter what we do. I understand the political imperative. A lot of thoughtful people in the Sudbury area are saying there is finally a government at Queen's Park that shows sensitivity and is working with the community to solve the problem.

Mr. Pope: We have seen this government's sensitivity. We have seen it back away from its obligations to the lumber workers of this province. There are 800 of them out of work right now because of its negligence in Washington. We have seen how it has done nothing in Sault Ste. Marie for the iron ore workers. We have seen how it has done nothing in Wawa, in Terrace Bay or in Thunder Bay for people who are out of work now, because it does not have a single concrete policy for the people of northern Ontario.

Can the Premier tell me what policy he has to put these laid-off Falconbridge miners back to work?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my honourable colleague opposite -- I understand his standing up in the House and being critical; perhaps he feels he is being paid to do that -- let me tell him that view is not shared by very many people in the north today. They see a government that is demonstrating sensitivity. I am sure the member reads of the things that are going on up there. We are working actively and constructively with those people.

Specifically with respect to the people who are laid off there, we are taking approaches and making economic diversification that we hope will help the community in the long term. I do not have an instant solution to that problem and neither does the member.

Mr. Pope: We had more employment in northern Ontario when we were in power than you have come up with in 18 months.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ON SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. I have in my hand, as they say, a confidential cabinet document, a draft document entitled Policy Options for an Ontario Response to South African Apartheid, dated September 18, 1986. Can the Premier tell us why there has been such an incredible delay in making a decision with respect to the very modest recommendations contained in this draft submission?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want the honourable member to know there is no such thing as a confidential cabinet document any more; so he may have one. As the member knows, we are a government without walls or barriers. I am delighted the member has a copy, and I would like his thoughts on that. It is a matter that is being discussed with the cabinet. On any given issue there are many policy options, so he can give us his thoughts on the matter. I am delighted he has it.

Mr. Rae: The Premier was here, as were the vast majority of us, when Bishop Tutu spoke to us in June 1986. I find it ironic that the Premier would have no response to the very modest but specific recommendations that are contained in this document. Is the Premier saying today that in the face of apartheid he and his government have simply knuckled under to the business lobby, which does not want any action taken by the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Maybe the member is experiencing a business lobby in that regard, but I am not. We are looking at a number of policy options, and I am delighted he has one of the policy papers in front of him. The cabinet is working on the question. When we have an announcement, we will share it with him.

Mr. Rae: We have a document with very specific recommendations, which has been in the hands of the government for a long time. The government has chosen not to act in a number of very clear areas where it could have acted; it has decided clearly not to act.

In the same month that Bishop Tutu was here, the government was asked specifically by the Task Force on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility and by the Jesuits of Upper Canada to join with them, as shareholders in Varity Corp., which the Premier will know is the new name for Massey-Ferguson, to use their collective leverage to get Massey-Ferguson out of South Africa.

Can the Premier explain why, instead of joining with them, he chose to write what can only be described as an incredibly pallid letter to the president of Massey-Ferguson simply asking that the company gives urgent consideration to its policy in South Africa? In the same month that Bishop Tutu was here, why did the Premier not take the opportunity to act when he was clearly given that option and choice?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not agree with the member at all. We took what we believed to be constructive action. Is the member suggesting that the United Church, or whoever he mentioned, the Jesuits of Upper Canada and the government had enough voting clout to control Massey-Ferguson? I do not think he is suggesting that.

As a matter of fact, this government has taken the lead in a number of these issues. He may want to stand up after the fact and say we should do it more quickly, but we were standing up long before many other governments and many other members in this House on these issues. The member has a document that we are discussing. We are continuing to look at the positive initiatives we can undertake to make the views of this government felt strongly here and in South Africa.

14:20

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Premier, who needs to be reminded that he is also the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I will attempt to restrain myself and not respond to his rather cheap shot that the members from the Sudbury area do not care about those layoffs because they did not attend a meeting. There were very valid reasons why we were not in attendance at that meeting.

The Premier will understand that Falconbridge has just doubled its investment in South Africa, as reported in the press this morning. It increased its debt with the purchase of Kidd Creek this past year. It scheduled all sorts of overtime in the Sudbury area. It has continued to refine its ores in Norway. At the same time, it has announced an hourly rated cutback of 275 now and 280 more, I believe it is, in 1988.

Why is the Premier so reluctant, particularly given that he is also the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, to do anything to ameliorate those layoffs and try to get to the bottom of this?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said to the honourable member earlier, we arranged for a meeting to be held in Sudbury. It was organized. It was not a cheap shot. He was invited and chose not to attend. If he had logical reasons for that, that is fair enough. However, he was invited to come and put his questions and his concerns to the management or to anyone else he wanted to talk to. As a matter of fact, and it is not a cheap shot, I was told that the lack of his presence and his colleagues' presence was noted by all. The regional council was there. That is what I have been told.

I am prepared to arrange a public meeting at his convenience with the management of Falconbridge. He can put those concerns. If we can narrow some of the concerns that can be constructively studied by a committee of this Legislature, I can assure the member I have no problem with that.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps I can remind the Premier that there exists in the Sudbury basin what is known as an ad hoc committee. It consists of the two federal MPs and the three provincial MPPs. All five of us did not attend that meeting. None of us, including the chairman of the federal Liberal caucus, Doug Frith, attended that meeting for some very valid reasons. It is inappropriate for the Premier to be taking shots at our lack of attendance at that meeting.

The Premier seemed to equivocate somewhat in his reply to the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). Can I ask him about the whole question of a public inquiry? The ad hoc committee and the entire regional council have requested a public inquiry into those layoffs. Why will the Premier not agree to that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not care whether the chairman of the federal Liberal caucus attended or not. I would tell him exactly the same thing as I am telling the member. He was so activist and was the one trying to promote this meeting and then for some reason he did not show up. I believe there should be a public explanation for these things, and we tried to organize that. I will happily arrange another meeting if he wants to help focus the issues in these matters. If it can be helpfully aired by this House, as I said, I have no problem with that.

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) allowed 70,000 hours of overtime in the first eight months of last year and the company refuses to give to the union the number of hours they have worked, plant by plant, this year. Jesse indicates that they lost $100 million in the past 10 years in Sudbury and no one believes they lost a cent in Sudbury. They believe it was the foreign investment, and not Sudbury, that caused them to lose money, as with Inco. Falconbridge, like Inco, is purchasing both scrap and matte nickel abroad and laying off our people in Sudbury. Does he not think it is time somebody has to account for why our people are laid off and they are purchasing abroad? Does he have the answers to those questions after his meeting with Jesse?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be cast in the role of having to defend that. As I understand it, there are some logical explanations for some of that behaviour. There is no logical explanation I know of for the investment in the South African mine. That disturbs me very much. We have consulted with the Department of External Affairs on that matter. As the member knows, the province does not have the power to change that situation.

I understand there is regular trading on the London Metals Exchange with respect to nickel matte to meet certain overflows. That goes on from time to time. I cannot answer the question with respect to overtime but I will certainly discuss it.

Let me make this recommendation to my friend. He will recall we went through a similar exercise with Inco some time ago. I have no problem with the economic affairs committee or some other committee of this House looking into the entire matter and putting those questions. Why does my friend not go to a meeting that we will arrange in Sudbury for him and whoever else wants to be there to put those very same questions to the appropriate people?

Mr. Martel: We need the documents; we have to subpoena.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member can ask them ahead of time for the documents. He may not be satisfied or he may be satisfied. In other words, he can focus the discussion on an area that will be productive for inquiry by this House. I am not uncomfortable with that by any stretch of the imagination.

I am also told that the Kidd Creek operation is paying for itself. One of the problems with the Falconbridge mines in the Sudbury basin is that they are higher-cost ore bodies. They are talking about closing the East Mine some time in the future. My friend may know of a way to assist Falconbridge in making money from that and keeping it going. I very much hope that will be the case. If the member has some wisdom as to how they can run that mine, I am sure they will be delighted to hear from him.

HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Grossman: I want to return to the Premier. I want to read him some quotes by way of trying to get his support for the Progressive Conservative amendment to Bill 142 this Wednesday or Thursday, to get Ontario Hydro under the control of the Legislature.

On June 10, 1982, "For too long, Ontario Hydro has been allowed to run their affairs without control." This was in a press release put out by the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio). On July 8, 1984, Julian Reed, then Liberal Party Energy critic, said that the energy board hearings were a charade and that Hydro should not be allowed to set its own rates. On April 18, 1985, the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), said: "We will make Hydro accountable. That is the root of the problem with Hydro. They go ahead and spend money with absolutely no public accountability."

The week after the election in 1985, the then Leader of the Opposition was quoted as saying: "Among the concerns he wants addressed is an approval system for setting Hydro rates. The Ontario Energy Board now makes recommendations, but they are not binding and Hydro has ignored them in the past."

Given that long record, will the Premier agree this afternoon to support an amendment we will move to make sure that everything he said previously is implemented and Hydro is brought under control of the Legislature and the energy board?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In the interest of having a full, frank and free discussion of this issue, and I believe it does need to be debated, will the Leader of the Opposition kindly read the responses of the former government when those issues were raised by the opposition?

Mr. Grossman: I remind the Premier that there is a difference. All these statements were made by the current Premier or his Energy critic under his leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party. The positions we are taking are the positions of the new Progressive Conservative Party under its new leader and we are proud to put them forward.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary question would be in order.

Mr. Grossman: In the interests of a full, frank, complete and open discussion of this matter, I would like to read to the Premier a press release put out on September 21, 1983, by the member for London Centre, when Leader of the Opposition, accompanying a private member's bill to bring Ontario Hydro under control and make it more accountable to the people of Ontario.

I wonder whether the Premier is prepared to support the Tory amendment that will be moved this week and that would implement and rectify the concern expressed this way by him three years ago: "Unless public control is regained, Ontario Hydro will take us further down the road of dependence upon nuclear power as a dominant generating force with all of the accompanying uncertainties affecting our financial, physical and environmental wellbeing." Will he support the motion that implements what he said?

14:30

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, may I say as an aside that my friend the official historian for this party informs me this is --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, could you bring in some order? This is a happy occasion.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As usual, I will wait until there is a little more quiet.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, the honourable historian tells me it is the first anniversary of the member opposite as leader of the party. May I convey the congratulations of this side of the House.

By way of preamble to his question, he was talking about the position of the new Progressive Conservative Party. I find that very intriguing, because I find there is a position for the old party, the new party, the new, new party and the new, new, new party after that.

When my friend asks me to support a resolution coming to this House two days from now, the danger is that he may change his mind in the next two days. One never knows what the view of that party will be. There is some scepticism among the members of this House as to whether he will still believe two days from now what he believes today.

I can tell him the position of this party has been consistent. There are things that are happening with respect to Hydro, and I can tell my honourable friend I have not studied his resolution but we will have to let happen what may.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue, who, luckily for all of us and indeed for the province, is the same person.

He will no doubt be aware, because of his vast reading of the daily newspapers, of the appeal that has been launched by LAC Mineral Corp. with respect to the dispute between it and Corona Resources over the gold mines at Hemlo.

He will also know, because of the petitions he has received from a number of communities, that regardless of who wins this battle of the Titans, there are several communities surrounding the Hemlo gold mine that as of this date will receive nothing in municipal taxation from any of those very productive and extremely profitable mines.

The Treasurer will be aware that in the township of Marathon there is a shortage of literally $1 million in property tax that is unassessed and unpaid to the town of Marathon at the same time as the mill is paying $1.6 million in taxes; and his resource equalization grant, in case he was thinking of relying on that rather shifty and weak crutch of an answer, pays $1,510 as opposed to $1 million in property tax -- peanuts.

When is he going to do something for the towns of Marathon, Manitouwadge and White River and make sure the gold companies pay their fair share of municipal taxes?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As the honourable member may recall, the cabinet met in Thunder Bay two months ago, and among the many delegations that came before the cabinet was the mayor of Marathon, a very capable person whose name I am trying to get.

Mr. Rae: Her name is Wendy Bell.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Wendy Bell. The historian told me Wendy, but we could not remember the Bell. She gave a very compelling argument for the sort of special support the honourable member is drawing to my attention.

Mr. Pope: The Treasurer should not be so bloody condescending.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not condescending at all. I am simply indicating that the local administration has very effectively brought this to our attention. I invited her, at a convenient time for her and her council, when she was in Toronto to put a more formal submission, which she has done.

I have asked officials in the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics to give me a series of alternatives that will move as far as possible to make additional funds available. The honourable member and the other members of the House know that Marathon particularly has to provide municipal services for a large number of people who work in the Hemlo gold fields. There is no access to the assessment that would normally come from that very large installation.

We are looking at this, and I can make the commitment to the member and, through the House, to the mayor of Marathon, that we will come up with what we hope will be a suitable answer to this problem in the near future.

Mr. Pouliot: By way of supplementary, I cannot help but notice month after month the kind of attitude the Treasurer takes. He just lies there and does very little to help the people.

It matters little that the three very rich gold mines at Hemlo, the richest in Canada, are assessed; indeed, they can well afford it. It matters a great deal more to the people who are literally left holding the bag. What specific measure is the Treasurer contemplating so that those very rich gold mines are forced to pay municipal taxes for essential services, as is everybody else in White River, Marathon and Manitouwadge, nothing less but nothing more than that?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As usual, I find the honourable member compelling in his arguments. I simply want to reiterate that the officials from the area have brought this to our attention before the whole cabinet and to me as Minister of Revenue. I have indicated to the questioners and to all members of the House that we are going to come forward with positive action in this regard.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Sterling: My question is to the Solicitor General concerning the recent news that he used an Ontario Provincial Police patrol boat for entertainment purposes this past summer.

As a former charter boat owner and particularly as Solicitor General, he must be aware that the policy of the OPP is to lay a charge in the case where alcohol is being consumed when a boat is under way. Can the minister tell us why the OPP did not lay a charge in this particular instance?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: No, I cannot.

Mr. Rowe: They forget their pencil.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I cannot give the member any particular answer to why they did not lay any charge. There is a problem area in knowing exactly when and what law is being violated in that situation. Perhaps it is something that may be addressed to another one of my colleagues responsible for the acts to which it might relate.

Mr. Pope: Oh no. He had a reception on the front lawn and nothing happened.

Mr. Grossman: He is the pitcher, not the catcher.

Mr. Baetz: The simple answer is resignation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton-Grenville would like to ask a supplementary, I believe.

Mr. Sterling: The minister may be interested to learn that we spoke today with the OPP and were informed by Superintendent Burke that a charge was not laid in this case because there were dignitaries on board. Can the minister tell us whether there are two sets of rules, one for boats with dignitaries and one for the ordinary people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I did not distinctly hear a --

Mr, Pope: Was this your Thrill of a Lifetime, Ken?

Mr. Rowe: No. It was Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

Mr. Stevenson: Goodbye, Ken.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon, Mr. Keyes: No one is above the law of the country. There are no two sets of laws.

14:40

PUBLIC UTILITIES

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Can he explain why he allows publicly owned and operated utility corporations to penalize the poor and to threaten them with termination of services? Why does he still allow public utility commissions to demand guarantee deposits and threaten the poor of this province that they will terminate the supply of electrical power?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: If the honourable member wants to provide me with more information, I will gladly provide him with an answer.

Mr. Breaugh: I have written to the minister on the specifics of the case. It happens to be in London, the municipality of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), where the public utilities commission is demanding guarantee deposits of about $180 from poor people who actually owe the utility about $22. Does he not think that is ridiculous?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: It may sound ridiculous, but I do not know the rules and regulations on energy or what the hydro people charge. I will definitely bring him a more reasonable answer.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Solicitor General. If we take in good faith the Solicitor General's last answer, that there is one law in this province for all the people, in view of this flagrant breaking of the law, will he ensure that a charge will be laid regarding this incident in June? Will he do so to demonstrate to the people of this province that there is one law for all the people, regardless of whether he is the Solicitor General of the province?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: There is one law in this province for all individuals, whether it is under the Retail Business Holidays Act or anything else. Whether charges are laid under the laws of the country rests basically with the officers who are in charge in a particular area. Take a look at last week on Sunday in the same way. I do not order the police to lay charges against anyone.

Mr. Gillies: Does the Solicitor General realize the discredit he risks bringing on the Ontario Provincial Police, when he knows that as Solicitor General he is expecting a junior officer to lay a charge against a minister of the crown through whom that officer's agency reports? Will the minister not recognize that the honourable thing for him to do is to maintain the good reputation and honour of the OPP and ensure himself that such a charge is laid?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: As I stated earlier, it is not my role to order any of our police officers to go out and lay charges against any individual in this province. They have the ability to make that determination.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Welland-Thorold is waiting patiently with a new question.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and deals with insurance. I want to bring to his attention the case of Donna Weiland of 25 Argyle Court in Welland. During the past three years her husband has lost points for nonuse of his seatbelt and for speeding, but he has not had an insurance claim.

The premium for his insurance rose from $840 annually to $2,300; and although Donna, his wife, has a perfect driving record and owns her own car, her insurance on renewal doubled because of his record.

Given that penalization of all motorists in a household for one driver's record is common practice in all insurance companies, and certainly has to be deplored by any fair-minded person, will the minister tell us today the steps he has taken to correct this very grave injustice to innocent people?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Welland-Thorold has raised a question that is dealt with by insurance companies all the time. It is perceived that notwithstanding their having an accident or not, people who have moving offences, such as speeding, are certainly likely to have accidents more frequently than those who do not, regardless of whether they have had that accident. That is a matter of classification.

Notwithstanding all that, the member should know we are looking at the problems in this to see whether we can come to a resolution that will be fair, equitable and responsible.

Mr. Swart: The minister simply refuses to look at the real alternative.

I would like to put a supplementary to the Lord Nelson of the insurance industry. Even with his blind eye to the telescope, he must know those penalties to innocent drivers in the same household do not take place in the public auto insurance plans in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Those public plans consider people innocent until proven guilty; thus, they do not charge penalty rates because of age, sex or marital status, nor are people guilty by association.

Given the minister's indifference or inability to get the private insurance companies to do anything about these problems, why does he not abandon his stubborn refusal even to consider the option of a public plan and at least make a comprehensive evaluation of rates and policies between the public plans and the broken-down insurance system in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thought the member for Welland-Thorold would never ask. I would like to quote a few facts that might bring this whole issue into some perspective. Members of the third party are constantly extolling the virtues of various insurance plans in other parts of the country. I would like to show the following to all members of the House.

This headline in the Winnipeg Free Press says, "Autopac Expected to Lose $4 Million." The article begins, "Autopac will lose at least $4 million this year after a profit last year, the minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. confirmed yesterday. MPIC sources said that Autopac's losses this year could be even much higher than that." It goes on to say, "The MPIC is poised for huge losses in coming years."

I would also like to quote for the members' benefit from an article that appeared in the Toronto Star on Friday, November 14, under the headline "Car Insurance in BC Seen Costing More in `87." The article says, "About a million motorists will pay from $1 to $25 more for their Autoplan insurance in 1987."

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Listen to this. I have not finished. "An additional 250,000 car owners will see their premiums increase by $26 to $50 - "

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are some very strange sounds in here today.

14:50

SALE OF LANDS

Mr. Partington: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs relating to a matter I raised last week. By letter to me dated November 3, 1986, the minister indicated that the matter of the sale of approximately 14 acres of town-owned land by Vaughan council was still under review, even though it was first brought to his attention in the spring, and that options other than an inquiry were being considered. What other options is the minister considering?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: My answer has not changed since last week. The matter is still under investigation. Neither the Ministry of Municipal Affairs nor the Minister of Municipal Affairs will interfere with that investigation.

Mr. Partington: Given that ministry staff indicated on September 30 that the results of its investigation were now in the minister's hands and that by July 31 the requisite petition from local ratepayers had been received by the ministry and given the minister's statement today in which he said, "This government has a clear commitment to open government," why has the minister not exercised his jurisdiction and called for an inquiry as envisioned under the Municipal Act? Is this search for options just one more attempt by the government to sweep this matter under the carpet?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The ministry and this open government of ours will not condemn people before we find them guilty. That is the policy of this government. We will continue the investigation until we get to the bottom of it.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Wildman: In the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), who I understand is at the conference today with Miss Carney and the other provincial ministers, and of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer with regard to the countervail.

Are the minister and his government aware that approximately 800 to 1,000 northern Ontario workers have been laid off since the 15 per cent countervail duty was announced in the United States because US orders have dropped off substantially? In my riding, that includes 150 mill workers at Searchmont, where the G. W. Martin mill has shut down, and 35 cutters at Dubreuilville, who worked for Dubreuil Brothers Ltd. If he is aware of that, will the Treasurer explain why the Ontario government failed to file notice with the US Department of Commerce by the November 30 deadline that this government wished to participate and to appeal the softwood lumber tariff?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was not personally aware of the size of the layoffs, although I have been following it with all the information that is available to me. I know the minister and the Premier have been following this very closely and through their own statements have indicated their intention to support Miss Carney as powerfully as we possibly can. The fact that there has not been an appeal filed by Ontario is something I am not personally aware of.

Mr. Pope: I pointed it out a week ago.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not listen to your questions in as much detail as I should.

I think the Premier's statement, supported by the minister, that we are supporting Miss Carney in her attempts to have the countervail removed and reversed is a strong position for the province and an effective one.

Mr. Wildman: With regard to the trade ministers' conference in Ottawa today, can the Treasurer indicate what the position of this government will be at that conference with regard to the British Columbia position that Canada should indicate before the next November 28 deadline a willingness to negotiate a so-called suspension agreement rather than emphasizing the withdrawal of the 15 per cent countervail?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot respond to the question in any useful way. I will bring the matter the honourable member has raised to the attention of the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

[Later]

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order: I would like to correct the record. I apparently inadvertently misspoke myself and indicated that the deadline this government failed to meet was November 30. In fact, it was November 3, which is what I intended to say. The other deadline I mentioned, November 28, is correct.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very good point of personal explanation.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Gregory: I have a question for the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue. In response to questions from the leader of the official opposition, from myself and from the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), the minister has indicated his refusal to allow the release of individual market value assessments for Metropolitan Toronto. The reason he has given for this refusal is the concern that such release may cause a deluge of assessment appeals by home owners.

When will the minister take a position of representing the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto by releasing these figures so that the taxpayers will have an opportunity to see what lies in store for them under market value assessment?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a letter from the Metro chairman dated today, November 18. While I will have only a moment to read a couple of lines from it, I will table the letter so the honourable member and others interested in this important matter will know what the view of the Metro chairman is.

The member asking the question, formerly the Minister of Revenue, will be aware that the impact study on reassessment is based on 1980 figures. The indication I have repeatedly given to the House is that we are prepared to work in as close co-operation as possible with the Metro chairman and his task force dealing with reassessment. I will read three short excerpts from his letter:

"The council has endorsed the use of a Metropolitan-wide section 63 as the means of implementing reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto, subject to satisfactory resolution of a series of implementation details....

"Because the Metropolitan council does not wish to consider market value reassessment for 1987 based on the 1980 figures, the first priority at this stage is to get your commitment" -- the letter is addressed to me - "for the production of an assessment impact study for a Metropolitan-wide section 63 based on 1984 market values.

"Specifically, release of 1980 data by property will only serve to confuse taxpayers at this juncture."

He goes on to indicate, "The excellent co-operation and advice provided by you" -- that is me - "and your staff is even more critical now that the Metropolitan council...will obviously be dependent upon the availability of current and accurate reassessment values and the satisfactory resolution of implementation details."

Mr. Speaker, I know you are concerned about this and I will be glad to table the letter.

Mr. Gregory: It must be apparent even to the Treasurer why the delay has been requested. We all know that. It does not come as any surprise. We know when municipal elections come. Even though we are on this side, we know that; so we know why the delay has been requested.

It is very apparent to me that the minister has chosen to protect the councils of the various municipalities as opposed to the taxpayers of those municipalities; yet it is the members of those same councils who are solely responsible for delaying the implementation of assessment tax reform in Metropolitan Toronto. In other words, the Treasurer is protecting the people who are delaying him in doing it, and he is telling the taxpayers, "To hell with you, we are not going to give you the information."

Will the Treasurer indicate when he will have some consideration for the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto and give them the information they need to make a value judgement on whether it is good for them?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have every consideration for the taxpayers and I am delighted the Metro council has decided by its vote, after ample debate, to go forward with the section 63 reassessment across the Metropolitan area. I have given my commitment to co-operate with the various councils, and particularly the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, in every way I possibly can. I am very glad to bring his views on this important matter to the attention of the member and the House.

PROPANE EXPLOSION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about an explosion that took place in my riding yesterday.

The minister will no doubt be aware from reports within his office and from news reports of a major explosion with significant damage to property, though thank goodness no loss of life, that took place on the corner of Weston Road and Victoria Boulevard in the constituency of York South. It was a propane station. When I visited the site this morning, there was an inspection going on. As yet there has been no report on the cause of the accident.

Is the minister in a position to inform the House about the cause of the accident? What steps is he taking to make sure that kind of accident does not happen again?

15:00

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the leader of the third party for his question. He should know that yesterday as a result of the explosion the inspectors from the fuels safety branch of my ministry went to the site and conducted an investigation in conjunction with the fire marshal and the local fire department. To this moment, I do not have a report from them. They are still investigating the cause. There are many extenuating circumstances and they have not isolated the cause yet.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister tell the House whether he is satisfied, on the basis of the answers to the questions that I know he must have asked by now, that a sufficient number of inspections was carried out once the site was licensed and given permission to operate? Is he satisfied that a sufficient number of monthly or bimonthly inspections took place from the time the licence was granted earlier this year to the time of the explosion?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is right, I have asked those questions. The only information I can give him is that on March 17, 1986, the first inspection for the new installation was made. I do not have any information subsequent to that date. That is being investigated by my officials, and as soon as I have that information I will convey it to him.

PROVINCIAL SYMBOL

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. Two weeks ago I asked him to give us details concerning a study that was commissioned by his government at a cost of between $30,000 and $40,000 with regard to recommendations as to the effectiveness of our official provincial flower, the trillium. Will he now make public the results of this report?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: A letter in response to the honourable member's question is being prepared. I will see that it gets to him. If he wants it tabled as public information, I will be glad to do that.

Mr. Rowe: That is interesting. It is nice to receive letters from the chairman; however, that is not what I am asking for. I am asking for the results of the report. The report was to be received by Management Board on June 30 of this year and he has had five months to make the report available. Why does he insist on hiding it? What is he covering up?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is not a hidden report and we are not covering up. I have not read the report and I was not even aware of its existence until the honourable member raised it.

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister knows there are 318,000 mothers in Ontario with small children under the age of six who need child care, there are several hundred thousand others with children over the age of six who need some care after school, and there are only 85,000 licensed day care spaces in Ontario.

Apart from telling municipalities they can apply to him for hardship funding when he removes the indirect grants to municipal day care centres, can the minister tell us what exactly he is doing to meet that need?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member knows, over the past year and a half we have increased the total number of subsidized spaces in the province by 50 per cent. Granted the base was low, so that 50 per cent does not say as much as we would like it to say, but at least it is movement in that direction.

The member will also be aware that we have set up four rural programs to attempt to find the best way to deal with child care in the rural areas. She will also be aware that we have set up a number of school-age programs in co-operation with municipalities, local school boards and local departments of recreation.

The member will also be aware that we are in the process right now -- and hope to conclude them in a very short time -- of negotiations with the federal government to get cost sharing for a couple of other initiatives we want to take. That will make a difference.

Finally, the member will be aware that I have been in direct consultation with a number of municipalities, most recently in northwestern Ontario, as to how the effect of the transitional grants to replace the indirect subsidies will impact on them.

Despite the fact that we still have a lot to do, we have done a considerable amount.

Ms. Gigantes: While the minister gives us all these explanations, the waiting lists for child care in organized child care centres in Ontario have increased by 50 per cent in the last year. There is a waiting list of 2,000 in Metro Toronto alone, and for two-and-a-half-year-olds in the city of Ottawa one has to wait 10 months to get a space.

Can the minister tell us what he is going to do to meet this crisis in child care? Can he tell us what he is going to do now?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have already indicated to the member the projects and initiatives we have on the go right now. She will be aware that in addition to the licensed centre spaces, we have quite a large number of spaces in private home day care that are also licensed and supervised.

Very recently, I spoke to the Private Home Day Care Association of Ontario and indicated a couple of changes it had asked for. First, as of January 1, we will be moving from an attendance basis to an enrolment basis for remuneration. Second, two areas in our regulations section that are causing them problems will be eliminated. We are moving in that direction as well.

The other point I would draw to the member's attention is that while we are moving to create more subsidized and licensed spaces, we are also assisting those families who have their children in the informal system, not all of which is inadequate. We now have 100 resource centres across the province. We are expanding each of those and we will be adding more of those as well.

PETITIONS

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition opposing Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track. It is signed by 54 persons and it reads as follows:

"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 the Ontario Racing Commission in its hearing into the Ontario Jockey Club application for Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track has ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the concerns of residents surrounding the aforesaid racetrack;

"And whereas many residents have shown their concern with the impact of Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track on their neighbourhood and have indicated their wish to voice that concern;

"That the government amend the Racing Commission Act to ensure that the rights and concerns of residents in the neighbourhood of the racetrack and in the surrounding community be considered and protected by the Ontario Racing Commission in setting racing dates, times and schedules;

"Further, that the legislation provide that the long tradition of no Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track be maintained."

I support this petition.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition signed by 405 residents of the Sault Ste. Marie area, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye):

"We the undersigned beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the minimum wage be increased from $4 per hour to $6 per hour over a period of two years."

Too many of the working poor in Ontario are being paid wages that will not keep their families above the poverty level. I support this petition, and hope the government will act to ensure that the working poor have a better opportunity in this province.

USE OF 2,4-D

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 219 people from Algoma and Sault Ste. Marie which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton):

"We the undersigned beg leave to petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ministry of Transportation and Communications use cutters to cut unwanted vegetation on their rights of way rather than using Tordon 101, 2,4-D. Failing that, we request that any area sprayed must have warning signs posted to warn people of its use."

I am in support of this petition and hope that the review of the use of 2,4-D will result in its being banned for use by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

15:10

MOTIONS

REFERRAL OF BILLS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the orders for second reading of Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Windsor, and Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the County of Huron, be discharged and the bills be referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

Mr. McClellan: Is Bill Pr7 the bill that was amended to include right-to-know provisions?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes, and I think we got the agreement of the honourable member who brought in the amendments to send it back to committee for review since general legislation has right-to-know provisions. If the member would like that stood down until --

Mr. McClellan: If the minister is saying the member agreed to it, I will take his word for it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), who expressed a concern to me that the private bill dealt with a matter he was dealing with in general legislation, gave me to understand that his colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) had agreed. I do not know anything other than that. The indication is that it would be sent back to the committee. If that agreement is not precise, perhaps it can be dealt with as it was before.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. Philip and Mr. Grande exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF LINDSAY ACT

Mr. G. I. Miller moved first reading of Bill Pr20, An Act respecting the Town of Lindsay.

Motion agreed to.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: I must begin by saying that the Ontario Federation of Naturalists told me its members are tired of my ridiculing the Ministry of Labour by calling it the swamp. They say there are good things in swamps, except at 400 University Avenue.

The purpose of this bill is to provide greater protection for the health and safety of workers, since the Ministry of Labour will not. Persons who were formerly excluded from the protection of the act would now be covered by the repeal of subsections 3(2) and (3), 8(1) and 23(1) and (2), plus a whole series of other amendments which give power to the workers to protect themselves at last.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am tabling the answers to questions 296, 384, 397, 398, 401 and 449, and the interim answer to question 404 [ssee Hansard for Monday, November 24].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

Mr. Eves moved, on behalf of Mr. Cousens, second reading of Bill Pr23, An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. McFadden moved second reading of Bill Pr24, An Act to change the name of the Institute of Management Consultants of Ontario to the Institute of Certified Management Consultants of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LONDON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

Ms. E. J. Smith moved, on behalf of Mr. Offer, second reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting London Life Insurance Company.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT

Ms. E. J. Smith moved, on behalf of Mr. Polsinelli, second reading of Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to make a few brief remarks on this bill.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: You got it.

Mr. Warner: Is the government House leader disappointed that there will be only a few brief remarks? Is that what the problem is? At his request, I could make a lengthy speech, if that would be more suitable.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I know you can. By the time you quit fooling around, it will be.

Mr. Warner: I see. I am quite pleased to see this bill come before the House. I gather that my good colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) had some considerable input into helping to generate the Legislation.

I am not sure about other people's communities, but in ours we have had some difficulty in attempting to protect our ravines. This legislation will assist Scarborough in helping to protect our ravines and to ensure that people do not make adjustments to their property without duly notifying the authorities so they do not create problems. Unfortunately, we had a circumstance whereby some individuals made changes to their property that backed on to a ravine. In turn, that ultimately caused some flooding somewhere else in the ravine, and the damage that resulted from that flooding was quite extensive.

15:20

As the members are well aware, unless we take positive steps to protect our environment, in some cases there is no opportunity to redress damage that is done. This is a positive step by the city of Scarborough. I am quite pleased to see it bring the legislation forward.

It should be noted that Scarborough means business with this. There is a provision for fines of up to $25,000, exclusive of cost, for breaching the provisions regarding the destruction of trees. We in Scarborough are quite intent on doing everything reasonable and possible to help protect our natural environment. This is one very positive step forward. Along with my good colleague, who now is entering the House, I am most pleased to support it. He in turn might wish to make a few remarks since he was the instigator of this good piece of legislation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As always, the intuition of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) is right on. I do wish to make a few comments.

An hon. member: Infallible.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Close to infallible, one would have to say. I appreciate the note that brought me scurrying back here. I had no idea the Legislature would act with propitious haste today on these private members' matters. It would be a shame for this bill to go through without my being able to participate a little in the debate because of the origins of this bill.

Although there has been a long-standing dialogue in Scarborough about the need to protect our ravines, such a wonderful natural asset, there has not been the same kind of protection that has been evident in the city of Toronto. It was because of a particular case in my riding that this bill was actually developed and brought forward. Not to seem small-minded about this, I might remind the government, especially with the whip and the government House leader in the House, that it used to be the practice of the past government, when issues affecting the riding of Riverdale and eastern Toronto were raised, to give Mr. Renwick the privilege of bringing those private bills into the House even though there were many Conservative majorities through those years.

As this bill had its initiation because of a case in my riding, I would have felt very privileged indeed to have been the person who brought it forward rather than a member from North York, from the government caucus, which is what it decided to do. It is not that I regret that the name of the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) is on this bill. Rather, since the whole cause and issue developed as a result of an issue in my riding, it might have been nice to have been approached on this matter.

The matter involved somebody trying to develop into the ravine from his private property an extension in the Fallingbrook Crescent area of my riding that would have unduly affected both other private properties in the area and the ravine itself; it would have jeopardized its ability to exist. This legislation finally gives power to the city of Scarborough to take action to stop this kind of untoward development that may jeopardize the ravines in our area. They are such fragile pieces of property, I am delighted to see it here.

I am not going to take the time of the members of the House at this point to talk at length about the problems we had. Let it be said that they were substantial and that I welcome this very swift action in terms of trying to mediate the problem. I do not wish my remarks to seem as though I was only concerned that I might have been the one who introduced it. It would have been nice to have been informed about its introduction and to have been given the possibility of being the member who brought it forward and at least to have had a chance to speak to it more fully in committee.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to acknowledge what the member for Scarborough West said about the carriage of private legislation. My own experience with this is that the municipality concerned asks a member of the Legislature to do it; it is not at the advice of the government, although I could be wrong in this regard.

While the honourable member was speaking, the whip, who moved second reading in the absence of the member for Yorkview, suggested that as an indication of our close co-operation in this important matter, when the order for third reading comes, the member for Scarborough West might like to move third reading in the absence of the member for Yorkview.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is very kind of the government House leader to say so. I accept the suggestion. The problem was that the city made a request of a cabinet minister, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton); therefore, it was not possible, and it fell to the member for Yorkview in the end.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 22, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities;

Bill 23, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to Line Fences;

Bill 25, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act;

Bill 72, An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act;

Bill 123, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

Bill 128, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

LOI DE 1986 SUR LES SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS / FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES ACT

L'hon. M. Grandmaître propose la troisième lecture du projet de loi 8, Loi assurant la prestation de services en français par le gouvernement de l'Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved third reading of Bill 8, An Act to provide for French Language Services in the Government of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the honourable minister and one or two others might like to have a word to say on this important occasion, and perhaps the minister would start.

If the minister does not choose to speak, then of course he can wind up, and the honourable members from the opposition who have been prepared to speak might be good enough to stand up and get going.

15:30

M. Shymko: Monsieur le Président, comme vous le savez, nous soutenons le projet de loi 8. Nous sommes fiers du fait que cette loi devient enfin réalité. C'est grâce aux recommandations, aux amendements de ce côté-ci que l'on a inclus le palier municipal dans le secteur tenu d'offrir des services en français.

Je voudrais simplement indiquer qu'une délégation de représentants des universités est présente aujourd'hui.

Il y a une inégalité régionale qui existe aujourd'hui en ce qui concerne l'accès des jeunes Franco-Ontariens aux universités. Nous savons très bien qu'en débattant le projet de loi en deuxième lecture, on a essayé de souligner les questions de l'enseignement et de l'accès aux universités et des moyens d'ouvrir ces portes aux jeunes francophones qui n'y ont pas accès.

Nous savons très bien que c'est seulement à l'Université d'Ottawa que se trouve une faculté de médecine qui donne de l'instruction en langue française. C'est seulement à l'Université d'Ottawa que nous trouvons une telle faculté de loi. C'est seulement à l'Université d'Ottawa qu'on peut suivre des cours pour devenir technicien dans le secteur de la médecine.

Nous savons très bien que le critère d'admission à l'Université d'Ottawa est un critère régional, la priorité qu'on donne est une priorité régionale et on ferme les portes aux jeunes Franco-Ontariens du Nord de l'Ontario, ceux des régions hors de la capitale, Ottawa, et ceux des alentours d'Ottawa. C'est par miracle qu'un jeune étudiant candidat de Timmins, de Kapuskasing, de North Bay peut être admis à la faculté de médecine ou à la faculté de loi de l'université pour suivre n'importe quel cours à l'Université d'Ottawa.

Et cette inégalité nous trouble. Je suis fier du fait que le ministre de l'Éducation (M. Conway) est présent aujourd'hui lors de l'adoption de la troisième lecture de ce projet de loi.

Je voudrais que cette préférence régionale, cette discrimination soit éliminée par tous les moyens.

Espérons que, dans le travail de cette commission pendant les trois prochaines années, il y aura des recommandations au gouvernement, au ministre des Collèges et Universités (M. Sorbara) ainsi qu'au ministre de l'Éducation, pour éliminer ces obstacles à l'entrée de nos jeunes étudiants dans les universités.

Comme je l'ai dit auparavant, je félicite le gouvernement pour le fait qu'enfin, on a une loi. Je félicite le gouvernement du fait que l'on a inclus les municipalités parmi les organismes tenus d'offrir des services en français. On a essayé de faire adopter un amendement qui aurait permis à la commission de présenter son rapport après deux ans au lieu de trois ans; malheureusement, on l'a rejeté. C'est la vie, on ne peut pas tout gagner. Alors, espérons que cette loi va éliminer l'injustice qui, pendant de longues années, était une réalité dans cette province.

M. Pouliot: Monsieur le Président, ça fait plaisir chez nous, les francophones de l'Ontario; mais permettez-moi d'ajouter, non seulement pour ceux de l'Ontario mais aussi pour ceux des provinces voisines, soit le Manitoba, qu'on y ajoute la province de Québec et les autres territoires qui font partie de notre grand et beau pays.

Ceci est un jour historique, avec un document symbolique. Il y a longtemps que nous attendons que justice soit faite à la francophonie en Ontario. Bien sûr, on aurait pu nous dire aujourd'hui que l'enchâssement des droits chez nous était chose faite, qu'on garantissait les droits de la minorité francophone en Ontario dans la Constitution. Le gouvernement n'a pas choisi de le faire à cette époque, de le faire aujourd'hui.

Quand même, dans l'esprit de solidarité qui a caractérisé les débats -- je parle ici, naturellement, de la loi qui sera adoptée dans quelques minutes, espérons-le à l'unanimité, celle qui a été attendue -- on pourrait dire que c'est le début d'un temps nouveau; qu'aujourd'hui débute l'espoir que demain, l'an prochain, dans les années à venir, les services offerts aux francophones seront des services de tous les jours; et peut-être qu'un jour, si on suit cette philosophie, nous pourrions tous ensemble avoir chez nous, francophones, les services que non seulement les anglophones mais d'autres personnes prennent pour acquis quotidiennement.

Depuis 400 ans -- et je n'ai pas l'intention de prendre les quelques minutes qui sont à ma disposition pour rappeler aux députés ce qui s'est passé depuis le temps de Cartier, suivi de celui de Champlain en passant enfin par celui de Maisonneuve -- mais il faut dire que nous sommes un peuple fondateur, que nous avons attendu et nous avons su mettre, avec l'aide de plusieurs, nos idées et nos aspirations sur le papier.

Aujourd'hui, c'est un jour de victoire. Si on me permet de le dire, je vois mon cher ami le député de High Park-Swansea (M. Shymko), qui lui aussi a su lutter avec nous. Naturellement, il y en a d'autres: mes amis du Parti libéral se sont joints aux Conservateurs et à nous.

Donc, on dit merci à plusieurs personnes. On dit merci à l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario. On connaît le compliment que M. Plouffe nous a fait par ses visites. Si on parle de M. Plouffe et de ses efforts comme président de l'ACFO, il faut aussi souligner les efforts de Catherine Lengyel. Ce sont des gens qui ont su nous appuyer et nous signaler ce qu'il fallait faire afin que justice soit faite, et qui ont su aussi nous encourager à le faire.

Donc, je termine ces propos en disant que bien sûr, on aurait voulu faire plus, mais nous ne devons pas oublier les efforts du gouvernement libéral, appuyés, naturellement, par les efforts du Nouveau Parti démocratique, en s'appuyant sur ce que l'ancien gouvernement du premier ministre Davis avait commencé.

Donc, à la Chambre, à mes collègues de l'autre côté, ainsi qu'à ceux de droite, on dit merci collectivement, on dit merci individuellement. Mais le plus important c'est le lever d'un jour nouveau oû la francophonie, chez nous, en Ontario, devient chose vivante. Aujourd'hui, je suis fier d'être ici et de dire que chez le premier ministre (M. Peterson), je me sens chez nous.

M. Morin: Lorsqu'on qualifie l'adoption de la loi sur les services en français de moment historique, c'est bien peu dire. Les Francophone-Ontariens ont attendu ce moment avec beaucoup de patience, depuis les débuts de la Confédération. Je suis donc extrêmement fier, en tant que Libéral, d'être membre du gouvernement qui a présenté cette loi. Je suis également très fier, à titre de vice-président, d'avoir eu le privilège d'assurer la présidence du comité plénier de l'Assemblée législative lorsque celui-ci a étudié le projet de loi 8, article par article, examen qui s'est d'ailleurs déroulé presque uniquement en français. Cela aussi est d'une importance historique.

15:40

D'assurer la présidence m'a également permis d'apprécier à sa juste valeur l'esprit de collaboration démontré par les groupes de pression, comme l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, ainsi que par les députés des trois partis. J'aimerais souligner, en particulier, la contribution des députés d'Oshawa (M. Breaugh), d'Ottawa Est (M. Grandmaître), de Cornwall (M. Guindon), de Prescott-Russell (M. Poirier), de Lac Nipigon (M. Pouliot), de York Sud (M. Rae), de High Park-Swansea et de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry (M. Villeneuve). La collaboration remarquable et l'appui non partisan prêté aux services gouvernementaux bilingues dont ont fait preuve tous ces députés offrent un exemple admirable aux autres provinces canadiennes qui ne garantissent pas encore ce droit à leur population francophone.

Je ne me fais cependant pas d'illusions. Le projet de loi 8 ne constitue qu'un point de départ. Il reste encore beaucoup à accomplir, notamment une explication claire et précise des dispositions de la loi, à l'intention du public. Tous et chacun doivent comprendre que cette loi ne pose de menace à personne mais, au contraire, constitue un indice de progrès. Il s'agit là d'un grand pas en avant.

Enfin, nous devons tous nous féliciter de notre bon travail au chapitre des services en français.

M. Villeneuve: Moi aussi il me fait plaisir de donner mon approbation au projet de loi 8, tel que discuté récemment en Chambre tout en français. C'était certainement une journée très spéciale pour la Législature de la province de l'Ontario. Je regrette que nous ne puissions pas rendre ce projet de loi légal avant trois ans. Alors, on parle probablement de 1990 et, espérons-le, un peu plus tôt, mais on vise 1990.

Le projet de loi 8 va certainement ouvrir des portes à nos Ontariens d'expression française. Je donne mon appui au projet de loi 8 avec des réserves. Je sais que certaines personnes sont venues de Prescott-Russell, aujourd'hui, faire des démarches auprès du ministre de l'Éducation, que je vois en Chambre cet après-midi, parce que le projet de loi 75 nous permet d'être maîtres chez nous, sauf dans Prescott-Russell.

Je suggère fortement au ministre de l'Éducation de jeter un coup d'oeil de nouveau sur son projet de loi. Peut-être la région de Prescott-Russell devrait-elle, avec ses 75 pour cent d'Ontariens d'expression française, être choyée un peu plus que l'on le fait actuellement.

Il était aussi ironique, cet après-midi, que nous avions en Chambre des élèves de l'École secondaire de Penetanguishene. Il se produit des choses un peu drôles depuis que le juge Sirois a rendu sa décision. Il semblerait -- et je suis content que le premier ministre de l'Ontario soit ici cet après-midi -- que le gouvernement de l'Ontario soit en train de remettre en question la décision du juge Sirois.

En d'autres mots, le gouvernement de l'Ontario nous donne quelque chose qui, je l'espère, n'est pas seulement symbolique, comme mon collègue de gauche l'a mentionné, mais qui va prendre racine et ne pas être seulement du symbolisme. Mais la question de la décision du juge Sirois, dont le gouvernement de l'Ontario fait appel actuellement, me laisse inquiet. Cela m'inquiète énormément parce que si la décision du juge Sirois était renversée, nos Ontariens d'expression française dans la région de Penetanguishene deviendraient des citoyens de deuxième classe, et ce n'est pas la façon dont on devrait procéder, surtout qu'en cette journée nous présentons le projet de loi 8 qui est censé nous donner l'égalité.

Alors, ce sont les choses qui m'inquiètent, et je suis certainement heureux de voir que le premier ministre, ainsi que le ministre de l'Éducation, sont en Chambre cet après-midi. J'aimerais connaître leurs réactions sur ces quelques questions.

M. Poirier: En attendant qu'il y ait plus de députés francophones chez les Néo-Démocrates, on va prendre le tour.

À titre de député de Prescott-Russell, à titre de Franco-Ontarien et également à titre de président de la section de l'Ontario de l'Association internationale des parlementaires de langue française, c'est un plaisir pour moi de me présenter en Chambre et d'appuyer la troisième lecture du projet de loi 8, garantissant des services en français à la population francophone de l'Ontario.

On a parlé, lors des anciens discours justement, de toutes les attentes que les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes ont eues à travers les temps, en Ontario. Je me rappelle, en lisant le livre Nos Parlementaires, de l'auteur Paul-François Sylvestre, qu'on s'aperçoit que depuis le tout début de l'Ontario, les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes ont lutté avec acharnement pour essayer d'obtenir de ce gouvernement-ci la reconnaissance du droit à recevoir des services en langue française.

Également, je souligne qu'à titre de député libéral, membre du gouvernement Peterson, j'ai eu l'honneur de participer pleinement et d'appuyer mon collègue le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones (M. Grandmaître), depuis le tout début, pour que le gouvernement libéral Peterson soit le premier à faire une si grande journée pour l'avancement de la cause des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes.

On a également souligné que c'est une première étape dans les grands pas à prendre vers une reconnaissance officielle de la langue française en Ontario. Récemment, nous avons eu plusieurs rencontres avec des parlementaires de langue française qui sont venus d'ailleurs, à Toronto, pour l'installation officielle de l'AIPLF, le 5 septembre, et je peux dire que ces bonnes gens ont été fortement impressionnés par l'appui de ce gouvernement-ci au développement de la langue et de la culture françaises en Ontario. Je suis certain que nous ferons encore beaucoup plus. Nous mettrons sur pied un système valable et efficace. Cela prendra trois ans, s'il le faut, mais nous serons fiers du système en place.

Nous sommes également fiers de l'appui que nous avons reçu de la population francophone. Évidemment, ça fait très longtemps que nous aurions dû recevoir ces services-là, cette loi-là. Mais la récompense vient toujours à ceux et celles qui savent patienter.

Peu de temps après l'arrivée du gouvernement libéral en place, voilà le projet de loi 8, avec l'appui d'organismes comme l'ACFO, l'Association des enseignants franco-ontariens et d'autres -- la grande majorité, sinon la totalité des organismes de langue française. Je suis certain que les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes seront très fiers de se servir du système que nous mettrons en place et je suis certain que l'avenir de la francophonie, en Ontario, n'a jamais été aussi bien assuré que par le projet de loi 8 comme premier pas.

M. Harris: Je suis heureux, au nom des francophones de Nipissing et de tout l'Ontario, d'appuyer le projet de loi 8.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: L'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario est sur le point de poser un geste historique, grâce auquel la population francophone de l'Ontario pourra maintenant s'engager dans un processus d'évolution et de transformation.

L'adoption du projet de loi 8 créera un contexte nouveau dans notre province parce que cette loi sera un véritable outil de développement qui nous permettra de poursuivre notre épanouissement comme francophones de l'Ontario.

15:50

Cette loi à été conçue comme un levier qui favorisera la participation des francophones aux prises de décisions des pouvoirs publics à l'égard de ce qui les concerne. Je pense sincèrement que c'est grâce à cette participation aux institutions que celles-ci refléteront davantage les aspirations des francophones.

Selon moi, les francophones de cette province ont atteint une telle maturité collective qu'ils peuvent désormais envisager leur avenir moins en termes de combat et de plus en plus en termes de légitimité.

L'influence d'éléments francophones au sein des institutions ontariennes permettra de modifier le climat social. La nouvelle politique du gouvernement, telle qu'elle est définie par le projet de loi 8, devrait permettre à la société ontarienne d'élaborer à long terme un modèle de développement social axé sur le respect et la compréhension mutuels.

Je voudrais profiter de l'occasion pour rendre hommage à l'ACFO, au Conseil de l'éducation franco-ontarienne, au Conseil des affaires franco-ontariennes, à tous les organismes qui ont partagé avec nous tant d'années de souffrance, si je peux appeler ça des années de souffrance. Aujourd'hui, on peut se réjouir du projet de loi 8.

Qu'est-ce que l'Ontario vient de faire, aujourd'hui? On vient de déployer un satellite culturel, et le message qu'il dégagera est très simple: aujourd'hui, la province de l'Ontario reconnaît les deux cultures fondatrices de notre pays, chose très importante.

En plus, notre geste d'aujourd'hui démontre très clairement la volonté non seulement du gouvernement mais aussi du parlement de l'Ontario. Nous voulons que nos générations futures aient un héritage culturel. Dorénavant, les gens de l'Ontario, les francophones de l'Ontario pourront se vanter du fait qu'ils demeurent et qu'ils demeureront non seulement dans une province économiquement forte mais dans une province à deux cultures qui offre toutes sortes de possibilités.

Je remercie le chef du troisième parti, le député de York Sud, qui m'a toujours soutenu, et je veux remercier mon premier ministre, qui m'a toujours épaulé. Merci bien à tous ces gens-là qui ont pris part aux débats. Je crois qu'aujourd'hui nous nous réjouissons tous de cette grande victoire.

M. Guindon: Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi de vous dire combien je suis fier de constater que le projet de loi 8 est enfin réalité. L'adoption de cette loi vient confirmer la reconnaissance par le gouvernement de ce groupe important que constituent les Franco-Ontariens, qu'ils le soient de naissance ou d'adoption.

Plus d'un demi-million de francophones pourront désormais profiter, ou tout au moins commencer à espérer profiter de services dans leur langue. La loi adoptée aujourd'hui représente en quelque sorte l'aboutissement naturel des mesures mises en place progressivement sous les premiers ministres Robarts, Davis et Miller.

Cette loi vient garantir que ce qui a été gagné ne sera pas éliminé et elle nous assure la mise en place de services additionnels au cours des prochaines années, au fur et à mesure que les moyens techniques, financiers et humains le permettront.

Dans trois ans, l'Ontario devra avoir un niveau de bilinguisme très respectable si la commission chargée d'y voir parvient à respecter ses termes de référence et ses échéanciers. Je me réjouis personnellement du fait que le projet de loi original a été amendé pour inclure les municipalités, car c'est le niveau de gouvernement le plus proche de la population et celui qui dispense le plus de services directs aux contribuables.

Je suis finalement rassuré de constater que les pouvoirs accordés au Cabinet sont limités, car si le Cabinet avait conservé trop de pouvoirs discrétionnaires, la loi aurait perdu toute sa valeur, car il y aurait eu place pour trop d'exceptions, que ce soit au plan géographique ou dans le domaine des juridictions concernées.

Mais à cette fierté naturelle que je ressens en tant que francophone, à cet enthousiasme que j'éprouve au nom de mes concitoyens d'expression française du Nord, du Sud, de l'Est et de l'Ouest de notre province, se mêle un désir de voir avancer les choses. Il faut que cette loi soit plus qu'un document mis sur papier; il faut que cette loi fasse changer des choses dans cette province, en ce qui concerne la quantité et la qualité des services en français. Il faut que la commission se mette en marche au plus tôt, afin de nous apporter des résultats concrets avant son expiration, dans trois ans.

Et si vous me le permettez, Monsieur le Président, il faudrait rectifier le problème que nous avons dernièrement, au sujet des services aux francophones qui, d'après moi, se détériorent. Nous ne sommes pas disposés à attendre trois ans pour nous faire dire ensuite que rien n'a changé. Nous, du Parti progressiste-conservateur, aurions bien voulu que le mandat de ladite commission soit deux ans; mais puisque, à ce qu'on me dit, ce n'est pas possible, nous allons y veiller de près pour nous assurer que les choses bougent rapidement et positivement.

Oui, ce 18 novembre 1986 marque une date très mémorable dans l'histoire de la Législature de l'Ontario et dans l'évolution des Franco-Ontariens vers la pleine reconnaissance de leurs droits. Je suis heureux d'en être témoin et j'en profite pour rendre hommage à tous ceux et à toutes celles qui, au cours des années, par leurs démarches inlassables et leur esprit de combat, ont pavé la voie à cette victoire importante.

Je me réjouis avec tous les vieillards qui pourront peut-être recevoir des services en français dans les maisons de santé et les hôpitaux et qui pourront enfin avoir un dialogue franc et ouvert avec leurs médecins et leurs infirmières.

Je me réjouis avec tous les prestataires d'aide sociale et d'autres services gouvernementaux qui pourront poser des questions et avoir des réponses en français.

Je me réjouis avec tous les étudiants franco-ontariens qui étudient présentement en français et qui ont le droit d'espérer pouvoir travailler, un jour, en français.

Oui, en ce beau 18 novembre 1986, tous les espoirs nous sont permis et je peux vous assurer, Monsieur le Président, que je veillerai à ce qu'ils puissent se réaliser dans les délais prescrits par la loi -- et avant cela, si possible.

Mr. Rae: I would like to start by speaking in English, because it is important that those who perhaps have difficulty in understanding French, and I am speaking not only to members of the House but also to people around the province, should take pride in this day as well.

I was born in Ottawa. I mentioned when I discussed this bill on second reading that, looking back over the past 30 years, the province has come a remarkably long way in finally coming to terms with its identity and with the needs and the rights of the francophone community that has had Ontario as its home for hundreds of years.

Even as a small boy, I was aware that French was in a sense a secret language in Ontario. It was a language of the streets and a language of the home. It was not a language of business and it was not a language of commerce. It was not a language of politics and, in many respects, it was not a language of education.

That situation of discrimination is one in which we can take no pride and one I am delighted to say has changed. It is worth pointing out that the minister who introduced this bill is the former mayor of the town of Vanier, which when I was a kid was the town of Eastview. The town of Eastview was perhaps the perfect example of what I am describing. French was the language of the street, French was the language of the family, but French was not a language one was encouraged to speak in the broader area of Ottawa.

16:00

I can remember when I first worked in Ottawa. I had a job as a guide in the Parliament Buildings. That was 20 years ago. If one wanted a tour in French, one had to ask for the tour in French. If one wanted a tour in English it was there automatically, but if one wanted to take a tour in French one had to ask for it. That has changed. Much has changed. Much has changed federally as a result of the initiatives that have been taken, but I do not mind saying that when I came here as a member after being in Ottawa I was struck -- I do not mind saying I was shocked -- by the extent to which French was not a language that was accepted generally as one that one could speak with ease and with facility, with respect even, here in the Legislature.

Indeed, to speak French in the Legislature and to ask a question in French was regarded as almost a challenge to the political order of the day. I can remember the exchanges I had as a new member and as the new leader of our party with the Premier at that time, in trying to get Ontario to take that step which I am still convinced would make an enormous difference in our national life, and that is the step of making Ontario a province where French is constitutionally entrenched in the Constitution of Canada and where French is recognized as an official language in our province.

I want to go on record again today as saying to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who is here for this historic debate, it is our view and it is my personal view that Ontario can do an immense amount for national unity by taking that next step beyond the step we have taken today, a step that would include and recognize French as an official language in this province and one that would guarantee those rights in the Constitution.

We are not jamming French down anybody's throat. We are not suggesting that those who cannot speak French should have any fewer rights than those who can. What we are suggesting is that those for whom French is their mother tongue should feel fully at home in Ontario. They should feel that Ontario is their home, a place where they can speak their language, where they can be themselves fully, not simply inside their living rooms, not simply in their dining rooms, but at work, in their education and in their ability to deal with their government.

Nous avons pris une mesure importante. Ce n'est peut-être pas l'étape finale; ça va prendre encore un peu de temps et un peu d'effort de la part de tous ceux parmi nous qui pensent qu'il est vraiment temps d'enchâsser ces droits dans la Constitution. Et on dit que c'est seulement une étape.

Je veux dire, au nom de mon parti, que nous sommes fiers du progrès que nous avons fait. Nous sommes fiers du fait qu'enfin, nous allons prendre des mesures concrètes, non seulement pour garantir un droit symbolique mais pour accomplir des choses réelles et profondes en ce qui concerne les services de tous les jours: pour les personnes âgées, des services en français; pour les enfants, des services en français; dans tous les organismes qui fournissent des services sociaux, des services en français; pour ceux qui font du commerce avec le gouvernement, le droit de le faire en français, le droit de recevoir des services en français.

Ce sont des mesures importantes, et je tire une certaine fierté du fait que, grâce à deux de nos amendements, celui sur les municipalités et celui sur les droits des particuliers face à un gouvernement qui pourrait prendre des décisions qui sont commodes plutôt que celles qui sont nécessaires, nous allons garantir à ces personnes un certain droit devant les cours de lancer un défi, si on veut, au gouvernement et d'essayer de convaincre le gouvernement d'en faire davantage.

Alors, on n'est pas encore arrivé au bout, on n'est pas encore arrivé à notre destination finale; mais tout de même, on a fait du progrès. Je dois dire à tous les députés que je suis plus fier aujourd'hui que jamais d'être Ontarien. Je crois que je parle au nom de tous les députés lorsque je dis que oui, on peut tirer une certaine fierté de ce que nous avons fait, et je ressens, comme je l'ai dit, plus de fierté en cette journée où nous avons accompli quelque chose d'important: nous en sommes venus à un nouveau consensus provincial qui représente une victoire, d'abord pour la population francophone, qui se sentira plus chez elle qu'auparavant. De plus, c'est une victoire pour nous tous, parce que nous avons montré que nous habitons une province plus civilisée, plus sensible, plus généreuse, une province dont nous pouvons tous être encore plus fiers aujourd'hui.

L'hon. M. Peterson: Comme certains députés l'ont dit, il s'agit d'une occasion historique à cette Législature. Je veux remercier tous mes collègues de tous les partis, et aussi mes collègues dans les galeries, qui nous ont aidé à préparer ce projet de loi, mais surtout mes collègues à la Législature.

Il existe maintenant une atmosphère différente. Il y a un nouvel esprit de charité maintenant, et je crois que tous les partis ont des attitudes différentes. Nous avons constaté quelque chose de bon aujourd'hui.

C'était mon collègue Albert Roy, comme nous le savons, qui a toujours parlé, dans cette Législature, des droits des francophones, et ce sont ses idées à lui qui, depuis cinq ou six ans, je crois, figurent dans la formation de ce projet de loi.

Nous avons connu des débats avant ce débat-ci, dans un parlement différent. J'ai participé à un tel débat à cette époque-là et c'était l'un des meilleurs débats que j'ai jamais connus à cette Législature. Mais comme nous le savons tous, la situation était alors différente. Il est intéressant de rappeler que tous les partis et tous les députés à la Législature ont appuyé le projet de loi en question, mais c'était l'avis du premier ministre de l'époque que ce n'était pas opportun de le faire dans les circonstances.

Je veux dire, encore une fois, merci à tous mes collègues pour le travail qu'ils ont fait sur ce projet de loi et pour le progrès que nous avons fait ensemble.

As my friend the leader of the New Democratic Party said, it is a great day for francophones, it is a great day for all Ontariens and it is a great day for Canada.

Je veux lire le télégramme de M. d'Iberville Fortier, Commissaire aux langues officielles, qui dit:

"Retenu à Kapuskasing, je regrette de ne pas pouvoir être présent à l'Assemblée législative à l'occasion de l'adoption de la loi 8 qui marque un tournant historique dans la reconnaissance des droits des Franco-Ontariens."

I want to translate this because I think it is extremely important, as my friend the leader of the New Democratic Party says, to say the same things in English as in French.

Il s'agit d'une occasion historique, où l'on ne peut pas dire une chose en français et une autre chose en anglais.

Mr. Fortier said to me in his telegram, "I regret that a visit to Kapuskasing prevents my being present to witness the passing of Bill 8, which is surely a turning point in the recognition of French rights in Ontario."

He goes on to say:

"Je félicite vivement son pilote, le ministre Bernard Grandmaître, les partis et tous les parlementaires ontariens. L'Ontario apporte ainsi une magnifique contribution au projet canadien de réconciliation nationale."

He says: "I would like to convey my heartiest congratulations to its pilot, Mr. Bernard Grandmaître, the minister of francophone affairs, and all the parties and parliamentarians of Ontario. The province has made a major contribution to the Canadian goal of national reconciliation."

C'est comme je l'ai dit: il y a une atmosphère différente à la Législature. Je crois qu'il y a une atmosphère différente au pays aujourd'hui. Comme nous le savons, les relations entre l'Ontario et le Québec sont différentes maintenant, et ce n'est pas seulement entre le Québec et l'Ontario, mais entre toutes les autres provinces et le Québec.

16:10

Demain, je vais discuter, avec mes collègues et avec les autres premiers ministres, de la possibilité d'apporter des changements à la Constitution canadienne parce que nous voulons inviter le Québec à faire partie de la Constitution. Je suis optimiste; j'estime que l'on pourra obtenir de bons résultats.

Mais les Québécois observent de très près ce que l'on fait ici, ce qui se passe à cette Législature, les voix des députés à la Législature. Maintenant, nous avons des débats en français. Ce n'est pas unique, ce n'est pas spécial, comme mon ami l'a dit. Cela fait partie de la période des questions orales de tous les jours et c'est une bonne chose.

Je me souviens de la première occasion où les chefs des trois partis ont discuté d'une question en français à cette Législature. C'était le député de York Sud qui posait une question à l'ancien premier ministre, le député de Muskoka (M. F. S. Miller), qui répondait en français; et moi, j'y participais en tant que chef de l'opposition.

Ça, c'était une occasion historique aussi. Maintenant, je ne suis pas surpris que la majorité du débat aujourd'hui se fasse en français. Et je ne sais pas, il y a peut-être 20 députés à la Législature qui parlent français et se sentent à l'aise en l'autre langue et l'autre culture. J'espère qu'un jour, tous les gens de l'Ontario vivront cette réalité: moi, mes enfants et les enfants de tous les députés ici et tous les enfants de l'Ontario.

It is a great day. I am told by parliamentary historians, by people who study these matters that this is the largest leap in the past 120 years for the francophones of Ontario. I am delighted to participate in that. I appreciate very much the support and help of my colleagues. We have much left to do, but now we are putting into practical effect the things we want to guarantee, real rights, not just rights in writing, not just words, but giving a real opportunity to our Franco-Ontarians to live and to work in their language.

Je veux remercier tous mes collègues de ce jour historique, de leur aide en ce qui concerne ce projet de loi. Il est important maintenant que nous utilisions toute la volonté et toute l'énergie nécessaires pour que la mise en oeuvre de cette loi réussisse. Il reste beaucoup de choses à faire. Nous devrons avoir la coopération de toutes les agences du gouvernement et de tous les ministres et tous les ministères.

Il reste beaucoup à faire, mais après aujourd'hui, ce sera la loi de la province. C'est la première étape et c'est d'une très grande importance. À mes collègues du Parti progressiste-conservateur et du Nouveau Parti démocratique, je dis merci beaucoup de ce jour historique.

M. Shymko: Monsieur le Président, en reconnaissance du caractère historique de ce projet de loi, plusieurs députés sont absents qui ne comprennent absolument rien en français. Est-ce qu'il serait possible de faire exception dans le processus que nous suivons?

Normalement, il n'y aurait pas de traduction en anglais des remarques en français faisant partie de ce débat, remarques qui furent faites exclusivement par les députés qui ont participé aux débats lors des deuxième et troisième lectures. Est-ce qu'on pourrait faire faire une traduction en anglais des débats qui ont eu lieu lors des deuxième et troisième lectures, pour les citoyens anglophones de cette province et pour les députés qui ne comprennent pas le français et qui, étant absents, n'ont pas eu l'occasion d'écouter la traduction simultanée?

Je me demande si, par un accord unanime des chefs des trois partis, on pourrait obtenir, en reconnaissance du caractère historique de ce moment, une traduction en anglais, pour les dossiers de Hansard, des remarques en français lors des débats sur ce projet de loi.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sure that by unanimous consent we can agree to provide the appropriate translations for this special event.

Le président suppléant (M. Morin): Est-ce que c'est une motion ou une recommandation?

M. Shymko: C'est une motion.

Le président suppléant: La motion est-elle adoptée? Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

La motion est adoptée.

Le président suppléant: L'hon. M. Grandmaître a proposé la troisième lecture du projet de loi 8, Loi assurant la prestation de services en français par le gouvernement de l'Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître has moved third reading of Bill 8, An Act to provide for French Language Services in the Government of Ontario.

La motion est adoptée.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has graciously agreed to attend the chamber for royal assent.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know this is unparliamentary, but may I remark that it is historic also that we have a francophone sitting in the chair and a francophone Clerk of the House.

Je voudrais ajouter que le Président et le greffier de la Chambre sont francophones. C'est une occasion historique.

16:20

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT/ SANCTION ROYALE

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 8, An Act to provide for French Language Services in the Government of Ontario;

Projet de loi 8, Loi assurant la prestation de services en français par le gouvernement de l'Ontario;

Bill 22, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities;

Bill 23, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to Line Fences;

Bill 25, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act;

Bill 72, An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act;

Bill 123, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

Bill 128, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act;

Bill 146, An Act to change the name of the geographic township of Stalin to the geographic township of Hansen;

Bill Pr23, An Act respecting the Town of Markham;

Bill Pr24, An Act to change the name of the Institute of Management Consultants of Ontario to the Institute of Certified Management Consultants of Ontario;

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting London Life Insurance Company;

Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur donne la sanction royale à ces projets de loi.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 48, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am asking the House to give second reading to Bill 48, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act regarding pensions. This legislation is confined to the Metro municipality, recognizing that in such a large municipal jurisdiction members of council are required to devote a much larger proportion of their time to municipal businesses than are those in other areas.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to rise in support of Bill 48. I believe it is important for all people to make every effort to prepare for their retirement years by ensuring they have adequate pensions. The time is long overdue when we can expect plans, such as the Canada pension plan, to provide adequate financial support for retirees. In response to this issue, many businesses, industry and government have taken the positive step of establishing supplementary pension plans for their employees. The existence of these benefits has become an important factor in attracting candidates to various jobs. One group which has not had the benefit of a supplementary pension plan is this province's municipal councillors. The presence of a supplementary pension plan for these individuals is important for two reasons.

First, in recent years, the obligations on a municipal councillor have increased significantly for the most part. As a result, in many instances, these individuals have become fulltime councillors. The fact that they no longer retain outside employment means they no longer have access to company-operated pension programs, so a municipal plan would fill that gap.

Second, if we hope to attract quality candidates to municipal office, every effort must be made to ensure that they are adequately compensated. In today's economic climate, this does not just require an appropriate salary; it also means the existence of benefits such as a pension plan. As the minister indicated, this legislation only affects Metropolitan Toronto. I am somewhat concerned by the singling out of Toronto, but I am willing to recognize that the experience in Metro can be used and I hope eventually all municipal councils across the province will have similar plans. With that one reservation, I am pleased to indicate my support for this legislation.

Mr. Breaugh: Very briefly, I want to indicate our support for the bill. There are a couple of things I want to get on the record. One is that this is an amendment to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, so it will only deal with Metro council and it is by request of the council.

It is time the government began to consider the problem being addressed in this bill. The problem exists across the province. Other councils have not had the temerity to ask for this legislation, but they all have a similar problem. It is true that many members of municipal councils have had to leave their place of employment to fulfil their obligations on council.

It is also true that many of them are unable to participate in any kind of pension plan thereafter; so they are hung for a brief period while they occupy their council seat without any protection. Some of them, of course, will be able to provide some kind of pension plan on their own, but many of them will not.

The unfairness generated by that is very simply that those who have the economic means to plan for their own pension have a distinct advantage over others who may not have that kind of personal income. In the long run, that will militate against people having equal access to the political system, and I think that is quite wrong.

I know it is a bit of a controversial phenomenon. There are some people who do not think politicians at the local level should have the right to pensions such as this. I would be the first to say at federal and provincial levels, it seems to me, we have not quite got this routine down to perfection yet. There are still economic disadvantages to becoming involved in the political process.

It is also true that there is unfairness on the other side. There is sometimes an unwise use of the electoral process to decide what the benefits will be. The truth is that some politicians have pension plans that are unfair, too rich, too expensive or too much, while the vast majority of them have absolutely nothing at all. Provincially, we are kind of hung in the middle.

I view this as reasonable legislation for a first step, but there are two things I want the minister to consider as we pass this bill today.

First, it is time to address the larger question of plain fairness and opportunity to participate in the political process. In other words, people should be able to run for public office without having their families make a financial sacrifice, which is now the case in many instances. I would like to see the minister use this as the first step or as the example that we build on. I would like to see equal access to the political process at all levels and some economic fairness involved in it.

16:30

Second, I know the minister will be approached once again, for example, by my own public utilities commission, which wants to do the decent thing. It knows it has some retired employees who it feels should be treated as fairly as its present employees. It would like to extend to people who have already retired the benefit package that is now negotiated for all its employees.

I would like to see some movement in a couple of areas here. First, I would like to see this plan extended under a general review, just to make sure nobody pays a financial penalty for being a participant in the political process. Second, I would like to see whether we can pick out all those other little unfairnesses that are out there; instead of doing them by private bill, which is now the process used, we could amend the Ontario Municipal Act to see that there is fairness both for those who are elected and for those who are employed by municipal councils around the province.

We will support the bill.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: With reference to the two points brought up by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I remind him that 90 per cent of all municipal politicians are covered under the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, but this is a supplementary plan. I will take back his suggestion with me when I meet --

Mr. Breaugh: That is not covered under OMERS.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I know. The honourable member is talking about the supplementary. I will take this back to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and talk about the possibility of amending the Municipal Act to provide this supplementary pension plan.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 66, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Before I speak to the bill, I want to make a very brief statement in response to a news communiqué released by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), in which he stated that he felt the bills being debated today were not terribly important and that we should proceed with major items.

I want to put on the record that when we deal with the hiring practices of this province and the access that people should have to agencies, boards and commissions that are run by the government, I think it is a matter of great importance and I do not think it should be downplayed in any way. Bill 66, which deals with small business, is also a very important bill and deserves to be dealt with as quickly as possible, which is why we are bringing it forward today.

The Business Corporations Act, 1982, came into effect in July 1983. The bill before the House today for second reading contains the first set of amendments to this legislation since its enactment more than three years ago. Members may recall a similar bill was brought before the House in the fall of 1984. The amendments proposed in Bill 66 are required to ensure that the legislation works smoothly and achieves its desired purpose, clarifies the intent of the existing act and corrects certain anomalies that have resulted, in most cases, from different interpretations of wording.

The amendments are of three types: substantive, technical and housekeeping. I shall deal first with what I think are the most important changes to the act.

In sections 7 and 9 of the bill, we are amending the act to permit the issue, transfer or pledge of shares and other securities by means of computer entries. The computerization will be an alternative to the traditional and cumbersome transfer of pieces of paper; that is, security certificates. The changes to sections 53 and 85 of the act will permit clearing agencies to record transfers and pledges of securities by means of computer entries. These securities include those issued by governments or their agencies as well as partnerships.

It is important to note that these amendments are required so that the Canadian Depository for Securities Ltd. may more effectively and on a firmer statutory basis carry out the essential service it provides to the investment community. This body is the only central clearing agency now recognized by the Ontario Securities Commission. These amendments also have the wholehearted support of the users of the system: the Canadian Bankers' Association, the Investment Dealers Association of Canada and the Trust Companies Association of Canada.

Other important amendments will permit corporate registrants under the Securities Act to offer their shares to the public. Sections 5, 6 and 8 will give securities dealers the right to police the ownership of their publicly traded shares according to the rules and regulations set down by the Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange.

I now will move on to some amendments of a more technical nature.

Section 2 of the bill would allow a corporation to change its recorded, registered office address by means of a special resolution. This has been an accepted and usual procedure in Ontario corporate law for many years. Corporations will be saved the expense of amending their articles of incorporation and will be spared the added paper burden as well.

Section 17 of the bill deals with the rights of dissenting shareholders. It specifies that the exercise of a negative vote by proxy does not automatically mean a voter is dissenting. It also directs corporations to inform shareholders of the steps to take to dissent so that shareholders who wish to do so will be able to have their securities purchased by the corporation at a fair price.

Audit exemptions are the topic of section 21. The amendment clarifies that financial statements of corporations filed with the director under the act to obtain an audit exemption are deemed confidential and not available to the public. This provision is consistent with section 18 of Bill 34, An Act to Provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy. In addition to the fact that this section will be reviewed when Bill 34 is discussed, that piece of legislation also provides that confidential financial information can be withheld if necessary.

Sections 18 and 23 deal with administrative needs and are retroactive in nature. Section 18 permits the director appointed under the act to cancel certificates of corporations that may have been issued prior to the enactment of the Business Corporations Act in 1983. Section 23 permits the director to correct errors that might have occurred prior to the proclamation of the act.

I have one minor amendment to section 11 of the bill, and I will be moving that the bill be referred to committee of the whole House for that purpose.

Upon reviewing the bill, the members will no doubt realize it is straightforward and will benefit the business community in a number of different ways. I urge the members to give it swift passage.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions and comments or debate?

Mr. Swart: Debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Since there appear to be no questions or comments and no debate from the official opposition, I recognize the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swart: I say immediately to the minister that we are going to support this bill. I realize it is largely a housekeeping bill. It also provides the procedure for the electronic transfer of securities. It improves some of the procedures with regard to the transfer of securities.

I have two or three questions on sections that I want to raise with the minister. Because he has spoken now, I presume he will not get the chance to reply today to my questions or comments. Perhaps he can get the information to me before we deal with it clause by clause. His answers may determine whether we will be moving any amendments to this bill.

The first question I want to raise deals with sections 3 and 15 of the bill, the issue of shares in series. Although there are three amendments in those sections, the changes in subsections 25(4) and 25(5) of the act are not really substantial; the real change occurs in subsection 25(1) which, as amended, would permit the articles of incorporation themselves to authorize the issue of any class of shares in series and fix the number and determine the designation, rights, privileges, etc., attaching to the shares, as well as permitting the articles, where they authorize the issue of a class of shares in series, to authorize the directors -- and this is a key part -- to fix the number of shares and determine the designation, rights, etc., attached to the shares of each series.

16:40

The complementary addition to section 167 of the act by section 15 of the bill permits directors to authorize amendments to articles, where they are authorized by the articles, to divide any class of uninsured shares into series and determine the designation, rights, privileges, etc. When this is done, the issuing of each share would not appear to require that the company's directors send to the director of the corporation the articles of amendments, as would be required where they have been authorized to fix the number of shares and to determine the designation, rights, etc.

Therefore, it appears we will have two standards. One will be on the issuance of shares where the director of corporations will have to be notified; but under this section, where the corporation takes it upon itself to fix the numbers of shares, etc., under this new legislation, the director of corporations may not have to be notified. Perhaps the minister can clarify that by letter or in some way.

Under section 4, dealing with the declaration of dividends, the present act implicitly precludes directors from issuing dividends contrary to unanimous shareholder agreement or to the articles of incorporation. However, both the present act and the proposed amendment, while still precluding this, will not declare the transfer of property contrary to the agreement or articles invalid for that reason alone. In the final analysis, this amendment merely makes explicit what is already implicit, without altering the effect of issuing dividends contrary to the agreement or articles. I would like the minister to provide me with answers about why they should not prohibit or provide penalties when dividends are issued contrary to the agreement or the articles.

I think I have satisfied myself with that one. I want to move on to sections 7 and 9 of the bill, trading by electronic transfer of shares, and point out that the old subsection 85(8) of the act, dealing with a situation where a security certificate has not been issued, is repealed by the bill, presumably because it has been rendered obsolete by the provision creating uncertified security.

The new subsection 85(8), as created by subsection 9(3) of the bill, begins by defining the issuer. The substance of the definition is the same as that found in the new clause 53(1)(n), as amended by subsection 7(1) of the bill, except that rather than being restricted to a body corporate, as it is in clause 53(1)(n), an issuer here "includes a person, other than an individual, and a government or agency thereof."

It is not clear why this definition for "issuer" is reincluded here, as amended section 53 is in the same part of the act, and why it is necessary to make the definition in subsection 85(8) somewhat broader than that found in subsection 53(1). Why is there this difference in the definition of an issuers? Perhaps the minister would like to reply to that question in writing, if he is not able to do so here.

I want to move on to section 13, the deemed ownership of shares. Section 13 repeals clauses 138(2)(c) and (d), deemed ownership of shares for purposes of insider trading rules, and substitutes new paragraphs therefor. The term "voting securities" replaces the word "shares" in each of the amended clauses. This is the only change made by section 13.

However, the proposed change, substituting the term "voting securities" for the word "shares," narrows the class of shares that are considered to be owned for purposes of insider trading because, by definition, "voting securities" excludes nonvoting shares and shares that have voting rights in limited circumstances, which circumstances have not obtained. Is it the minister's deliberate intent to put these further restrictions on those shares that at present have some limited voting rights?

Finally, I refer to section 23, which provides that subsection 273(1), regarding endorsement of a corrected certificate, is repealed and new provisions are submitted. The new section alters the substance of the provision in three ways. It makes it clear that the certificate in question could have been endorsed under this act or a predecessor act. It allows a corporation, its directors and shareholders to apply to the director for a corrected certificate. At present, all such corrections must come at the initiative of the director. Only the corporation, not the directors or the shareholders, is required to surrender the certificate and related articles, and accordingly, only the corporation has the right to be heard on the question of whether the certificate should be corrected.

Those are all the comments I have to make at present, but I would like answers from the minister to the questions and issues I have raised with him, so that before it goes to committee of the whole I will know the full intent of what the minister proposes and will be able to move any amendments I deem desirable.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to defer answering the questions the member has asked and get those answers to him, because he has stated that he does not want to deal with the bill until he gets them. I would like to move the motion for second reading of the bill; if we do that, can we go to committee of the whole?

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

16:50

House in committee of the whole.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 66, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act, 1982.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments any honourable member wishes to make and, if so, to what sections?

Mr. McClellan: I would like to know why the Chairman threw the Acting Chairman out of the chair.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Bellwoods is out of order immediately, before we even start.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Section 11.

Mr. Chairman: What other sections?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is the only one.

Mr. Swart: Before we go to section 11, is the minister going to answer the questions I raised? Is it not standard procedure that if we go first to his amendments in section 11, we carry 1 to 10 ahead of that, and then we will be precluded from getting the answers?

Mr. Chairman: I am asking for a shopping list or a menu of amendments and questions and the section numbers. The member for Welland-Thorold wants to ask questions, suggest amendments, make statements, etc., with regard to which sections?

Mr. Swart: First, in regard to sections 3 and 15, which are dealt with together, I am not sure whether the minister wants me to put the question again or whether he is clear and has a response for me. I do not wish to take up the time of the House unless it is necessary, but I will put it again if that is his wish.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Welland-Thorold was in debate when he said he was interested in certain questions and answers. Technically, he was not putting them to the minister. However, the member has questions on sections 3 and 15.

Mr. Swart: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: I thought I heard him mention section 23 during the debate.

Mr. Swart: I have some other questions, as you have correctly stated, Mr. Chairman, on three other sections as well.

If you wish to pass sections 1 and 2 before I deal with section 3, I am prepared to sit down and have you deal with those.

Mr. Chairman: That is fine, but the procedure is that I am trying to round up at this point the total number and the identity of the sections members wish to speak to. Will the member please list them? I know section 23 was another one.

Mr. Swart: Yes. There is also section 4, the declaration of dividends, sections 7 and 9, which are dealt with together in the bill, section 13 and section 23.

Mr. Chairman: The minister's only section was 11. Hearing nothing other than that, shall sections 1 and 2 stand as part of the bill?

Section 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Swart: I put this in the form of a question to the minister. It deals with subsection 25(1) of the act, which is amended by section 3. It permits the articles of incorporation to authorize the issue of any class of shares in series and to fix the number and to determine the designation, rights, privileges, etc. , attaching to the shares, as well as permitting the articles which authorize the issue of a class of shares in series to authorize the directors to fix the number of shares and to determine the designation, rights, etc., attaching to the shares of each series.

The complementary addition permits directors to authorize amendments to articles where they are authorized by the articles to divide any class of unissued shares into series and to determine the designation, rights, privileges and so forth. However, when this is done, the issuing of each share would not appear to require the company's directors to send to the director of corporations articles of amendment that would be required where they have been authorized to fix the number of shares and determine the designation, rights, etc., under the normal procedures.

What is the minister's intention in introducing an amendment which appears to bypass the director of corporations when boards of directors use this section of the new amendment?

Mr. Chairman: The committee will note that the minister's assistants have entered the chamber, and he has taken a front seat. Is there any objection to that? No.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Under section 25 of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, a dual system is going to be provided. If it is in the articles, it has been so provided that when shareholders authorize the articles and when the directors have authority to do this, the new subsection 25(1) will merely require the directors to amend the articles for the purposes of a corporation's public file.

There will be a provision and it will be a dual system, depending on how they want to go.

Mr. Swart: I am not sure that answers my question. I realize there is a dual system; however, under one system, the director of corporations in the ministry has to be notified. It appears that under the second system he does not have to be notified, and I am wondering at the difference, if I am correct. Why should he not have to be notified when the board of directors uses that second system which, I suggest, is a reasonable system? Why should the director of corporations not have to be advised? Am I wrong in my interpretation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There is already a provision there, and he is advised by the articles that appear. The shareholders of the corporation have bestowed that right; as a result, it is provided for.

Mr. Chairman: Is the member for Welland-Thorold satisfied with the answer to his question?

Mr. Swart: No, I am not completely satisfied. Is the minister telling me another section will provide that they must notify the director of corporations if they issue this class of shares in a series. Is he saying that the director of corporations in his ministry will know?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Section 3 states: "Subsections 25 (1), (4) and (5) of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) The articles, subject to the limitations set out in them,

"(a) may authorize the issue of any class of shares in one or more series and may fix the number of shares in, and determine the designation, rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions attaching to the shares of, each series...."

The articles provide for it and authorize it to happen.

Mr. Swart: I do not want to belabour this point and I do not profess to be an expert on this, but the question I have asked really has not been answered.

Granted they have been given this power to market these shares -- to divide them, to put them in a series and market them -- is the director of corporations notified of these, as he would be when they are done under the normal circumstances? I do not know whether I make myself clear. Is that a requirement, or is this to be done in such a limited manner that it is not necessary?

It seems to me the director of corporations should be notified if a company is going to issue additional shares. I am just asking whether it is possible that these could be issued without notifying the director of corporations. That is the question.

17:00

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am advised that when the articles are filed with the director, that serves as notice. The only time the director has to be notified again is if the shareholders and directors change what they are doing. Then they have to notify the director. The mere fact that the articles are passed and sent on to the director is the notification.

Section 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Swart: This question is perhaps a bit more simple. The present act implicitly precludes directors from issuing dividends contrary to unanimous shareholder agreements or to the articles of incorporation. However, both the present act and the proposed amendment, while still precluding this, will not declare the transfer of property contrary to the agreements or the articles invalid for that reason alone. In the final analysis, this amendment merely makes explicit what is already implicit without altering the effect of issuing dividends contrary to the agreements or articles.

Are there penalties of any kind for issuing dividends contrary to the agreements or articles? If not, why is there not some penalty?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Section 4 of the bill does not contain specific penalties because the general penalty provisions of the act would apply. There are general penalty provisions within the overall act and as a result they do not have to be repeated in that section, but they would apply.

Mr. Swart: Can the minister tell me what kind of penalties might apply to directors who issue dividends contrary to the agreements or articles? It seems to me this can be rather a serious matter if those dividends were taken out of the funds of a company that was not very viable at some given time. What kind of penalties are provided for that?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The regulations under the Business Corporations Act, 1982, provide that if, without reasonable cause, an act is committed contrary to, or fails or neglects to comply with, any provision of this act or the regulations, one would be guilty of an offence and on conviction would be liable to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both, or if such person is a body corporate, to a fine of not more than $25,000.

Mr. Swart: Unless I did not hear the minister correctly, that did not answer my question. I am not suggesting here that the dividends are issued contrary to the act; I am suggesting they are issued contrary to the agreements or articles of incorporation of that business. What penalty is there if that takes place? Do I make myself clear ? I understand the penalties of the act. This may also be contrary to the act, but it is certainly contrary to the provisions of the articles of incorporation.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am advised that, notwithstanding that they are dealing with this particular bill, it would be covered under the general penalty provisions of the act. It would be the same thing, because even though the bill is covered by the act, if there was a penalty to be imposed, it would come under the general provisions I have read to the member.

Mr. Swart: So that I understand this completely, is the minister telling me that if the directors should contravene the articles of the incorporation, then the penalties of the act apply and they would be subject to them?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is correct.

Section 4 agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: I believe the member for Welland-Thorold has questions on section 7.

Mr. Swart: They are on sections 7 and 9, which are dealt with together.

On sections 7 and 9:

Mr. Swart: As I pointed out in the debate, the old subsection 85(8) deals with a situation where a security certificate has not been issued. It is repealed by the bill, presumably because it has been rendered obsolete by the provision creating an uncertified security. The new subsection 85(8), as created by subsection 9(3), begins by defining "issuer." The substance of the definition is the same as that found in the new clause 53(1)(n), as amended by clause 7(1)(n), except that rather than being restricted to a body corporate, as it is in clause 53(1)(n), an issuer here "includes a person, other than an individual" -- see paragraph 1(1)30 - "and a government or agency thereof."

It is not clear why this definition for "issuer" is reincluded here. As the amended section 53 is in the same part of the bill, why is it necessary to make the definition of subsection 85(8) somewhat broader than that found in subsection 53(1)? I would like to have the minister's comments on that, because apparently there are two definitions, one somewhat broader than the other.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The provisions under section 9 of the bill are very technical wording to meet the requirements of the Canadian Depository for Securities Ltd. It was approved by its members. I referred to it in my opening comments as part of their requirements. I cannot give an exact answer on why it is duplicated and put in, but this was done in conjunction with the depository, and it was at their request that it was included.

Mr. Swart: I might further ask the minister, if there are two definitions of an issuer, is it possible the one section may have been overlooked? I am not suggesting it is a major problem, but could the minister take a look at that to see if there may be some need at a future date to amend the previous definition of the issuer?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We will review that for the member.

Sections 7 and 9 agreed to.

Section 10 agreed to.

On section 11:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Kwinter moves that subsection 125(2a) of the act, as set out in section 11 of the bill, be amended by striking out "filed" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "passed."

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12 agreed to.

17:10

On section 13:

Mr. Swart: Relative to the changing of the word "shares" to "voting securities," as I pointed out in my comments on second reading, this may restrict some nonvoting shares and shares that had limited voting rights from -- in fact, it may remove those rights entirely. I want to ask the minister whether this is the intent of this or whether, again, it is a change in words and the full implication may not have been considered.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The intent and the purpose are to widen the scope of the section and to make the definitions correspond with the insider definition.

Mr. Swart: Is the insider trading definition elsewhere in the act and is it exactly the same as this?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Yes, it is.

Section 13 agreed to.

Sections 14 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 23:

Mr. Swart: I want to read again to the minister a matter on which I would like some clarification. It concerns subsection 273(1). The endorsement of a corrected certificate is repealed and a new provision substituted in section 23. The new section alters the substance of the provision three ways. It is made clear that the certificate in question could have been made and endorsed under this act or a predecessor act. It allows the corporation and its directors and shareholders to apply to the director for a corrected certificate.

At present, all such corrections must come at the initiative of the director. Only the corporation, not the directors or shareholders, is required to surrender the certificate and related articles and, accordingly, only the corporation has the right to be heard on the question of whether the certificate should be corrected. That is the point. Only the corporation has the right to be heard on the question of whether the certificate should be corrected.

The first two changes are minor and only clarify the act. The third, however, poses some questions. What must be asked is the effect of denying the shareholders and directors the right to be heard on the issue of whether the certificate should be corrected. As the section now reads, they have such a right, but the amended act denies it to them. It seems there might be cases, if there were large numbers of certificates that needed to be corrected, where it should not be done solely by the corporation but where the shareholders and the other directors perhaps should have the right to be heard on this issue. I want to have some clarification or explanation of that.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is the feeling of my officials that this amendment allows companies to apply for a corrected certificate and that a correction can be made to a certificate issued under a predecessor act. There is in no way a change in any right to be heard or any diminution of that. It may be that it is being incorrectly read or interpreted. It really does not deal with that, and the feeling is that it is an opportunity to correct the certificate.

Mr. Swart: I had rather hoped we would not have committee of the whole House on this today. We could then have checked some of these things somewhat further. I do not know that the procedure provided for committee of the whole to take place this afternoon.

Researchers who advised me on this said the amendments make a change in that procedure, which means the directors and shareholders do not have the right to be heard, when they had the right previously. If that is the case, and I have no reason to know whether the minister is correct on this or our researchers are correct on this, it could be a matter of some substance. Because we are dealing with this today -- unless there is agreement not to finish this today and to come back at a future time -- I have no way of knowing whether we are passing something that deprives some shareholders and directors of rights which all of us would agree they should have. I find myself in that dilemma, and perhaps because of that I shall have to vote against this section.

Mr. Breaugh: If I may make a suggestion, there appears to be some need to go away and think about this for a while. Would it be possible to rise and report? We could come back to this bill on another day. There are two or three other bills in the charge of the same minister, and we could proceed with those. If it would be convenient for all members to take a break on this bill, to rise and report and proceed with the other legislation, it might resolve the difficulty in interpreting the act.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If the honourable member looks at subsection 273(1) of the act, all it really deals with is the ability to apply for corrected certificates. It makes no reference to the opportunity to be heard; neither does it in any way suggest the rights of any of the shareholders are in any way in jeopardy.

I respectfully submit that if the member for Welland-Thorold looks at the section, it is relatively simple. I can give him the assurance I have had from my officials that provision for shareholders to be heard is made in other sections of the act. I give my undertaking that we will get that to him. However, this deals with just that one section.

Mr. Swart: I am very much aware it deals with just that one section. I am also very much aware that the latter part of new subsection 273(1) says, "after giving the corporation an opportunity to be heard." It does not say anything about giving the shareholders or the directors an opportunity to be heard; it is giving the corporation an opportunity to be heard. "Where the director is of the opinion that it is appropriate to so do and is satisfied that such steps have been taken by the corporation as the director required, the director shall endorse a corrected certificate."

It does not give the option to shareholders or directors to be heard. It does not give them that right; it does to the corporation. Therefore, I think that is taking away some rights.

I am not going to hold up this bill if the minister wants to proceed with it. I, and I presume my colleagues here with me, will just vote against this section, and we can have the bill passed today if that is the minister's wish. However, I have not yet heard from the minister an answer that satisfies me that it is not taking something away from the shareholders and the directors.

17:20

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If I may, in the previous bill there was no provision for the shareholders to be heard, but it is implied that in order for this to be given effect, there has to be a resolution of the shareholders. The shareholders have to pass the resolution that authorizes the corrected certificate. There is nothing that is taken away or that has been changed that was not already there in the previous bill. We have not taken anything away because it was not there in the first place in this section. It is covered in the general bylaws as provided for under the bill.

I am in your hands. My officials keep saying there is no provision that we have changed. It is not as if we have changed something; it is exactly the way it was in the previous bill. Basically, what we are talking about is how we correct the certificate. It can be done only on the resolution of the shareholders, which implies their ability to be heard. If they did not pass the resolution, there is no way the certificate can he corrected.

Mr. Swart: This is the last time I will speak on this. I still do not understand the section that we have before us. Let me read it:

"Where a certificate endorsed or issued under this act or a predecessor of this act contains an error or where a certificate has been endorsed or issued on articles or any other documents that contain an error,

"(a) the corporation, its directors or shareholders may apply to the director for a corrected certificate and shall surrender the certificate and related articles or documents: or

"(b) the corporation shall upon the request of the director surrender the certificate and related articles or documents,

"and, after giving the corporation an opportunity to be heard, where the director is of the opinion that it is appropriate to so do," etc.

The director makes the decision. I understood the minister to say that the shareholders previously had to do this; it had to be done by vote of the shareholders. There is no vote of the shareholders in this. The director makes the decision upon application of the corporation's director or shareholders, an application by them, I presume, or any one of them. The director makes that decision, but he hears only the corporation; he does not hear the shareholders.

If I am wrong in my interpretation, please tell me, but it seems to me that is a substantial change from what was there before.

I said it was the last time I was going to speak, and it is, if the minister wants to proceed. I do not say it is the most important thing we are dealing with in this Legislature. We will quietly vote in opposition to this section and he can have the bill passed today. But unless he has a further explanation, I think this section does take away something that was there before or implied before.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I appreciate the member's comments. Maybe what we can do, if it is agreeable to him, is that I instruct my officials to review the provisions and recommend any future corrective action if necessary. The advice I have from them is that there is nothing in this amendment that was not in the previous act. I would like to get the bill approved. I give him an undertaking they will look at it, and if there is a problem, they will address it.

Mr. Swart: I will accept that on perhaps one condition, with which I am sure the minister will comply; that is, that I will expect a letter on this from him so we will have an official interpretation under his signature.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: l will be happy to give the member that assurance.

Section 23 agreed to.

Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Kwinter, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In respect of Bill 119, which reforms the hiring practices of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, I want to make some general comments which also relate to the companion Bill 120, which affects the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

This government is committed to the principle of equal access for the people of Ontario. This applies not only to services but also to government jobs. We feel that by implementing the same fair and impartial hiring and employment practices that public servants enjoy, we will be providing equal access to these jobs.

These employees are now appointed through orders in council, and this has been a continuing source of public complaint. These amendments demonstrate that we are listening to the people of Ontario. We believe the employment practices and procedures of the liquor boards should be based on qualifications and seniority rather than political affiliation, which has often been the criterion in the past.

Equal access to employment opportunities in the liquor boards is what the public has requested, and it will be accomplished by these amendments. We promised these changes in the April speech from the throne and followed up when the bills were introduced in July. Now we are ready to move ahead on our pledge to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Runciman: We are going to support this bill and its companion Bill 120. In our view, it is phoney legislation, which essentially wastes the time of the House. It supposedly depoliticizes the process, but we are fully aware of who makes appointments to the LCBO and the LLBO.

The government assumes it is going to be able to get some mileage on this, but in our view it is a further insult to the intelligence of the electorate, comparable to the beer and wine legislation the government brought in several weeks ago. We do not want to waste significant time in this House dealing with junk legislation such as this.

Mr. Swart: I rise to support this bill with some enthusiasm. I realize this bill does not guarantee that patronage will be removed from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, nor does its companion bill guarantee that patronage will be removed from the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, but if there has ever been one area in which political patronage was rampant, it was in the LCBO and the LLBO.

The Conservatives should be rightly condemned for what they permitted to take place; not only permitted to take place but also practised in terms of patronage in the liquor boards. I am not sure whether it was as bad all over as it was in the Niagara Peninsula, but in the Niagara Peninsula there was one top Tory whom everybody had to see. He was not an elected Tory, as far as being elected to the Legislature or even elected municipally was concerned, but he was the person who had to be seen if one wanted a job. Nobody else but he had authority even to process applications. It was an absolutely disgraceful practice on the part of the Conservative government.

Perhaps because this is a new broom it may not totally transpire, but these bills will give the opportunity to have, for the first time in many decades, a clean system of appointments to the liquor boards. I do not do this often, but I commend the minister for bringing in this bill. I express the hope to him that this change will be fully used to eliminate the abusive patronage that was so prevalent under the previous Conservative government with regard to those who were employed by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

17:30

Mr. Breaugh: I just want to say, right on; that is the way it is.

Ms. Bryden: I too welcome this rather pious bill which, presumably, is ending a very bad patronage system by the previous government. There is a lot more that needs cleaning up in the treatment of employees of the liquor control board and the liquor licence board. They are subject to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, which was an act brought in really to prevent those employees from joining regular unions or from having a lot of the rights that employees in this province have under the Labour Relations Act and under the Employment Standards Act.

I have found recently that employees of not only the liquor control board but also of Brewers' Retail and of Brewers Warehousing Co. are subject to the control of this ministry or to the crown employees act. That act was intended to make it difficult for LLBO, LCBO and Workers' Compensation Board employees to organize.

As a result, these employees are not subject to the Employment Standards Act in many respects. I am told they are subject to the act with regard to pregnancy leave and equal pay -- not equal pay for equal value but equal pay -- but not regarding hours of work, vacation pay and holidays.

I recently had an employee who works for Brewers Warehousing Co. report to me that he did not get paid for the Thanksgiving holiday. He has worked a 40-hour week for four years as a nonpermanent employee. He also asked me how one becomes a permanent employee after working a 40-hour week for four years in a liquor store or a Brewers Warehousing facility.

There is nothing to protect people from that kind of an abuse. It means they get much lower benefits than full-time workers and they do not get their Thanksgiving holiday paid. That is shameful. It is time the minister looked into the employment conditions of the people who work for the LCBO, Brewers Warehousing and the Brewers' Retail stores and provided equal access and equal employment rights to those employees.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Beaches-Woodbine stated in her comments that Brewers Warehousing employees were crown employees. I want to set the record straight. Brewers Warehousing is a private company owned by the brewers of Ontario. The LCBO regulates the brewing industry. It does not regulate those employees. The company is a private sector organization. All of the brewers in Ontario own Brewers Warehousing. They do all of their own hiring. It has nothing to do with the government at all. I wanted to apprise the member of that.

Ms. Bryden: A member of my staff went to the employment standards branch with regard to this employee and his Thanksgiving holiday. She was told by no less than the person second in command -- the manager was on holiday -- that these employees are not subject to the Employment Standards Act; they are crown employees. That is exactly what this government told her.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 120, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The comments I made on Bill 119 are the same as those I have on Bill 120. I have no further comments.

Mr. Swart: My comments on the previous bill apply to this one. If anything, the situation may be worse under the Liquor Licence Act, because there the customers as well had political influence and had a determination on whether they got their licences and that sort of thing.

I doubt there is much danger the Tories will return to power in Ontario, at least for many decades. Just in case they should, it is nice to have this legislation in place to inhibit them to some degree in their attempts to provide once again the patronage they provided during the past 40 years.

Mr. Runciman: On the fact that we are not returning to power, I thought a new alliance was being considered in the past couple of weeks. Apparently I was incorrect in that.

I have problems with some of the comments made by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) about licences and so forth. I do not think that was the case. During the election campaign, we recall the now Premier (Mr. Peterson) making some very strong allegations about licensees being encouraged to make contributions to the Progressive Conservative Party or to face the threat of losing their licences.

I asked the minister almost a year ago to substantiate that or withdraw those remarks. We have heard nothing from him or from the Premier in respect of those remarks.

A lot of the allegations made in the past by the member for Welland-Thorold do not hold water when you take a close look at the situation. There is no substance to them whatsoever. We ran a clean ship.

Ms. Bryden: With regard to this bill, I see the board has the power to establish job categories, salary ranges and conditions of employment.

I ask the minister to give us information on how these salary ranges and conditions of employment compare with those enjoyed by, say, other public servants. Are these employees unionized and are there rules about how one moves from a part-time temporary position to a full-time permanent position? Is it the same situation as appears to prevail under the Liquor Control Board Act?

The government must show itself as a good employer. I have heard several complaints from employees who feel they are not being treated fairly with regard to opportunities for permanent jobs, moving up the ladder and things of that sort. Would the minister look into the working conditions established by the board and tell us how they compare with the working conditions for public servants generally?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member raises a question that is the essence of why we are bringing in this bill.

The employees of both the liquor control board and the liquor licence board are represented by unions. Notwithstanding that, in their collective agreements they have perceived there are some problems. The problems are because of the appointments by order in council.

What we expect to do is turn the hiring practices over to the board, which will be the employer. They will then he able to negotiate in good faith. They will be able to set employment criteria that we feel will be fair and equitable and will allow the citizens of Ontario to access those agencies. That is the reason for the bill.

17:40

Ms. Bryden: By indicating to us that he is planning to do this examination of the conditions of employment and the methods of hiring and dealing with order in council employees, the minister indicates that in the past 18 months he has let these conditions continue in their previous unsatisfactory state. He would not be proposing or promising reforms if he had not.

It is high time something was done in this area and these employees were given fair treatment both in access to appointments and to promotions, and working conditions comparable to the conditions other unions have been able to get for similar employees in the public service.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I believe the honourable member did participate earlier.

Mr. Runciman: And that is it?

Mr. Speaker: That is it.

Mr. Runciman: All right, but I have trouble with that. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) participated on at least three occasions.

Mr. Speaker: That is correct and that is the way the rule stands. The member may make comments or ask questions in response to other members' comments and questions.

Does the minister have any final comment?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: No.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

LAND TITLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 121, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Bill 121, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act, and Bill 122, An Act to amend the Registry Act, deal mainly with hiring procedures. The purpose of these two pieces of legislation, as with the previous two bills relating to the liquor boards, is to alter current hiring practices substantially. The amendments ensure that the same fair and impartial hiring and employment standards which currently govern the hiring of all civil servants will apply to those who will be seeking positions as land registrars under this province's land registration system. Until now, these positions have been filled through appointments by order in council of the government of the day.

Once again, the amendments are proof of this government's commitment to open and impartial hiring practices based on the applicant's qualifications and seniority.

At the appropriate time I will be introducing an amendment to Bill 121 which calls for the sections of Bill 121 and Bill 122 referring to hours of operation in land registry offices and land titles offices to be consistent.

Mr. Swart: I rather hoped we would get through these two bills today, and I suppose that is the hope of most people here, but it may not be possible. I will be very brief.

This bill provides two things, as I understand it: (1), it recognizes administrative changes, some of which are already in place and others that it would be desirable to make; (2), it provides less opportunity for political patronage appointments under the Registry Act and the Land Titles Act. I have no proposed amendments to this. My party will support the bill.

Mr. Runciman: In terms of the employment proposals included in the bill, the comments I made with respect to Bill 119 apply to this as well. I want to compliment the minister and the staff on the proposal in section 5 of the bill to do away with the requirement that lawyers serve as directors of land registration. There are a number of areas within government at large where the requirements with respect to this profession are, in my view, not necessary. I think it is a good move and perhaps something that should be looked at on a much broader scale within the provincial government.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 122, An Act to amend the Registry Act.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The comments I made about Bill 121 pertain to this one, with the exception that I will be introducing an amendment.

Mr. Swart: In general, the comments I made on Bill 121 apply to this bill as well. The only place I have any concerns is with section 7. I have two concerns there.

Both my concerns are with regard to the right of entry. The first is clause 73a(2)(a), "at any time enter and pass over the land of any person," which gives the right incidentally to anyone the registrar may appoint to enter and pass over the land of any person at any time, and (b), "at a time suitable to the occupant of a building enter the building."

My concern with clause 73a(2)(a) is that it gives a further right for government officials to go on private property without even notifying people that they are going on their property. During my many years in municipal government, I had numerous complaints from individuals, particularly farmers: "Somebody came on my property and drove stakes in the ground. They did not come to tell me what it was about." They are out there surveying, people go out and ask them questions and they do not even answer the questions about what they are surveying for. It is pretty disrespectful to private property. I am therefore going to move an amendment to that section when we go into committee of the whole.

I will leave clause 73a(2)(b) with the minister. In contrast to clause (a), it seems to me this clause could prohibit the right of an official under the Registry Act ever to get into that building. It says he may "at any time suitable to the occupant of a building enter the building." If there is no suitable time, I suspect that official would never get into that building, and he might have a need to get into the building in the course of the responsibilities of the registry office. I am not moving any amendment to that; I just wanted to leave that thought with the minister.

Apart from these two clauses, I am supportive of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

17:50

House in committee of the whole.

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 122, An Act to amend the Registry Act.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 7:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that clause 73a(2)(a) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by striking out "at any time" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "upon notice to the owner and occupant."

Mr. Swart: I will make some very brief comments. The clause would then read, "upon notice to the owner and occupant enter and pass over the land of any person." We have to read that in conjunction with subsection 73a(2):

"Any person referred to in subsection (1), while in the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1), may, (a) upon notice to the owner and occupant enter and pass over the land of any person...."

It is perfectly clear what we are trying to do and I hope the minister will consider it a friendly amendment. I am very much aware that land surveyors under their authority can go on land at any time without any notification. As I stated, I disagree with that authority. It seems to me there needs to be some attempt made on the part of that person who is going on the land to notify the owner or occupant that he is going on the land and explain the purpose of his being there.

The amendment I have moved is not as restrictive as it could have been. I deliberately moved it in this manner with the hope that the members of this Legislature will accept that amendment. It provides the clear principle that the owner and occupier -- "occupier" is necessary because a farmer may be renting land and have crops there; he has custody of that land for a period of time -- should know if somebody is going to come on that land and for what purpose.

As I say, I am hoping the minister will accept this amendment. At some point down the road when we discuss the Surveyors Act, if that is the act under which they operate, I am sure we can make that amendment there as well. I notice it does not provide any fine. It simply refers to notice to the owner and occupant. It does not even state how they have to be notified -- perhaps it should, but I intentionally left it rather vague hoping it would be accepted.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The section the member for Welland-Thorold refers to is identical, as he stated, to the provisions under the Surveyors Act, subsection 6(1), which says, "A surveyor or a person in his employ, while making a survey may at any time enter and pass over the land of any person or at any time suitable to the occupant of the building enter the building." The wording is identical.

Under the provisions of the Surveyors Act, one does not even have to be a surveyor; it can be a person in his employ. The provision is there now and what we are suggesting is that this aspect of the bill would coincide with that, because otherwise one would be in conflict. We would have one act that says one could not do it and another act saying one could.

It is done for the purpose of authorizing a person who is not a land surveyor to enter on private property to check the dimensions, to make sure that if there is going to be a registration of a condominium or whatever, that can be done. I take the member's intent as a friendly amendment. There is no question about that; I understand where he comes from.

However, I should say the proposed clause 73a(2)(b) says, "at a time suitable to the occupant...." It is not as though one can go any time he wants to. It allows him to go, but it has to be at a time suitable to the occupant. It is in keeping with the Surveyors Act, which has that provision. It is for more than just surveyors; it is for surveyors and people in their employ. In order to be consistent, we should keep the provision as it is. For that reason, I am opposed to amending it.

Mr. Sterling: Does this specifically refer to the powers of the examiner of surveys? Does this deal with looking for survey bars after a reference plan has been done in the country, for instance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Yes, it does.

Mr. Sterling: I think the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) probably does not agree with the present Surveyors Act under which the surveyor has a licence or the right of trespass. As I interpret his words, he does not think the examiner of surveys should have that right of trespass either, which effectively is what this act says.

Perhaps the minister can work out some appropriate words. The only part of the amendment I have trouble with concerns giving the proper notification to people; what is reasonable notice to these various people in the circumstances? I would be more amenable to an amendment that offered reasonable notification to the occupant or owner if he were readily available, or something of that nature. There should be some reasonable attempt at notice; I agree with the member for Welland-Thorold. I think most surveyors and, I imagine, the examiner of surveys would give that notice in most cases. Perhaps there should be some consideration of a reasonable attempt at notice.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I think that is implied in clause 73a(2)(b) where it says, "at any time suitable to the occupant." In order to determine whether it is suitable to the occupant, you have to give notice. If he says it is not suitable for one to come at a particular time, one does not have access. There is a provision that allows this employee to enter, but there is a safeguard that it has to be suitable to the occupant. In order to determine that, one has to do what they do.

Mr. Swart: I am sorry, but I must disagree totally with the interpretation of the minister and ask him to take another look at it. I suggest this bill provides that these people may enter on to land at any time. They do not have to notify anybody and it does not have to be suitable to the occupant at all. It is only when they go into a building that it has to be suitable to the occupant.

Let the minister take a second look at it as I read it.

"(2) Any person referred to in subsection (1), while in the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1), may, (a) at any time enter and pass over the land of any person; or (b) at a time suitable to the occupant of a building enter the building...."

To go on to the land, it does not have to be suitable to anybody. These people have an absolute right.

On the remarks made by the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling): I have left this, as I said, deliberately rather vague. It simply says, "upon notice to the owner and occupant." It could be given at the time. I am suggesting giving notice to the owner and occupant by any method even if it is only by leaving a note, instead of having the absolute right to go --

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Is it the wish of the committee that we pursue this bill and finish it today?

All those in favour of Mr. Swan's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I think you had better look at the clock.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Kwinter, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

November 18, 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LOW-ALCOHOL PRODUCTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS

AUTO PACT

MISSISSAUGA CITIZENS OF THE YEAR

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

FILM INDUSTRY

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO PLANNING

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ON SOUTH AFRICA

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

PUBLIC UTILITIES

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SALE OF LANDS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

PROPANE EXPLOSION

PROVINCIAL SYMBOL

DAY CARE

PETITIONS

SUNDAY RACING

MINIMUM WAGE

USE OF 2,4-D

MOTIONS

REFERRAL OF BILLS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF LINDSAY ACT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF ONTARIO ACT

LONDON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT

THIRD READINGS

LOI DE 1986 SUR LES SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS / FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES ACT

ROYAL ASSENT/ SANCTION ROYALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

LAND TITLES AMENDMENT ACT

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT