34th Parliament, 2nd Session





















































The House met at 1330.




Mr Allen: Eleanor Gagnon of Midland is being subjected to undue hardship by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which is insisting that she repay $2,640 in overpayments made on her welfare cheques between 1974 and 1986.

Ms Gagnon is 57 years of age, currently has a part-time seasonal job and has no real assets save for a $300 1979 Pinto car. Throughout the time she was on welfare, she declared all her income and lived by the rules. The overpayments were a ministry error of proportions a recipient could hardly be expected to detect. At present, she cannot meet even a $20 monthly payment, and if she could, it would take her 10 years to repay.

In January, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Manitoba government could not deduct repayments from welfare cheques because that constituted undue hardship. Surely it is equally illegitimate to require repayment from the working poor whose income may be no better than welfare. The minister has insisted that the Canada assistance plan requires that he go after such overpayments, but the plan requires simply that such cases must be judged, taking into account the budgetary requirements of the person in need.

Clearly, it is the minister’s choice to pursue Ms Gagnon. When I asked the minister about the Manitoba case in February, he said the ministry was reviewing its practices. Does the Gagnon case tell us that they have decided to extract payments regardless of undue hardship?


Mr Harris: There are two major areas where we have progressed in this sitting of the Legislature which will have a long-term impact in Ontario.

First, major changes to the standing orders of the assembly have been achieved. The government has dragged its heels for three years in this area. We are now looking at the election of a Speaker among other significant changes.

The resignation of Raj Anand showed that at least one person was prepared to act to preserve the integrity of the system. For that he is respected.

The resignation of the member for London South (Mrs E. J. Smith) showed that the traditions of this assembly are stronger than the self-serving dictates of an arrogant majority government.

The Patti Starr affair: While this shameful episode is far from over, we can all take pride in the actions of institutions that have acted so ably to protect the rights of the public: the Ontario Provincial Police, the municipal police, the public trustee, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, the Commission on Election Finances, the crown prosecutor and soon a judicial inquiry. I know they will serve us well and perhaps even reveal the true nature of the relationship that exists between this Liberal administration and certain developers.

Even the crisis in health care, including waiting lists and unforgivable delays, may serve to help us all in the end, because it serves as proof that government cannot continue to bungle, neglect planning and ignore the needs of people.

Respect, credibility, integrity, planning, confidence in our institutions and government: these are the values threatened in the last session and the issues our party will take to the people this summer while the Premier (Mr Peterson) picnics with Liberals.


Mr Velshi: I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the state of environmental awareness and some initiatives within the Don Mills community.

Earlier this summer, I had the opportunity to participate in a cleanup operation by the Crescent Town public school. Staff, students and community members managed to recover approximately 40 bags of garbage, one disassembled car and a number of beds and shopping carts from a single 400-metre stretch of Taylor Creek Park in East York.

Just last week I had the opportunity of participating in the kickoff of the Environmental Youth Corps with the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Curling), the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio), my colleague the member for York East (Ms Hart) and, of course, the Premier (Mr Peterson).

I am very pleased with the state of awareness that has been reached when dealing with environmental affairs. This is reflected in the public support of the initiatives of the Minister of the Environment pertaining to the reduction of ozone-depleting substances, the reduction of emissions-causing acid rain, the blue box program and his support of environmental cleanups at the community level.

I am proud of this government’s effort to improve our environment. In keeping with this commitment, I would like to let the House know that I will be returning to Taylor Creek on 20 August to continue the beautification process of parks and watersheds within the Don Mills community. It is my hope that all members of this House recognize not only the need for a large, across-the-board policy of pollution abatement but also the equally important need for grassroots cleanup efforts.


Mr Charlton: Yesterday, in responding to the member for York South (Mr B. Rae), the Minister of Energy (Mr Wong) chose to quote from a press release dated 21 July by the Independent Power Producers’ Society of Ontario and he chose to deal with a quote which applauded the ministry for the content of his policy on parallel generation in Ontario. Unfortunately, the minister failed to read all of the press release by the independent power producers, and I thought it might be useful if we heard some of the remainder of that press release.

“‘There is still some concern,’ said Jeff Passmore, chairman of the Conservation/Renewable Energy Industry Council, ‘that the review of avoided cost will be entangled in the process of public discussion on Hydro’s preferred generation plan. It would seem apparent that the technical analysis of avoided cost must precede the policy decisions relating to the plan, thus giving the government the evidence needed to make decisions on the options.’

“The independent power producers have said that a reference to the Ontario Energy Board is the only realistic alternative.”

Perhaps the Minister of Energy should come clean and respond to the question which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and tell the people of Ontario why the review of avoided cost and other matters is being delayed until after the tabling of Hydro’s preferred energy generation plan.


Mr McCague: My colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) brought to the members’ attention some of the highlights of the last session. I want to bring to the attention of the Legislature some of the things that were not done by the government.

During the 1987 election campaign the Liberals promised to provide 4,000 chronic and acute care hospital beds. We know now that they reneged on that. They also promised province-wide integrated homemaker services, which they have completely failed to do.

Do the members remember the promise for 102,000 affordable rental units by 1989? Another failure. Their promise to decrease the cost of new homes is a joke, not to mention their ridiculous proposal for education lot levies.

What about the specific plan to reduce automobile insurance rates? They have completely copped out on this one. Now they are working on a plan just to stabilize the marketplace.


The Liberals promised to bring integrity to the environmental assessment process. So far, they have exempted over 100 projects from the Environmental Assessment Act, including St Lawrence Square, and they intend to exempt at least five more under the terms of the greater Toronto area garbage plan.

We have heard nothing about their plans for the Rouge Valley. They will not move the radioactive soil from McClure Crescent. They have alienated municipalities and farmers with their unilateral moves to shift taxes and cut programs.

I could go on and on, but I am running out of time. There are dozens more broken promises. The people of Ontario have long memories, and we will continue to remind the government of its addiction to making wild promises it cannot fulfil.


Mr Faubert: Members in this House should all be aware that each year about 60 in every one million Canadians experience end-stage renal failure and require renal dialysis to stay alive. In layman’s terms, this procedure purifies the patient’s blood when his kidneys have failed.

I applaud the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) on her announcement last June to expand treatment facilities under a $23-million program as part of the action plan for specialty care. Under this plan, 75 new dialysis treatment stations were established across the province and an additional $300,000 was allocated to the multiple organ retrieval and exchange, bringing the total annual funding for the MORE program to $1 .3 million.

Renal failure can be a very debilitating illness and travel for those who suffer this affliction is both painful and stressful.

Scarborough is a city of half a million people with a great need for a local dialysis station. Much of the expansion in renal dialysis facilities within Metropolitan Toronto has concentrated in the teaching hospitals of the downtown core. While this has historically been the trend due to the highly technological nature of this service, I would urge that the continued expansion of such facilities in the Metropolitan Toronto region be looked at in terms of rationalization of the service within the Metro area.

In this context, the Scarborough General Hospital, a location agreed to by the Scarborough hospitals’ co-ordinating committee, could then be made eligible to receive a renal dialysis station. Thus, residents of Scarborough suffering from renal failure would not be required to travel downtown and could receive this essential service closer to home.


Mr Laughren: This government deserves a failing mark for its failure to improve the road system in northern Ontario. Not only have they not done any four-laning, which many of their candidates promised that their government would do if only they would get elected in the 1987 election, but I spent a week in the northern part of my own constituency and in many cases the forest roads are in better condition than the public roads that are supposed to be maintained by this government.



Hon Mr Eakins: As the members of the Legislature know, I had the opportunity on Monday, along with my colleague the member for Essex South (Mr Mancini), to see at first hand the devastation caused by last week’s rainstorm in Essex county.

The damage is severe. Even though it may not look as bad now as it did last week, a great many residents of this area face considerable hardship. Cabinet therefore agreed today to declare the southern half of Essex county a disaster area for the purposes of the Ontario disaster relief assistance program.

Under the program, the county will establish a local disaster relief committee. This committee will co-ordinate all fund-raising activities related to the disaster. It will also work within the guidelines of the program to appraise losses and to settle claims.

Ordinarily, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs matches funds raised locally on a dollar-for-dollar basis, but because of the magnitude of the disaster in Essex county, cabinet has agreed to make available up to three dollars for every one dollar raised locally.

The disaster relief fund, including donations and the provincial contribution, will be used to help claimants cover the cost of uninsured essential goods damaged or destroyed by the flood. Essential goods would include principal residences, farm buildings and principal business enterprise buildings. They would also include essential furnishings, such as refrigerators, furnaces, stoves and tools or other items essential to the claimant’s livelihood, including farm machinery and equipment.

Staff of my ministry will immediately begin helping the county of Essex set up its disaster relief committee.

I must point out that the Ontario disaster relief assistance program is not the only source of emergency funding the government can bring to bear on last week’s flood. I am pleased to announce that the government will be providing financial assistance to farmers to help address the cash flow problems they may face as a result of last week’s storm in Essex county.

We will be providing grants that will ease the burden for farmers who may require operating loans. The grant will be based on the uninsurable portion of the value of the crop that is lost. We will be announcing the details of the program in the next few weeks. To deal with the possible tile drain damage, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will ensure that sufficient funds are available for tile drainage repair grants.

As I said before, farmers will also receive assistance from the disaster relief fund to cover farm residences and essential furnishings, farm buildings, equipment and machinery, as well as orchard trees. Staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will assess the possible problem of market gardeners who may have crops for which no crop insurance coverage is available. In addition, more than 80 per cent of the crops in the area are covered under the Ontario crop insurance program.

The Ministry of Transportation will financially assist with the reconstruction of the municipal and county roads system. Based on current estimates, the ministry will provide an additional allocation of $2 million for this purpose. The ministry will work in close co-operation with the county and municipalities, determining with them the priority roads projects.

Ministry personnel have determined that Highway 18 has sustained some damage. Two bridges, however, are still under water and inspections must yet be made at these two sites. We intend to see that these get repaired as soon as possible. In this instance, costs are estimated at $1 million.

While the disaster relief assistance program covers only privately owned property, the unconditional grants program administered by my ministry permits us to provide special financial aid to municipalities where extraordinary expenditures would cause an excessive tax increase. We will consider whether assistance can be provided under the program as soon as we can assess how much flood damage to public property will cost the municipalities.

I would like to compliment the people of Essex county on the way they have pulled together to deal with the effects of the flood so far. I am sure their community spirit will ensure the success of their fund-raising efforts. I would like to assure them that this government will do everything it can to help them to rebuild their lives just as quickly as possible.


Hon Mr O’Neil: I rise today to inform members that over the next five years my ministry will make $30 million available to Ontario municipalities with populations under 50,000, to redevelop and reclaim their water-fronts for tourism and recreation.

The economic imperatives of another age placed manufacturing and transportation facilities at the water’s edge in much of Ontario. More and more towns and cities are awakening to the potential of their previously neglected urban shorelines. Reclaimed, these lands will not only attract tourists but also serve as sites for new recreation facilities to enhance the lives of their residents.

In communities with waterfront across the province, the community waterfront program will stimulate residential and commercial development, leading to major improvements in local economies and significant job creation. Well-planned lake or river fronts can serve as focal points for entire communities and lead to the rejuvenation or even the creation of whole neighbourhoods.

Under this new program, up to $500,000 is available to waterside municipalities for the construction or rehabilitation of facilities intended to expand or improve tourism and recreation. Up to $50,000 is available to a community for planning and feasibility studies.

My announcement today responds to this government’s commitment in the 1987 speech from the throne to implement a community waterfront program. In keeping with this government’s 1989 throne speech initiatives, the program will strengthen the economies of smaller communities, foster healthier lifestyles for Ontarians and assist the expansion of the tourism and recreation potential of the province.



Hon Mr Kerrio: I would like to update the House on the forest fire conditions in the north. Yesterday, a restricted fire zone was declared for all of northern Ontario. The area includes my ministry’s northwestern, north-central, northern and northeastern administrative regions, the south shore of the French River and the French River Provincial Park.

The restriction order prohibits all burning, including campfires for warmth and cooking. While portable stoves are allowed, we are asking people to use them with care. The restriction is in effect until midnight Monday night 31 July.

It has been hot and dry across northern Ontario for several weeks. This has created high to extreme fire conditions throughout the area. There are 188 forest fires burning in the province.

I am asking people to be especially cautious over the next few days. Because of the large number of lightning fires, we want to reduce the risk of additional forest fires as much as possible.

Over the past week, we have evacuated close to 600 people in northwestern and north-central Ontario. The Ministry of Natural Resources is committed to protecting lives and property from forest fires.

There are currently 1,100 MNR firefighters in the field. Our firefighting team is a dedicated group of people who are doing an outstanding job under extreme pressure. The co-operation we have received from the people of northern Ontario has also been tremendous. They include extra firefighters, native fire crews, volunteers who choose not to be evacuated so they can help contain the fires, and people in the communities who receive evacuees.

Once again, I urge people to exercise extreme caution in and around the forests over the coming days.



Mr B. Rae: I want to respond to the announcements that have been made by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil) and in particular by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr Eakins).

Obviously it is in the very best traditions of the history of this province, looking back at the origins of the first settlements in this province by farmers, that we would, as a community, always want to assist those people who have been hit by the effects of a natural disaster.

I can just say to the minister that we are glad the government has finally seen the wisdom of the recommendations that were made to him by me and by my colleague the leader of the Conservative Party.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Nice of you to share that initiative.

Mr B. Rae: I am happy to share it with whoever.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Never would have thought of it.

Mr B. Rae: I will say some nice things about the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) in a minute, but I want to say that I am glad to see that the comments made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) off the cuff, as it were, have been overruled by his colleagues in cabinet and that in fact the government is not going to be proceeding on the basis that only those farmers with crop insurance would be covered or that any assistance would be limited to crop insurance.

I am glad to see that there has been a change of heart on the part of the government and the cabinet in terms of providing assistance to farmers dependent on their need and their condition, and because of the severity of the situation, the really unusual impact, and the seriousness of the impact which this has had.

I might point out to the minister that the copy of his statement that I have shows that the estimate of the damage to the two bridges that he talked about was $300,000, and in his statement in the House he talked about $1 million. I think that gives everyone a sense of just how serious the damage is and also how quickly changing are the estimates as to what exactly this is going to involve and how much effort is implied.

I think we all want to send our congratulations and our best wishes to the citizens of Essex county who have encountered the tragic circumstances of this flood with great imagination, courage and, I might add, great forthrightness in terms of their bringing forward their concerns to the forefront of our life here at Queen’s Park and making the government respond in the way in which it has.

On this day of all days, I would be the first to say to the government that we are grateful and happy the government is taking the steps it is and we look forward to assisting the government in whatever way we can to assist the good people of Essex county as they rebuild their lives, their communities, their farms and their homes in the face of this terrible tragedy.


Mr Hampton: Responding to the announcement by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio), I do not think it comes as any surprise to anyone that the fire conditions across northern Ontario are high and extreme. We have had hot weather now for about a month, with very little rainfall.

I think the important part of the minister’s announcement is this: Earlier this year we had a lot of rainfall in northern Ontario and so fire conditions were at a low point. In fact, fire crews were not often pressed into service. Now the situation, as the minister has indicated, is quite extreme and so fire crews will probably be pressed into service often and for long periods of time. We will see how effectively his new method of fighting fires works, I say to the minister that we have situations now where crews which are working together have not trained together. They have not trained together and they have not fought fires together.

It is very difficult to fight a roaring forest fire when you are not sure if you can depend on the people next to you, when you are not sure if they know what to do or when you are not sure they are going to follow orders. I hope, for the minister’s sake, that the method of fighting fires that he has put into practice this year is successful because the bottom line is that there are 230 fewer trained firefighters in the field this year than were in the field last year.

I also want to say to the minister that in the long term, the policy of simply evacuating Indian villages cannot work and I hope his ministry will pursue that and look at that again.


Mr Brandt: I want to make some brief comments with respect to the announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr Eakins) in connection with the Essex county disaster. Let me just say that during the course of this past session of Parliament, we have not, on this side of the House, had too many opportunities to be complimentary towards the government with respect to certain policy initiatives and certain broken promises that have been made.

However, I want to say on one of the last days of this session of Parliament that I indeed want to join with all members of the House, I believe, in congratulating the minister and the government on showing the initiative in providing a three-for-one assistance program to the people of Essex county who no doubt will appreciate that kind of help.

There is no question whatever that the situation in Essex county is in fact a disaster in the true sense of the word. The damage in that area is going to run into millions of dollars, as the minister is well aware, and is probably escalating as we now speak. Many in the agricultural community do not have adequate crop insurance. About 80 per cent do, I understand, but there is 20 per cent who do not who will be wiped out completely or bankrupted as a result of the devastation that occurred there.

I think this is an opportunity, if I may say so, for this province and our communities to pull together to help in a case where there is a very clearly identified need. We have done this in Barrie and we have done this in Woodstock. It has been the history of this province, quite frankly, through whatever administration was in office, that we all shared in trying to overcome the kind of burden of disaster that fell on the shoulders of a particular region of our province.

I think it is only right and proper to provide three-to-one assistance, which we in fact had recommended very early in the discussion on this particular issue from the perspective of our side of the House. It is proper that the government has provided this kind of assistance. I want to take opportunity to congratulate the government and the minister, particularly, and I trust the program will be worked out in such a way as to be of maximum benefit to all of those who are in need in that particular area.

Mr Villeneuve: May I also comment briefly, particularly on the agricultural area in southern Essex county, most of whose farmers are producers of fruit, vegetable and cash crops. I am rather pleased that the Minister of Municipal Affairs made that statement today. I am afraid that had it been left to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell), we may still have been waiting and the news may not have been nearly as good.


The problem here is that these very same farmers last year suffered drought, drought that they are attempting to partly recover from. There has been a $114-million offer from the federal government, a government that promised during an election campaign to help and a government that is keeping its promise. This government does not want to co-operate to bring $152 million to the agricultural community of the province of Ontario.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food told us that he has the support of the Ontario Agricultural Commodities Council. I have been advised by the council itself that it does not support the minister’s stand in this particular, rather political stance.


Mr Harris: I want to briefly comment on statements by the other two ministers, first of all, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil). On the waterfront program, the $6-million community waterfront program, I would like to indicate that the $6 million a year that the minister has announced is headed in the right direction. I think it is progress, I think it restores a program that we have been without for the last four years since the Liberal administration took office. Now finally we have the government putting confidence and faith back into reclaiming and redeveloping waterfronts in this province. I know that communities will welcome this program being restored, although $6 million a year is not much.


Mr Harris: Finally, to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio), we appreciate the update on the fire situation. It is a serious situation. We appreciate the knowledge of the ban of open fires. I assume it applies as well in the Sault area to --

The Speaker: Thank you. That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.



Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister, I am sure, will have seen the answers given in this House by his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) concerning the government’s planned legislation, Bill 208, on health and safety, where the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology made it clear that he was proud to be a champion of the business community, that he was listening to their concerns about the health and safety legislation and their opposition to it and that he regarded this bill as not simply labour legislation but as legislation affecting many aspects of economic life in the province.

The labour movement, as I am sure the minister will know, has been told by him that he considers Bill 162, which the House has just passed, and Bill 208 a package, as part of an overall approach by the government. I wonder if the minister can tell us: Is it the government’s plan to proceed with Bill 208 as it is now written?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I should tell the Leader of the Opposition, in responding to his suggestion that I said that bills 162 and 208 were a package, what I was attempting to explain at that time when I made that comment is simply this: From my perspective, the policy that I have been trying to bring to this province in the area of health and safety is really twofold.

The first part of it, represented by Bill 162, is a system of compensation that really does reflect the losses that workers have suffered after a permanent partial disability or an injury that lives with that worker for the rest of that worker’s life. The second part of the government’s policy is to have health and safety legislation that does put into place very stringent rules so we can ensure that we are minimizing to the greatest extent the occasions when there are accidents in the workplace and, in doing so, to have legislation that creates a framework within which workers can effectively participate in the management of their own health and safety in those workplaces. That is what Bill 208 does.

I expect, Mr Speaker, that after we have a little bit of a summer break, we will be debating that bill in this House in second reading.

Mr B. Rae: I did not hear an answer from the minister as clearly as I wanted it --

Mr Ballinger: You wouldn’t be satisfied anyway.

Mr B. Rae: Come on now. The Business Coalition on Bill 208 states in a press release put out by the Ontario Trucking Association that it seems that these efforts -- referring to efforts to lobby against this particular piece of legislation -- have effectively convinced the government that Bill 208 needs revision.

I am trying to explore the depth of the government’s commitment to all the aspects of Bill 208. I want to ask the minister point-blank: Is it the government’s intention to proceed with Bill 208 as it is now written in all respects; yes or no?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Let me just tell the Leader of the Opposition that I do not think there has been a time in the history of this Parliament when a bill sponsored by the Minister of Labour in the area of health and safety, or perhaps any other piece of labour legislation, has not given rise to some concern by the business community. I think back to when in the last Parliament we dealt with first-contract arbitration. If you think way back to the first rights-of-labour bill, I think probably some of the same response was there. There have been a number of organizations that have come to me both from the labour side and from the management side, suggesting amendments. In fact, the Ontario Federation of Labour has suggested a series of amendments dealing with certain aspects of the bill, as has the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and a number of other groups.

I think both my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and I, on occasion, have listened to those representations and have taken them into consideration as we prepare for second reading, but I cannot tell the member that there has been any decision whatever to make any amendment to the bill prior to second reading.

Mr B. Rae: It is extremely important in terms of what has happened in the government’s whole performance on health and safety. The government moved on Bill 162 unilaterally against the advice of the labour movement. The minister knows perfectly well what the commitment of the labour movement is to the principles contained in Bill 208. He also knows the extent of the business lobby against Bill 208. That is why I am asking the minister to give us his assurance that it is the government’s intention to proceed not just through second reading but to enact a law on health and safety as it was basically negotiated and agreed to by the parties prior to the introduction of this bill. The minister knows that is what has happened prior to the introduction of this legislation.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I think that is the major fallacy under which the Leader of the Opposition is working. Bill 208 was not negotiated between the parties. Bill 208 was presented in this Legislature after extensive consultation by myself and officials within the Ministry of Labour with a number of groups around the province, and it has a history beyond that. In the last Parliament, my predecessor introduced Bill 106 which really is the foundation upon which Bill 208 is based.

A number of the things that were in Bill 106 have been reproduced in Bill 208. When I became Minister of Labour I felt that we needed to go beyond Bill 106 and in particular to have a system which brought the workplace parties together in the agency that is reflected in Bill 208. I strongly believe in the principles in that bill. I anticipate that when we come back we will be able to debate those principles, that there will be amendments suggested by the New Democratic Party, that there will be amendments suggested by the Progressive Conservative Party, and all of those matters will be considered during second reading and when the bill is in committee.


Mr B. Rae: I wish I could say that I was reassured by the minister’s answer, but my question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. I am sure the minister, because of his history in this House, will recall a statement that was made by a previous minister responsible for the Mortgage Brokers Act. It is a statement that was made by Gordon Walker back on 24 June 1981 after the Re-Mor/Astra Trust fiasco. Mr Walker said that there were a number of things which needed to be done in terms of tightening up the act and the procedures under the act. There were a number of changes that needed to be made.

As the minister will know, the act has not been changed, but there were procedures outlined by Mr Walker about things that could be done even within the act to ensure that major breakdowns of the financial system did not occur with respect to mortgage brokering. My question to the minister is this: His staff have been into this company and group of companies, all the group of companies involved --


The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: -- a normal annual review on 28 July, a spot-check on 7 February, one branch on 17 April, and on 19 June a spot-check of Kiminco Acceptance. Four businesses in a year. What happened?

Hon Mr Elston: First of all, so that the public is aware of what was said, I had indicated that there were visits to the people who are licensed under the Mortgage Brokers Act. In fact, that is correct. But the allegation by the Leader of the Opposition that we were in the whole group of companies is not proper. Our role is only to participate in an analysis of the companies that come within the Mortgage Brokers Act.

With respect to Mr Walker’s quotes, I have not necessarily found it helpful to commit to memory quotations by Gordon Walker, but I can say that I have some indication that there were suggestions that some things should have been done under the auspices of a review of the Re-Mor situation. That may have been eclipsed slightly by an activity level of a very high degree dealing with Seaway and Greymac in the trust company areas. Particularly with respect to Re-Mor and Astra, it was the relationship between the mortgage company and the trust company, I think, which was clearly causing considerable problems.

We have taken a very high level of regard for the regulation that is required with respect to trust companies and have been looking at --

The Speaker: Thank you. That seems like a fairly extensive response.

Mr B. Rae: The fact remains that the ministry and the officials in the ministry identified inadequacies in the act going back to 1981. That was the thrust of the announcement that was made by Mr Walker. He talked about the need to deal with self-dealing, the need to have documents in language that people could understand, the need to have a more detailed examination of audited financial statements, the need to have forensic accountants there; he went on and on to describe, in a two-page announcement in this House, exactly what needed to be done. Some of them were administrative changes and some of them were problems in the act and the law that were not, in his view at that time, adequately protecting the investor.

Can the minister explain how it is that his ministry was in Mr Coulter’s registered, licensed companies four times in the last year and apparently never found any problem which would lead it to take any action to protect investors in these companies?

Hon Mr Elston: The review and the assessment that were done by the inspectors were done in relation to the material which was supplied in compliance with the act. I can tell the member that probably there would not be found, from what I understand now, a lack of clarity in the language of the documents which really contributed to the problems. We will be assessing fully, as I said yesterday, the circumstances under which some people agreed to invest in soft assets, after we know for sure exactly what happened to have them brought into those investments.

I am not prepared at this point to provide my own judgement, although the member may be prepared to put his judgement on it, as to what actually occurred, how it occurred and why it occurred. My advice is that the people in my department who were working on these assessments at the particular times mentioned performed in a way which was expected and required of them and --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: The minister is the one who has made a judgement. He has told the press outside that he is satisfied, on the basis of one week’s study by him, that everything is fine as far as the work of his ministry is concerned, and that there will be no compensation for any of the investors if that is what is required. He has made that judgement. That is the judgement he has made on the basis of one week’s analysis.

I am asking the minister if he can explain how it is that an inspection would take place four times -- not just once but four times -- in the past year. It would include an annual review and a number of spot-checks of companies licensed. I would like to ask the minister how that could happen and, at the same time, the company would be put into receivership on 17 July.

Hon Mr Elston: It is my advice that it is not unusual, when the company is as large as this one, to follow up the annual review with the spot-checks as indicated. This is one of the largest, probably the first or second in Ontario; in fact, it was from that point of view that a branch was chosen on which to have a spot-check performed in compliance with a review of the annual report which had been made.

For the purposes of the first part of the member’s statement, which said my judgement was that there would not be any reimbursement of those people who had invested in these uninsured assets, I have the preliminary opinion expressed by the people from my ministry that everything that was done was done well and everything that ought to have been done was in fact performed.

When we go through the analysis of the report on what happened with these assets, then we will take a look at it. I also told the public that I am not prepared to insure --

The Speaker: Thank you.


Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health. I want to advise her, as she may be aware, that last month one of her ministry officials indicated that a number of hospitals have submitted budgets including deficits for the 1989-90 fiscal period. I wonder if the minister could confirm whether that statement is accurate, that hospital deficits are being reported, and would she indicate to this House how many hospitals have indicated to date that they will be operating in a deficit situation again this year?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to report to the leader of the third party that through the formulation of the new funding formula, which will see that hospitals ultimately are funded appropriately, fairly and to meet the service needs of their community, we expect that hospitals should be able to balance their budgets with the service provided to their community, and we are working with them on an ongoing basis to help them achieve that.

I can tell him that we have just begun in this transitional funding formula; in fact, last year many of the hospitals which were able to work directly with the ministry found that by working co-operatively with us, services were able to be maintained and balanced budgets achieved.

Mr Brandt: I wish the news was anywhere near as good as the minister is indicating. There was an article in the Ottawa Citizen on 29 June which indicated that at least five of the Ottawa area hospitals are going to be experiencing deficits. I will give the minister the exact figures so that she can check these out: Ottawa General Hospital, $5.5 million; Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, $2.2 million.

This shortfall -- and there are a number of others as well; I will provide the minister with the list -- is as a result of the minister providing four per cent in terms of increased funding, which is fully one per cent below the rate of inflation. I have to suggest to the minister that it is going to be a long, hot summer again for our hospitals.

Does the minister agree that the only move that can be made by hospitals that seems to make sense in light of the financial limitations the minister has placed on these institutions is that they close beds in order to comply with the limitations of the minister’s funding programs?

Hon Mrs Caplan: For the information of the leader of the third party, some $6 billion, a transfer payment increase of 8.3 per cent, I believe, will be made available to the institutions. Let me quote for him what a hospital administrator has to say about how alternative methods of financing and better management can achieve balanced budgets without impacting on service.

“More surgery was performed in the hospital this past year but much of it was done in outpatient clinics, which means patients don’t stay overnight.... We haven’t turned away any patients or refused to look at anyone, but every hospital admission is a matter of judgement as to whether the patient needs to be admitted or can be cared for in an outpatient diabetic clinic, for example, or at a doctor’s office.”


This was the assistant administrator of finance from the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, who turned a $3-million deficit into a small surplus by working co-operatively with us so we can assist them.

Mr Brandt: Let me quote to the minister another hospital administrator who does not feel quite as positive about her program, that is, the administrator of the Whitby General Hospital who is now having to serve patients -- I know the minister will find this quite surprising -- and look after their needs in elevator shafts and in hallways because he does not have enough room. He has indicated that any cuts he has to make from his present budget will have to result in more beds being lost.

The Kingston General Hospital is indicating a deficit of some $1.1 million; St Catharines General Hospital, $500,000; the Chedoke McMaster Hospitals in Hamilton, $3.5 million; and the Oshawa General Hospital, $1.1 million. Is the minister going to allow these hospitals, as a result of their deficits, to make a decision or is she going to force them into making a decision where they have no other alternative again this year but to cut more hospital beds? Is that her answer to the problem?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the leader of the third party that by focusing on the services provided, by focusing on alternative ways of providing those services, hospitals can maintain service levels by providing more and more on an outpatient basis, as has been proven time and again over the course of the past year.

I have a quote he might find very interesting:

“You have to make some very tough decisions, as the minister, the government, about the shape of the system. You know, refusing to continue to add more and more beds. Saying to doctors and boards of directors, look, you’re going to have to do more surgery on an outpatient basis.... Today it’s recognized that they can do more than half of all surgical procedures on an outpatient basis, which is a lot less expensive.’”

“I do not believe for one minute that there is a shortage of money in the system.”

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Caplan: Does the member know who said that? It was Dennis Timbrell.


Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. This afternoon we are going to begin to deal with Bill 194. We may be dealing with it for some time in the future.

This morning several health care groups met with me and the critic for the New Democratic Party and in unison said that Bill 194 was a step backward rather than a step forward. They urged the minister to make basically two amendments to the bill. I ask him whether he is willing to accept reasonable amendments to Bill 194.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I want to tell my friend the member for Carleton that I look forward to consideration of Bill 194 in committee this afternoon and I look forward, frankly, to concluding that debate in committee of the whole.

Mr Brandt: We’re staying here for the summer.

Hon Mr Sorbara: The leader of the third party says he wants to be here all summer, but he is sitting there with a packed suitcase beside his desk, so I do not know what he is talking about. In fact, I see an airline ticket in the pocket of the member for Durham East (Mr Cureatz), flying back to Oshawa.

I certainly am prepared to be here to consider all reasonable amendments that are presented to the committee. However, I note that the bill already has been in committee of the whole House for quite some time, and I do not expect that at this late date we will be seeing amendments that have not already been discussed at least in principle.

Mr Sterling: In committee we put forward two amendments before. One was basically to define that a smoking area must be separate and apart from the non-smoking area, to which anybody who has any logic would agree. There should be some kind of physical barrier between a smoking and a non-smoking area. The other amendment deals with the right of a non-smoking employee to sit in a non-smoking area which is separate and apart from a smoking area.

Due to the fact that in committee the minister’s senior policy adviser, Mr Clarke, in response to a question I asked, said that from this legislation as it now stands before this Legislative Assembly springs no new right -- and those are his words -- for a nonsmoker in a workplace, will the minister accept the amendments I have mentioned to him?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I have no problem at all with acknowledging in this House and elsewhere that my friend from Carleton is absolutely passionate about bringing about a smoke-free Ontario, where no one smokes, and that whoever does is not within puffing distance of people who do not smoke, but he suggests separate areas in workplaces.

If members had had the opportunity to be at his press conference this morning, they would have heard him talk about a hodgepodge. Right now in Ontario, in the absence of Bill 194, we do have a hodgepodge of regulation. Surely he is not suggesting that in our workplaces we permit smoking only where there are separately constructed and ventilated facilities, while basically in any restaurant in Metropolitan Toronto or elsewhere, the accommodation is a smoking section over there and a nonsmoking section over here. What my friend the member for Carleton is proposing is a hodgepodge for the province.

When we pass Bill 194, as I think and hope we will today --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Sterling: Going to a restaurant, a place where one has the choice of going, is significantly different from going to a workplace, where one does not have a choice; one has to earn a salary.

According to subsection 3(2) of Bill 157, the “council of a municipality may pass bylaws prohibiting or regulating smoking,” which go over and above this particular law. In other words, the city of Toronto, which has stricter laws than Bill 194 --

The Speaker: And your question?

Mr Sterling: Everybody agrees with me on that save the minister. If we do pass Bill 194 in its present form, will the minister agree to have the government House leader call Bill 157, which would allow each and every other municipality in the province to make equal laws --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Sorbara: First of all, if we are comparing strictness, I should say that Bill 194 frankly has far more clout in it than any bill my friend from Carleton introduced as a private member.

Comparing Bill 194 with the city of Toronto bylaw, he should remember that Bill 194 provides a minimum standard right across Ontario for every workplace under our jurisdiction. It requires that the workplace be smoke-free. The city of Toronto bylaw does not require that at all. The provision in the city of Toronto bylaw is that if the workers themselves want a smoke-free workplace, then they can have it, but in the absence of anyone’s complaining, people can smoke at will in workplaces in the city of Toronto.

The fact is that Bill 194 -- and we have done the canvassing, I tell my friend from Carleton -- is one of the most progressive, significant pieces of legislation to regulate smoking in the private workplace anywhere on this continent, and I look forward to his supporting it this afternoon.



Ms Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. The minister continues to leave construction of the urgently needed Sheppard Avenue subway in limbo. However, three members of Metropolitan Toronto council -- Chairman Alan Tonks, North York Mayor Mel Lastman and Toronto New Democrat Dale Martin -- have recently suggested ways in which an early start on this subway line might be possible.

Would the minister consider changing his priorities for public transit in Metro Toronto by accepting the three councillors’ proposal under which Metro council would put up $500 million now, as its 25 per cent share of the line’s $2-billion full cost, and the provincial government would match that $500 million right now, in order to get construction started immediately?

Hon Mr Fulton: I thank the member for Beaches-Woodbine for her question and her interest in this subject. I am sure she would be aware that the proposal put forward by the Metro chairman is only a proposal at this stage, that we are aware of, in the newspapers. In fact, it is not new. We have been suggesting innovative and creative ways of funding infrastructure projects across the province. In fact, we have embarked on at least one recently. We are looking at any number of potential options.

I talk with the Metro chairman and others on a regular basis. If they have a proposal, I would be only too happy to sit down and meet with them. But the member should be aware that in the case of the Sheppard subway, and I go back to my friend the member for Scarborough Ellesmere (Mr Faubert), who is knowledgeable on the subject, until the planning stages are done, we cannot build the subway. The determination of Network 2011, in fact, was Victoria Park.

In order to extend any subway into the city of Scarborough, which is to be the eastern terminus of the subway, one must study the route, and that is the million-dollar commitment we made some time ago; I think last November. The member would be aware of that.

Ms Bryden: That planning should have been done in the past 10 years because we have known about the need for the subway for at least that long.

Another part of the three councillors’ proposal is that a substantial part of the money required for construction might be raised from developers who will benefit greatly from such a line. If they were offered increased density rights in exchange for a significant contribution to the subway costs, substantial funds could be generated.

Sheppard Avenue is currently an area of very low density and both provincial and municipal planners are urging increased density in the Metropolitan area to help solve the affordable housing crisis. If the proceeds from the proposed density bonus were great enough, the province might even be off the hook for its 75 per cent share of the Sheppard Avenue line costs and be able to use the money saved for other major public transit improvements here in Metro such as the Eglinton West transit line --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order. There must be a question somewhere there.

Hon Mr Fulton: I could not quite hear it myself. It was an interesting statement and commentary by my colleague. I am not sure if the member for Beaches-Woodbine is suggesting that the formula put into place in 1971 to share 75-25 in capital on transit and other projects be changed. Is she suggesting we change that? We are not proposing that. I say again, we cannot build a subway, we cannot put a streetcar line on Queen Street, without some planning. Until that is completed, we cannot commit funds. She would know that under the Environmental Assessment Act.

We are planning it. I am not responsible for what happened before this government took office. Clearly there were many unmet needs. We agree on that. The other government was not planning, but we are doing that. You do not build a subway overnight. I would like to know whether the member is suggesting that our funding formula in fact be changed.


Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to relate to the Minister of Health an incident which occurred at Haldimand Memorial Hospital on 21 May.

At 4 am, Mrs Lisa Miller, in her 28th week of pregnancy, went into high-risk labour. The doctor on call in the emergency department phoned the neonatal intensive care unit at Chedoke McMaster Hospitals; it was closed. He then called Mount Sinai Hospital; it was closed. He then called Women’s College Hospital in Toronto; it was closed. He called London’s St Joseph’s Hospital; it was closed. He was finally able to find the only bed available, in Kingston, but they could not move the woman because she was in labour, at risk of delivering the baby in the air ambulance and the weather report said they might not be able to land safely.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Jackson: My question has to do with the fact that at that very moment there was no paediatrician, no obstetrician and no life-support system for Lisa’s baby.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Jackson: To date, the minister has described Ontario’s neonatal intensive care system as working well. My question is simply this: Can she explain why this would happen to Lisa Miller?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am always prepared to investigate any specific case that members in this House raise, but I want the member opposite to know that it is not necessary, when dealing with perinatal care, for physicians to have to phone each of the 13 hospitals individually. There is one central number which will determine where the nearest available bed is and then co-ordinate both the land and air ambulances to ensure that the patient has access to the resource as expeditiously as possible. I would be pleased to investigate this particular case.

Mr Jackson: The minister knows that her ministry has already been looking into this case. But I want to let the minister know that, in desperation, the doctor that morning phoned Buffalo Children’s Hospital. They confirmed that Buffalo in fact had an intensive care bed, but they had to wake up the head of obstetrics at 5 am to ensure that it would accept Lisa in labour. The mother and the doctor travelled 40 miles by ambulance to Buffalo, where they delivered the baby and she was put on life-support systems. The mother was discharged after two days and baby Chantele, at only two and a half pounds, stayed in Buffalo for 22 days.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Jackson: Now the bills from the United States have arrived in Canada and, according to the Ontario health insurance plan --

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Jackson: -- Lisa is being asked to pay the difference because OHIP is going to pay only 75 per cent of the cost. My question is simply this: Lisa Miller did not choose to have her baby in Buffalo --

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat? New question.


Mrs O’Neill: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I have met with a constituent of mine who is very distressed by the blood donation policy of the Canadian Red Cross Society. As the minister knows, the Canadian Red Cross Society does not permit direct donating; that is, donating blood with a specific recipient in mind. However, the Canadian Red Cross Society does have a program in place which allows adults to have their own blood taken prior to surgery. This program does not apply to most children, as they do not usually meet the body weight required for such self-donations.

Will the minister please comment upon the government’s position in regard to the policy of direct donating, particularly in light of the threat posed by disease, such as acquired immune deficiency syndrome?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would like to acknowledge the member’s interest in this very important area. Blood donation policies are established by the Canadian Blood Committee, which is made up of representation from every province and every territory in this country. The Canadian Blood Committee relies on the very best possible expert advice in formulating its policies.

The issue of directed blood donation, as the member knows, is not a simple one. In fact, there are compelling arguments on both sides of that issue. The issue raises a very important concern about how a change in policy would affect the attitude towards both giving and receiving blood in this country. Another concern is that, perhaps by allowing directed blood donations, undue pressure may be brought to bear on family members who, perhaps unbeknownst to the family and friends, might be at high risk for contagious disease.


I think the member would agree, and I know all members of this House would agree, that the most important objective and the goal of our blood-supply system is to maintain our voluntary blood donation system, while ensuring a safe supply of blood.

Mrs O’Neill: Dr Joseph Hauser, of the Canadian Blood Committee, has stated that the issue of direct donating will be raised at the next meeting of the committee in October. As members know, the Canadian Blood Committee includes both federal and provincial representatives. Given the recent concerns expressed by parents, will the minister be supporting this review?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The Ministry of Health will be represented at the October meeting. The issue that the member raises is a very significant one, in that the work of the Canadian Blood Committee recognizes many of the complexities of the issues it must deal with in advising the blood-supply system and the safety of that system for Canadians. I will certainly await any of the decisions of the committee with great interest and would say that I support the important work of the Canadian Blood Committee.


Mr Allen: I have a question for the Attorney General. It has to do with the support and custody enforcement branch. It has to do with Renate Manthei, who four years ago was subjected to a marriage breakup, two years ago was awarded the custody of the children and $650 per month support was required of Mr Lyons, her ex-spouse. He then quit his job, remarried, has ceased payments and now has a debt, I believe, of something like $4,500 in back payments that are unpaid.

The minister’s office has been unable to resolve the problem and even a default hearing found that the ex-spouse in question was unable to pay, in spite of the fact that Ms Manthei laid before his office some evidence that this man in fact has a 33-foot steel yacht, which he sails on the weekends, has secured severance and pension payments from his job loss, and has investments.

The Speaker: Order. With respect, this is not members’ statements; it is question period. Would you please put your question.

Mr Allen: I am trying to acquaint the Attorney General with the detail he will have to respond to. The question I wanted to ask him is quite simply this: Will the Attorney General please tell me how extensive the investigation would be by that office into that list of assets available to Mr Lyons, and would it not be wise to require the registration of such assets in order to facilitate --

The Speaker: One question is sufficient.

Hon Mr Scott: As the member understands, I am certain, the support and custody enforcement branch simply enforces orders that are made by the court or that are incorporated in separation agreements. If we determine that there is a reasonable prospect that an asset exists, we invite the court to take possession of that asset for the benefit of the creditor.

I am confident that we do that diligently, but it is, at the end of the day, for the court, not the program, to determine whether the assets exist or whether payment should be made. That is a judicial function, not a government function. We simply enforce orders.

I will be glad to look into this particular case to see if anything could be done that has not been done. I want the honourable member to know that in a year and a half, we have some 60,000 cases we are processing in Ontario. The good news is that when the bill was introduced, there was a collection rate of about 15 per cent. We have now got that up well in excess of 50 per cent and I look forward to the day when we will be collecting something like 85 per cent of court orders in Ontario.

Mr Allen: The additional 50 per cent of course is the challenge before us all, and this is a case in point.

Renate Manthei has two children. Her financial status is such that she has just been unable to meet her gas bills and she expects the hydro will be cut off if she does not receive support payments soon to supplement what income she gets. The minister’s office frequently spends more money in chasing some of these people than the support orders virtually warrant in terms of their dollar value.

Would the Attorney General not consider instituting something like the Wisconsin Child Support Assurance System, whereby public provision is made to such a person where there is default, up to a certain level, while the government pursues the delinquent spouse?

Hon Mr Scott: I think the honourable member does not understand the nature of the plan. This woman’s predicament, which is very real, I understand, with two children, would be the same if her husband were dead or, indeed, if she had never married.

There are welfare programs that deal with people who find themselves in those most unfortunate circumstances. I refer my friend to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney), who can give him a full account of programs that are available to assist people who have no adequate means of support, very lavishly provided, by the way, in this province.

This program which I run is not a social assistance program. It is a program designed to enforce court orders if they can be supported, in the sense that if there are funds to discharge the liability in the view of a court we will obtain those funds. That is what we do. We do not run a social welfare service. We run a collection agency. We do the best we can and I am proud to say have had a very high success rate, often, as the honourable member recognizes, spending a lot of money to try and collect these debts.


Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Treasurer and Minister of Economics. It has to do with his budget presentation in which he announced there would be a commercial concentration levy. He has received correspondence from one of my constituents, Mark Cullen, of Weall and Cullen Nurseries, who has outlined in his letter the problems that this levy will have on large commercial establishments in excess of 200,000 square feet, where there is an extra dollar levied upon them.

He raised the point in his letter that it is going to add to inflation; it is going to give undue advantage to smaller retailers; it may force businesses out of the greater Toronto area. I agree with him. He says, “This proposed law is inequitable, extravagant and unfair.”

I would ask the minister: Would he reconsider this levy and the effect it is going to have on large retailers in the GTA?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable members who were paying attention to the presentation of the budget and the rather minor discussion that has taken place on these matters since would be aware that this additional tax is designed to pay, in part, for $2 billion in extra funding that is going to be allocated to the Ministry of Transportation for transportation infrastructure. This is to improve road transportation, transit and particularly GO Transit over the next five years.

It is the concept and the principle of the new bill which is before the House now -- and we hope to proceed with it in the fall -- that these large establishments over 200,000 square feet are in a position to benefit from the infrastructure and, in fact, cannot do business unless the travelling public can be brought to their door.

We feel that in that circumstance it is not unfair and not inequitable to have a tax base in which these people who benefit from these improvements are going to pay at least a part of the cost.

Mr Cousens: Instead of the greater Toronto area, the GTA will soon become known as the greatest taxation area.

I have a letter, as well, for the Treasurer which is from a hotelier and he is pointing out the problems it is going to create for hotel owners in and around the greater Toronto area. There will be a two-tiered pricing structure for hotels, room rates will increase by $5 to $10, and it is going to drive business to other jurisdictions outside of the GTA, into other provinces and other countries.

The minister still has a chance, before he is promoted to some other existence, whether it is to Ontario Hydro or somewhere else, to do something about it. I would ask again if the honourable Treasurer would be so kind as to amend the legislation and bring about changes that are not going to be so punitive to large retailers and large hotel owners in and around the Metropolitan Toronto area?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I do not consider the taxation unfair and inequitable or punitive. In fact, it is an opportunity for the greater Toronto area to recover from the inadequacies in the funding for its transportation infrastructure that it has been suffering from for the past decade.


We simply have to improve this situation so that business, which is the lifeblood of the people the honourable member is talking about, is going to be able to come to their door and employees are going to have adequate and modern transportation. I believe it is a substantial breakthrough to assist the greater Toronto area in meeting its competitive position across North America. If the honourable member would give it more careful consideration, I would expect in the long run he would become a supporter of it.

Mr Speaker, if you will permit me, the honourable member would know that these bills will be before the House in the autumn and he will have a chance to put his views, however misinformed they may be, before the committee.


Mr Keyes: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I know that some opposite will say, “Why don’t you lean over and ask him?” I do not want to be accused of disturbing the House.

Farmers in eastern Ontario have expressed concerns regarding the changes in the farm tax rebate program for this year. One of their key concerns is that they may experience a severe increase in the amount they must pay to rent land from large land owners and corporations, as these groups will not receive the tax rebate this year. Will the minister please explain how the farmer who rents land can be protected from being asked to pay an increased sum to make up for this loss of rebate?

Hon Mr Riddell: The changes to this year’s $140-million farm tax rebate program are aimed at making sure that the rebate goes only to those farmers who are actively farming on their own land, so speculators and large nonfarm corporations will be eliminated from this program. As we are well into the 1989 crop year, the majority of rental agreements had already been established before any changes to this program were announced. Therefore, the problem in 1989 of increased rental prices because of the farm tax rebate changes will be practically nonexistent.

Mr Keyes: I would also like to point out to the minister that many of the farmers in my riding and that of my honourable colleague the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr South) have been told by land owners they rent from that they can expect their rents to go up next year to compensate for the lack of rebate they are receiving this year. How does the minister see rents being affected in this program in the future?

Hon Mr Riddell: Land rental rates will continue to be determined by supply and demand conditions of the market. The changes to this program will have no effect, as far as I am concerned, on rental prices. The demand for rented land is basically dependent on a number of things -- the type of soil is one and the type of crop to be grown on the land is another -- and as such we do not consider the farm tax rebate to be a significant factor in establishing rental rates.

To say that this program change will lead to higher rental rates is really a red herring. Regardless of the farm tax rebate, it is more profitable for land owners to rent their land than it is to leave it vacant. It is important to note that this is simply an interim program, that through extensive consultation with the various farm organizations we will be bringing in a new version of the farm tax rebate program next year.


Mr Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister knows well of a project proposed for Sudbury by the international scientific community, the Sudbury neutrino observatory. We have been pressing the minister for some months now to make a commitment to provide the $7.2 million that has been asked for by the lead funding agency at the federal level.

Now that the federal agency has doubled the amount it is asking from the province, to about $15 million, I wonder if the minister could tell us a couple of things: first, why he delayed so long in making a commitment which opened a door for them to double the ante; and, second, whether he has arranged a meeting with the federal minister, Bill Winegard, to discuss this matter.

Hon Mr Kwinter: I thank the member for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to correct him on some of the misconceptions he has. He should know that the neutrino observatory in Sudbury has been under discussion in my ministry and with me for over a year.

We have looked at it, and quite frankly, although the observation of neutrinos is fascinating, there is very little in the way of economic benefits that accrue to Ontario. This is the opinion of informed scientific experts. Notwithstanding that, because they are asking for that money and it breaks new ground and presents an opportunity for us to participate in programs we normally do not participate in, we were prepared to look at it, and we have been actively pursuing it.

The amount that was requested of us was $7.6 million. We felt that was not justified, but we were still looking at it. It was not that we procrastinated and the price doubled; we could not get a firm handle as to who the participants were going to be and what the cost was going to be.

What has happened now is that we have had a letter from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council saying that everybody is looking at it. There is not one single firm commitment. But they also threw in the little zinger saying, “We are expecting $15 million from the provincial government.”

The Speaker: Thank you. Sometimes when you ask two questions at once, you get a fairly long answer, so try a supplementary.

Mr Laughren: I appreciate the fact that I can still have a supplementary. The minister is wrong in some of his assertions. There have been major commitments made, contingent upon Ontario’s commitment. We cannot for ever run around in circles waiting for the other person to make a commitment. Surely to goodness, the province has to make its commitment; then those other funding agencies, including the United States to the tune of $17 million, will make their commitments firm. Surely, as the observatory is going to be in Ontario, the Ontario government must make its firm commitment. Could I ask the minister why he has not at this point arranged a meeting with the federal minister so we can get this project back on track?

Hon Mr Kwinter: It is important that the member for Nickel Belt understand: It is really an accident of geography that it is being considered for Sudbury. He understands that; I am glad to see that he acknowledges that.

The project’s main driving force is not the province. It is the National Research Council, it is NSERC, it is the United Kingdom, it is the Americans. We are the last people who should be in, not the first.

Mr Laughren: It’s in Ontario.

Hon Mr Kwinter: I know, but I am saying it is in Ontario only because of an accident of geography. What we are saying is that when this project is fully committed, which it is not, and when the economic justification can be made, we will make our decision. In the meantime, we are going to respond to NSERC’s letter about the $15 million. As the member knows -- I shared this with him; that is how he found out about it; I went out of my way to tell him about that -- that was a whole new factor in the equation.

Mr Laughren: I’m mad at them, too.

Hon Mr Kwinter: I know the member is mad at them, but do not take it out on me.


Mr Brandt: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It is with regard to Bethany Lodge, which is located in Lambeth, a community close to London. Bethany Lodge received, as a result of a transfer from her ministry, a psychogeriatric patient, and there was an incident in that home with respect to this matter. It was investigated by the ministry, and the findings were that inadequate information accompanied the patient to this particular institution.

Some complications set in that I do not want to go into at this time, but I wonder if the minister could share with the House what procedures are now in place when these patients are transferred to ensure the safety of both staff and residents, in order that they receive adequate information to know the types of patients they will be getting in those institutions.


Hon Mrs Caplan: As the leader of the third party knows, the nursing homes in the province are governed by the Nursing Homes Act, and the obligations are set out very clearly under that act. The Ministry of Health, through its investigations branch, responds to any concerns that are raised by anyone from the community or from a resident in those homes. The patients’ bill of rights under the Nursing Homes Act is as well a significant step forward in the delivery of care.

He knows I am a proponent of making sure that we have not only quality of care, which of course is so important, but quality of life, dignity for the individual and empowerment for individuals, particularly those in our nursing homes. We often have an opportunity in this House to discuss how we can improve, and of course I am always willing to listen to any suggestions he might have.

Mr Brandt: I want to bring to the minister’s attention the fact that a group known as the Concerned Friends of Citizens in Care Facilities has documented some 208 cases of psychogeriatric patients who were transferred to nursing homes in 1988 from psychiatric wards as well as other institutions. What I want to receive from the minister, and to have her give this House, is the assurance that the residents and staff are not in any danger as a result of these transfers; that the medical information is being provided to the transfer institutions so they have full and complete information. As well, I think it is reasonable to expect that there would be follow-up --

The Speaker: Order. There have already been two questions placed.

Hon Mrs Caplan: The leader of the third party should know that nursing homes are regularly inspected. Standards as well are regularly reviewed, as are the obligations of the Nursing Homes Act.

Regarding placement, he would know that the long-term care announcement made by my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) talked about the need to be able to look at an assessment for individuals into all areas of long-term care so that we can assure they are receiving the appropriate care in the appropriate location.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

A point of privilege? I do not believe I had notice of that.


Mr Harris: Yes, Mr Speaker. Yesterday in this House the member for Scarborough Ellesmere (Mr Faubert) stated: “In response to that statement” -- I do not want to get into too many details – “the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) left the impression that the city of Scarborough had not been made aware of the province’s long-standing and public intention to provide a housing component on this site.”

Without getting into details and taking up too much time, I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, in referring to me in this House --

The Speaker: Is that your point of privilege?

Mr Harris: Yes.

-- is alleging and imputing my motives in something I said to this House, I simply want to state that I was repeating what had been told to me by the --

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please?


The Speaker: Order. I am sure the member has read the standing orders. It is not a point of privilege.



Mr Sterling: “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:

“We request that the Ministry of the Attorney General withdraw Bill 149, An Act to amend the Trespass to Property Act, which we believe is unnecessary and without mandate.

“While we respect the rights of minorities and youth, whom Bill 149 alleges to protect, we oppose the way in which the proposed legislation will erode the ability of owners and occupiers to provide a safe and hospitable environment for their patrons or customers. We are further concerned about the legislation’s potential for increasing confrontation in the already difficult process of removing individuals who create disturbances on publicly used premises.”

I have signed that petition along with 696 other people, bringing the total to 3,000 people who have signed like petitions.


Mr Furlong: I have two petitions, one with 21 names and another with five names. In part, the petition reads:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.”

This is dealing with teachers’ pensions and I have affixed my name to this as required by the standing orders.


Mr Fleet: I have a petition which has been signed by 262 people.

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

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

“Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

“And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

I have countersigned these pages in accordance with the standing orders.



Mr Philip from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee’s second interim report of 1989 and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr Philip: I have a brief statement. The cost controls and resources monitoring of forest firefighting in the Ministry of Natural Resources were investigated by our standing committee on public accounts during June and July 1989. On 22 June 1989, the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, the director of the Aviation and Fire Management Centre, the acting executive director of the finance and administrative group, and the director of the financial resources branch appeared before the committee.

The committee report contains a number of proposals. It also proposes that our committee visit the central forest firefighting centres in North Bay, Thunder Bay and Dryden during the summer recess of 1989. It is our intention to do so. We hope that by having these onsite visits we may have further comments on this ministry in our 1989 annual report.

On motion by Mr Philip, the debate was adjourned.



Mr D. R. Cooke moved first reading of Bill 57, An Act to amend the Limitations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr D. R. Cooke: Last session, Bill 198 received second reading, and the overwhelming support of this House and a lot of people outside of this House as well. I think this bill is better than that, and it continues to redress the problem of sexual abuse limitation periods.

This bill was formulated through close discussion with the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario. It defers commencement of the limitation period for sexual assault; as well, it creates a reverse presumption of the burden of proof, placing that burden of proof on the defendant. I think it is an improvement over Bill 198.

The Speaker: We might debate it at a further time.




Mr Conway moved resolution 11:

That the following committees be authorized to meet during the summer adjournment in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party whips and tabled with the Clerk of the assembly to examine and inquire into the following matters:

Select committee on education to consider the future of education financing relating to equity, accountability and adequacy of operating and capital finances.

Select committee on energy to consider Bill 204, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Special committee on the parliamentary precinct to meet from time to time at the call of the co-chairs of the committee to consider matters related to the restoration of the Parliament building.

Standing committee on administration of justice to consider Bill 2, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984; Bill 3, An Act to amend certain Statutes of Ontario Consequent upon Amendments to the Courts of Justice Act, 1984; Bill 4, An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act, 1984, and the 1988 report of the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs to consider Bill 18, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act, and Bill 20, An Act to provide for the Payment of Development Charges.

Standing committee on general government to consider Bill 119, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, and the final progress reports to the Minister of the Environment of Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma Steel and Ontario Hydro on acid rain abatement programs.

Standing committee on government agencies to consider the operation of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and of certain other agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario.

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to consider matters related to the administration of the House and services to members and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987.

The committee shall have authority to adjourn to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to attend the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman to consider the denied cases of Farm Q Ltd and Mrs H, the report of the Ombudsman on denied cases and the Ombudsman of Ontario annual report 1988-89.

Standing committee on public accounts to consider the 1987 and 1988 annual reports of the Provincial Auditor.

Standing committee on resources development to consider Bill 30, An Act respecting Funeral Directors and Establishments, and Bill 31, An Act to revise the Cemeteries Act.

Standing committee on social development to consider Bill 147, An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities.

Hon Mr Conway: This is the committee schedule as worked out by the three party whips for the intersessional period, upon which we will be entering hopefully in the near future.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Conway moved resolution 12:

That with the agreement of the House leaders and the whips of each party, committees may meet during the summer adjournment at times other than those specified in the schedule tabled today with the Clerk of the assembly.

Hon Mr Conway: This motion and the following motion 13 are what I would describe as collateral motions that relate to the committee work in the intersessional period. This one indicates a mechanism whereby, with the agreement of House leaders and whips, committees may meet during the summer adjournment at times other than those specified in the schedule tabled with the clerk.

Motion agreed to.


Mr Conway moved resolution 13:

That the committees be authorized to release their reports during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the assembly, and upon the resumption of the meetings of the House, the chairs of such committees shall bring any such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders.

Motion agreed to.


Mr Conway moved, on behalf of Mr Grandmaître, third reading of Bill 24, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.


Mr Reycraft moved, on behalf of Mr Kanter, second reading of Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comité plénier.


Consideration of Bill 93, An Act to revise the Justices of the Peace Act.

Etude du projet de loi 93, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur les juges de paix.

Section/article 17

The Chairman: According to my able assistants, we were up at section 17 and the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) was going to move it, but the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) has something.

Mr Harris: Yes, an amendment to section 17 that I think the member for Carleton wanted moved. The member for Carleton, as the members know, is very much in demand by the media at this particular stage of our proceedings in the summer. He is talking to them now and will be back shortly.

The Chairman: Mr Harris moves, on behalf of Mr Sterling, that section 17 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“There shall be a committee known as the Ontario Provincial Offences Court Committee composed of three members, of whom:

“(a) one shall be appointed by the Ontario-wide Justices of the Peace Association and the Justices of the Peace Association of Metropolitan Toronto;

“(b) one shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council;

“(c) one, to be chairperson, shall be appointed jointly by the bodies referred to in clauses (a) and

(b) “The function of the Ontario Provincial Offences Court Committee is to inquire into and make recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council respecting any matters relating to the remuneration, allowances and benefits of presiding and nonpresiding justices of the peace, including matters referred to in section 20, clauses (c) and (d).

“The Ontario Provincial Offences Court Committee shall make an annual report of its activities to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

“Recommendations of the committee and its annual report under subsections (2) and (3) shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly if it is in session or, if not, within 15 days of the commencement of the next ensuing session.”

The Chairman: Do you have an opening statement on behalf of Mr Sterling?

Mr Harris: I would suggest two things. First, I will give a very brief explanation, and second, if others have comments, I suggest that we await the member for Carleton’s return to point out some of the legal intricacies with which I am not familiar.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Where is he?

Mr Harris: The Minister of Labour asks, “Where is he?” If he had listened to me, he would know where he is. I said he is out talking to the media about the minister’s rotten smoking bill that nobody likes.

The purpose of the amendment is to have an independent body which, in our party’s opinion, would assist to keep the independence of the judiciary. We think it is a reasonable amendment.

Because I have not been involved in a discussion with the parliamentary assistant and the critics, I do not know if it is an amendment that he is inclined to accept or if there has been previous discussion. It might facilitate the time of the chamber, though, if the parliamentary assistant wishes to comment on it at this point. If he wishes to wait for the member for Carleton to comment further, I would suggest we stand it down and move on.

The Chairman: Are there any other members who would like to comment right now?

Ms Bryden: I would like to hear what the member for Carleton would say on this amendment, and I think we should not pass it until he arrives. In the meantime, I would like to make a few comments on the subject matter of the amendment. I wish to bring to the committee’s attention cases that I have had where justices of the peace have not been able to serve the public in the way in which I think the public expects to be served by an official of the nature of a justice of the peace.

I am glad that this bill has been brought in, because I think we do need an updating of the role of justices of the peace and a clarification of their role in the justice system. For that reason, it is a useful bill to have before us. But it does need amending, and the amendment that the member for Carleton has moved is, I think, a very useful one.

I wanted to tell the committee that early this spring I received a phone call on a Saturday night saying that a young man had been arrested in a restaurant that night for presumably causing a disturbance of some sort. He had been taken to the detention centre in Toronto and told that his case would be eligible for bail as soon as a justice of the peace could be found to have a bail hearing. He was in that detention centre from Friday night until Monday morning because no justice of the peace could be found; no justice of the peace appeared to be on duty. I think that sort of situation has to be changed so that an individual who is only accused of a crime does not have to spend three days in jail awaiting a bail hearing.


I know that there are extenuating circumstances, that justices of the peace are very overworked, that they do not appear to have a regular shift system and regular limitations on their hours and that they are not always available on call when a bail hearing is needed. I think that has to be changed and I would hope that the body the amendment is suggesting should be set up to consider working conditions, pay and the qualifications for them, and deal with the matter of seeing that the public is provided with adequate justice of the peace service.

In desperation and in order to see if some action could be obtained for this young man, I phoned the answering service number in the telephone book for the Attorney General (Mr Scott), left a message that it was a very urgent matter and asked whether he could get back to me as soon as possible on that weekend. I mentioned to the answering service the nature of the problem.

Unfortunately, the answering service did not respond before Monday, when the case was actually heard by a justice of the peace. There did not appear to be any emergency service either, at least not through the Attorney General’s answering service, which I would think might have been able to alert whatever emergency service there was to see if something could be done on the Saturday or Sunday.

That is one of the reasons why I feel that justices of the peace and their pay conditions and working rules should be examined and improved. I think if we want to be a province that sees that justice is available to all and that justice is not denied because of deficiencies in the administration of our justice system, then we must do as soon as possible what is needed to provide us with a much more efficient justice of the peace system. We must make our administration of justice easy for the public to access and not leave it as a mystery or welter of delays, putting people into great problems.

The young man whom I was interested in may have lost his job because he would not be there on Monday morning until the bail hearing had been heard. That is another reason the case was a very serious one and why I had hoped that the Attorney General might have emergency service that could have provided him with the case.

I really want to commend the member for bringing in this amendment. Perhaps he will give us other reasons he feels it is important.

The Chairman: Does the member for Carleton have an opening statement?

Mr Sterling: Not on this one. The member for Nipissing was kind enough to introduce this amendment for me. Basically the amendment sets forward a procedure whereby the salaries of justices of the peace can be determined. I believe it is necessary to have some mechanism outside of the civil service deciding what justices of the peace should be paid. It is on the basic presumption that the political system should be separate and apart from those who are making judicial decisions. Under the present legislation, the co-ordinator makes the call as to what salary justices of the peace would get.

I do not put any intention to that, either good or bad, save and except that I would remark that a report dated 31 March 1988 recommended that full-time justices of the peace of the province be paid some $45,000. That is called the Sibson report. Some year and a half later, justices of the peace are still being paid $39,000 or so a year.

These people are being asked to make significant decisions on issues such as hearings under the Environmental Protection Act. They conduct all the bail hearings after 4:30 or 5 o’clock in the afternoon and on weekends to a very large degree, and therefore have a significant responsibility in deciding whether or not somebody who may be dangerous to the community is released or not released.

I believe the amendment is self-explanatory. It sets up a tripartite committee to decide and recommend to the Legislative Assembly what kind of salary these people should be receiving. The same kind of mechanism is now used for our provincial court judges, and I would like to see this mirrored in this legislation as put forward by my amendment to section 17.

Mr Offer: Very briefly, I think the essence of this particular amendment is founded on an earlier amendment which was moved by the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton) at an earlier date in terms of an amendment to subsection 10(1). I will be speaking in opposition to this particular amendment.

I speak in opposition to the amendment, keeping in mind what this particular bill before the Legislature is designed to accomplish. Basically, it is a restructuring, a reworking, a redoing of the justice of the peace system in Ontario, it is a matter whereby we are taking the five classifications currently for justices of the peace and making two classifications. It is a matter where we are establishing a co-ordinator for justices of the peace throughout the province to provide an even better service, an effective service throughout the province.

I speak in opposition to this particular amendment because we are redoing this particular system at this time. There is a great deal of work that the co-ordinator will have to do in taking a look at the type of functions that are needed in all the different areas of the province and how best to meet those functions.

This amendment, this particular motion, may have its time and place somewhere in the future, but I think at this point in time it is premature, keeping in mind what this piece of legislation is designed to accomplish. Accordingly, I speak in opposition to the amendment at this time but make it clear, as I did, I believe, to the member for Rainy River when he moved an amendment to subsection 10(1), that this is an important matter which I feel will have its time and place for discussion in the future.

Ms Bryden: I would like to say that the member for Rainy River unfortunately had to leave for his constituency about an hour ago. He had hoped this would come up yesterday. I think it was on Orders and Notices for yesterday.

He will be very disappointed that the parliamentary assistant is opposing his amendment. I think he feels very strongly, as I do, that the Justices of the Peace Act must be not only an overhaul of the complexities and a clarification of the classifications of justices of the peace, but it must be a true revision of a very important piece of legislation in the administration of our judicial system and in providing that people have access to the various stages in the judicial process, and that it not be tied up in a lot of red tape and lack of availability of staff or of justices of the peace.


I am disappointed in the parliamentary assistant’s decision not to consider this question, especially when he thinks that there may be merit in introducing it at some later date. Have we any commitment or suggestion that the act might be opened up again next session so that this might be dealt with?

Mr Offer: In fact, in response to the inquiry from the member for Beaches-Woodbine, as I have indicated earlier we will be moving an amendment to the legislation. In fact, the amendment is really an addition to section 20 whereby the implementation of this particular legislation will be taken on a region-by-region basis. As such, the time period at which the whole province is within this particular legislation is one which is not capable of any definite and precise calculation. Notwithstanding that, I do believe that one of the things that the co-ordinator will be doing in terms of taking a look at the needs of the province in terms of service by justices of the peace, will permit this type of investigation and analysis to proceed.

As to a time period, the short answer is that I cannot give that type of commitment. There is a great deal of work to be done by the co-ordinator in making the justices of the peace system in the

province co-ordinated and effective and a more manageable system than we have at present.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments? Are we ready for the vote?

All those in favour of Mr Harris’s motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 17 agreed to.

L’article 17 est adopté.

Section/article 18

The Chairman: Mr Sterling moves that the words “law and” be deleted from section 18(1) of the bill.

Mr Sterling: I do not want to make this particular debate long, but it was brought to my attention by the justices of the peace organization that they thought and felt that justices of the peace should be guided by the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada and other lawmaking bodies in our province and in our country. Therefore, this section seems to indicate that the co-ordinator would issue directions as to which way the law should be interpreted.

I am sure that if this particular part was taken out, it would not prevent the co-ordinator from trying to draw to the attention of the justices of the peace what in fact he thought the law might be. But to say that the direction of the law is this or that may not be all that prudent in putting it in terms of this legislation.

That is the reasoning behind the amendment.

Mr Offer: I think the member for Carleton very clearly and precisely does talk to this particular issue. He is right in stating that, of course, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada would have greater jurisdiction than the co-ordinator. There is no question about that.

What this particular section is designed to do is to make this legislation permit binding directions, which is not now the case, by the co-ordinator upon justices of the peace in matters of administration and law.

It is interesting that this particular matter was dealt with in some detail by Mewett in his report. He brought into account the two branches, the administrative and the legal aspect. It was felt that through his report, which was a fairly exhaustive type of report that went into a great amount of detail, this would: (1) accomplish some uniform body of knowledge among all justices of the peace through these binding directions; (2) allow people to get certain questions answered through these binding directions without having to use other avenues such as mandamus, such as the routes of appeal, which are expensive and time-consuming. In many cases, there are matters which might be almost a merge of administrative and legal matters which could be dealt with through these types of binding directions.

What this section is designed to do is provide more of a precision and a clarity for the justices of the peace in the administration of their job. Accordingly, that is why I speak against the particular amendment: because, by accepting this amendment, we would be taking out one very necessary element in this type of precision which we are trying to accomplish.

Mr Sterling: All I say in reply is that I find the argument a little specious in that it does not prevent the co-ordinator from informing the various justices of the peace of the state of the law or what the Court of Appeal has said and how he or she might interpret that law.

However, if you wanted to be mischievous in using this and you had a co-ordinator who opposed on philosophical grounds what the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada had decided in law, it is conceivable that with this section he could instruct the justice of the peace to disobey the law by interpreting it in some weird and wonderful fashion, and could say, “The law is this,” when in fact the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada had said it was that.

It is a matter of philosophical argument as to whether or not somebody should be instructing any member of the bench as to what the law is or is not in definitive matters. I believe that you help them find the law, but you do not say the law is black, red or green; you say that the appeal court has found it is red or it is green.

The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Sections 18 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 18 à 20, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

The Chairman: Mr Offer moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“20a(l) Sections 4, 14, 15 and 17 and subsection 16(2) do not apply in an area in Ontario until the Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation provides that they apply in that area.

“(2) The following apply in any area in which sections 4, 14, 15 and 17 and subsection 16(2) do not apply:

1. Justices of the peace shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed on a justice of the peace by or under an act of the Legislature or of the Parliament of Canada when so directed by the co-ordinator or a judge designated by the co-ordinator.

“2. Part-time justices of the peace shall be paid such fees, allowances and expenses as are prescribed under the Administration of Justice Act;

“3. Despite section 6, a part-time justice of the peace appointed before the day section 6 comes into force may exercise the powers and perform the duties of a justice of the peace after attaining the age of 70 years when assigned to do so by the co-ordinator or a judge designated by the co-ordinator.

“(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations declaring that sections 4, 14, 15 and 17 and subsection 16(2) apply in one or more areas of the province.”


Mr Offer: Briefly, through our discussions in this particular legislation we have dealt with this one particular upcoming amendment many times. Basically, what this amendment does is make sure that the implementation of this legislation shall be done on a region-by-region basis.

The reason for that, as opposed to implementing it on a holus-bolus type of basis, is that there is great deal of work that has to be done by the review council and by the co-ordinator in terms of seeing what is out there in terms of justice-of-the-peace functions, how the needs can best be met. That, we believe, can be done most expeditiously and effectively if done on a region-by-region basis. That, I believe, would be subsection 1 of the amendment.

The following subsections deal with almost the transition when that is being done on a region-by-region basis. We believe this amendment will accomplish the implementation of this bill in a much more expeditious, effective and orderly manner.

Mr Sterling: We will support the amendment but we would have preferred that the Ministry of the Attorney General had permitted justices of the peace to be grandfathered in for a period of time. Some of these gentlemen are not young; when I talk about grandfathering. I really mean grandfathering. I would have preferred it had the minister given that as an alternative or a possibility under the bill.

I say it for this reason, because the way I understand section 20, as set down, is it allows for the ministry to do this region by region and allow people who are over the age of 70 to continue to sit as part-time justices of the peace. That is fine and dandy for regions which are small in geographic area, but if you have a region which is large in geographic area, it can vary from one side of that area to the other.

The chairman has a relatively large constituency. I do not know how many justices of the peace there would be in your constituency, Mr Chairman, but the fact of the matter is it may not be possible to get a justice of the peace to fill the function of one of these elderly gentleman in a corner of your constituency, and under this legislation, once it is passed, he no longer is a justice of the peace on a part-time basis if he is over the age of 70 years.

I have mentioned before, as other members of the Legislature have, that those elderly gentlemen and women over the age of 70 who are being cut out as justices of the peace -- and the parliamentary assistant admitted this after one half-hour of debate on a previous occasion in this Legislature -- none of these people will be receiving any compensation from the government for their long service and that is another complaint we have with regard to these people who have served their province so well but will be cut out under this act.

So we support it but we do it with some reservation.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 21 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 21 à 29, inclusivement, sont adoptés.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported. Le projet de loi, modifié, devra faire l’objet d’un rapport.


Consideration of Bill 194, An Act to restrict Smoking in Workplaces.

Section 1:

The Chairman: Mr Sterling moves that the definition of “enclosed workplace” in section 1 of the bill be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:

“‘Workplace’ means any enclosed place of employment and includes a shaft, tunnel, caisson or similar enclosed space.”

Mr Sterling: Under the present definition of enclosed workplace, it means an enclosed building or structure. Basically what I have done here is I have taken “building or structure” out of the definition as it now stands. The reason that I have taken it out of the definition is that I would like to be included in “workplace” vehicles, where people are required to work in vehicles on a day-to-day basis.

ln other words, if two people are driving in a truck and there is a dispute between them as to a smoking area and a nonsmoking area as designated by this legislation, I do not understand why there would be a reluctance to include that in the definition and include them under any protection that this bill might give.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Just as a preliminary matter, might I beg your indulgence to have myself and my parliamentary assistant, the member for Halton centre (Mrs Sullivan) move to the front of the chamber and have officials from the Ministry of Labour join us for this committee of the whole consideration?

The Chairman: Please go ahead.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I note the member for Carleton, as he said before, wishes to include a number of other workplaces not initially contemplated when the bill was presented. Although I understand why he would wish to do that, we feel at this point we are not in a position to, nor do we wish the bill to cover the areas mentioned in the extended definition of workplace.

Mr Sterling: Why not?

The Chairman: There was a question addressed to you.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am sorry, I did not hear the question.

The Chairman: It was simply, “Why not?”


Mr Sterling: The minister said he did not want to extend it and I asked him why not.

Hon Mr Sorbara: There are a number of reasons. I think we have gone over those reasons at other times during this debate. As the member for Carleton knows, the bill as presented dealt with enclosed work spaces, and that is a very significant new regulatory burden on the ministry.

Frankly, in those situations where there are two individuals in an automobile, for example, and one of them does not want to be where the other one is smoking, my whole experience is that the smoker has always accommodated the nonsmoker, that people do that. I do not think it needs to be the subject of government regulation, nor this statute.

Mr Sterling: If there are four people in the truck and three smoke, why should the nonsmoker not be protected?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I have no comment.

The Chairman: Any other comments before we consider the vote?

Mr Dietsch: The guy who owns the truck should prevail.

Mr Sterling: This man over here says that the guy who owns the truck should prevail. That is the trouble with this whole damn bill. The employer calls the shot, and if he is as unsympathetic as this member over here is to the nonsmoker -- he has just exhibited that -- the guy who owns the truck can tell the other guys what to do. That is exactly the problem with this bill.

This bill is not about people who are considerate with each other. This bill is about the situation where we have a nonsmoker thrust into a situation where he is with other smokers who do not respect him and an employer who does not respect him. Therefore, why the hell should he not have some protection?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman --

The Chairman: Before you start answering, may I tell members to respect the parliamentary language.

Mr Sterling: I am sorry. I got a little irate.

Hon Mr Sorbara: It is late in the session and I can understand the passion of my friend from Carleton. I just want to correct one thing he suggested in his remarks. In the bill we are considering now, the employer does not call the shots. The statute directs the employer to eliminate smoking from the workplace.

There is the second part of the bill, which says that should the employer wish to accommodate to a certain degree a place in the workplace where people can smoke, he or she cannot do that alone as employer. The employer must consult with the workers in that workplace before a designation can be made.

The genius of that provision is that the workplace will only receive designations to the extent that it reflects the wide variety of needs of the people in that workplace. It is designed in effect to be a statute that can apply to every single workplace in Ontario and create for those workplaces a minimum standard we have never had before. The member for Carleton should not suggest in this committee that it is just the employer calling the shots.

Mr Sterling: I do not know whether the minister has read his own bill, but it says in subsection 3(3), “An employer shall consult with the joint health and safety committee or the health and safety representative, if any, at the workplace before establishing a designated smoking area.” Who decides? The employer decides. He has the final say. He can reject the suggestions of the safety committee or he can accept them. Therefore, he has the final shot on what happens.

The minister said in his remarks that this covers every workplace. I want it to cover every workplace. I want to cover a building structure and I want to cover a moving workplace.

I do not understand his reluctance to accept the amendment. What is the big deal? He does not know why he opposes it. That is the problem. I did not get any explanation in the committee and I am asking him for an explanation here.

The Chairman: Mr Sterling moves that the definition of “enclosed workplace” in section 1 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“‘Workplace’ means any enclosed place of employment and includes a shaft, tunnel, caisson or similar enclosed space.”

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 2:

Mr Allen: I do not know whether you have my package of amendments from last day when we were considering these? You do not? I had given them to you at that time, Mr Chairman, and assumed you would still have them. I have an amendment and will give you this package shortly, to copy again.

The Chairman: We will vote on section 1 in a little while.

Mr Allen moves that section 2 be amended by adding a new subsection:

“(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2), no person shall smoke in any hospital, health care facility, child care centre or school attended by minors.”

Does the member have a statement?

Mr Allen: This amendment is of course very similar to the one Mr Sterling was going to propose for the next section. Indeed, in one or two of our amendments we sort of flip over one way or another with similar amendments. Sometimes we have them placed in slightly different parts of the legislation.

I propose this for this section simply because this is the section which in the first place makes the statement with regard to the broad assertion, “No person shall smoke in an enclosed workplace,” and then subsection 2 indicates some exceptions. I wish to see a subsection 3, which seems to me to be appropriate, because in the course of section 2, it refers both to the designation of smoking areas as proposed by the further section 3, and also to areas used primarily for serving the public as exceptions to that general proposition.

What I wanted to do was indicate broadly a clear limitation to the application of the exceptions with regard to the designation of smoking places and with regard to areas concerned with serving the public. It seemed to me in our discussions in committee after our hearings, as it seems to me now, that it is entirely inappropriate for there to be any smoking whatever within those designated institutions, namely, hospitals, health facilities, child care centres and schools attended by minors.

There are good reasons, I think, for singling those institutions out. The first pair, hospitals and health facilities, is quite obvious. By the very nature of the issues they attend to, the illness of persons, they quite clearly are institutions whose whole ambience is opposed to the proposition of smoking in such a workplace.

I do not have to reiterate for the members present the consequences of environmental tobacco smoke. We have been over those time and time again, and it is quite obvious, through everything that the member for Carleton and I are saying, that there is no way that enclosed workplaces and, in particular, hospitals, school institutions, health facilities and buildings of that kind, can be ventilated to accomplish a situation in which the presence of environmental tobacco smoke is at an acceptable level. That is simply impossible.


Therefore, the presence of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly in health facilities, hospitals and institutions of that kind, must necessarily count in a more significant way for the health impacts that would have in that special kind of setting. I think it is fairly obvious. Certainly numbers of hospitals have already moved, of their own accord, to make themselves smoke-free environments.

With respect to the institutions involving young children and children who are minors, first of all, it is quite obvious from the studies of the incidence of smoking that the onset of smoking, the taking up of smoking as a lifestyle clearly begins in the younger years. Very few adults who become persistent smokers take up smoking as a practice after they become adults. It is massively a practice that is embarked upon in early years.

Therefore, it is crucial for us, as we move on in our onslaught on environmental tobacco smoke and the use of tobacco products generally, in light of the health consequences and the health costs associated with that, to tackle the practice where it begins. Inasmuch as it begins in those early years, the institutions where those young people are present need to be the most protected institutions of all.

Certainly studies have indicated that young people begin smoking at an earlier age and more frequently than had been thought to be the case. Studies by Dr Pengelly, for example, at McMaster University have told us that the figures are not something like 19.5 per cent of indulgence, but close to a third of the younger set who in fact are smoking.

If one moves to issues, for example, of lifestyle, role modelling and what have you, it is quite clear that young people at that age take their practices from what they see in their environment, from what they see among their peers and from what they see their teachers and parents doing. The more we can restrict the impact of that role modelling in the negative sense, the better it will be for all of us and for the health of this province in the future and for the individuals in question.

Second, those young people who do take up the practice in those early years are far more likely to be afflicted with cancerous conditions later on in their lives. Just from the point of view of those specific individuals, it is extremely important to focus upon those years and the institutions where those young people are present in large numbers.

Schools and school boards that have undertaken to have smoke-free environments have found that they are working reasonably successfully. With regard to child care centres, there is another issue that has to be of serious concern to us, and that is that children, in their younger ages in particular when they are rapidly growing, absorb the products of environmental tobacco smoke into their bodies at a much higher rate and to a greater extent than is the case with older persons. The result is that they have an increased susceptibility and are much more seriously affected.

One should also add that day care centres are institutions where pregnant women are apt to be present in significant numbers for part or all of the day care period, and the evidence is accumulating now that various forms of pregnancy problems like miscarriage, still birth, lower foetal birth weight and growth retardation are a result of environmental tobacco smoke and the adverse impacts of that upon women. So it seems to me there are a number of special reasons why we should be inserting in this legislation an absolute prohibition with respect --

[Failure of sound system]

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mr Sorbara: This is probably like the good old days, when we had to raise our voices.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Can you ensure whether or not this is being recorded on Hansard?

The Deputy Chairman: The lights are low, and I have been advised that it is the television lights which are low. It will take some 15 minutes for them to resume the strength they once had. The Hansard recording will be advised upon by the Clerk after he determines that situation.

The Sergeant at Arms advises that the Hansard reporting service is in operation. Minister?

[Failure of sound system]

The Deputy Chairman: Could I get you to withhold for the moment any comment? We are trying to determine now whether things are being recorded.


I am now advised that the audio is not being recorded through the members’ microphones; only through this microphone of mine is it being recorded. The Hansard reporter will take the members’ statements by shorthand and I would request, therefore, that you speak a little more slowly so that she may be able to do so.

Mr Sterling: It may take me even longer than two weeks to wrap this debate up.

Hon Mr Sorbara: It’s got to be louder, too, Norm.

Mr Sterling: Perhaps if the Minister of Labour would listen, I would speak a little louder.

I do not understand the minister’s arguments in relation to this amendment by Mr Allen, which I support fully. I do not think he understands the legislation he has brought before the Legislature, because basically what the minister is saying is that there is enough goodwill out there to take care of the problem.

I agree that there is goodwill out there to take care of a lot of the problems, but you do not bring in legislation to take care of the problems that will take care of themselves; you bring in legislation to take care of the problems where the people will not take care of them themselves.

That is why Mr Allen has brought forward this amendment. That is why we have asked that the minister make this legislation meaningful.

We do not expect hospitals to act in an irrational manner. We do not expect day care centres or child care centres to act in an unreasonable manner, in the main; but knowing human nature, we expect a few of them not to act in the best interests of the young people.

Some of the school boards -- maybe it is six out of 100, as the minister has said -- do not have a nonsmoking policy. Our intention in this Legislature, and I am sure it is the intention of the member for Hamilton West (Mr Allen), is to protect all of the children of the province. That is why he is asking the minister and his government to say that no person shall smoke in a hospital, health care facility, child care centre or school attended by minors.

If the minister wants to suggest a friendly amendment to the motion, where he wants to give the government some power to prescribe regulations to allow exceptions, I am quite willing to accept that kind of amendment -- I do not know whether the member for Hamilton West would be or not -- but there may be instances, which the minister might cite, where it might be necessary to have smoking accommodation in what might be described in chronic care institutions for older people who are 80 and 90 years old and who have been addicted to tobacco for years upon years.

I would be quite willing to, say, give the cabinet of Ontario the power to prescribe an exemption to that institution or to that group of institutions if they have to provide smoking areas for those individuals; I am quite willing to do that.

But we need a general, overall prohibition against smoking in these kinds of institutions. I feel particularly strongly with regard to minors, because the evidence shows that minors cannot consume and deal with secondhand smoke to the same degree as an adult can.

Therefore, I would ask the minister to accept the member’s amendment. If the minister wants to amend his amendment, I am sure the member for Hamilton West would consider that and say, “Well, I have 95 per cent of what I wanted, and they may prescribe some chronic care institutions where it may be necessary to have a smoking area and it might fall in the other part of the definition.” What does the minister say to that suggestion?

Hon Mr Sorbara: It is a very interesting one that was thoroughly canvassed when Bill 194 was in the standing committee on social development, my parliamentary assistant advises me. They are interesting arguments. Were I to accept the amendment of the member for Hamilton West, I would also want to amend the amendment, but after all of that discussion in committee, I do not accept the amendment of the member from Hamilton West. I will not be proposing an amendment to that amendment.

Mr Allen: The one thing that disturbed me most in the minister’s comments earlier was his evident acceptance of the absolutely minimal standards this legislation lays out, not just for ordinary workplaces but for hospitals, health care facilities, schools and day care centres. For him apparently it is an acceptable situation for an employer to be able to act under section 3 and to designate a smoking area that does not require any external ventilation, does not even require that the employer remove individuals or allow individuals in that designated smoking area who are nonsmokers to remove themselves to some other part of the workplace.

That is how absolutely minimal and laid back this particular piece of legislation is. For him then to say that those standards are equally acceptable as a broad base for hospitals, health care facilities, schools that minors attend and day care centres is really quite an astonishing statement. That is the position all those institutions are left in by virtue of the minister’s statement and by virtue of this legislation.


What surely one has to insist upon is that if that is the case, then those institutions need a higher level of protection, regardless of his particular concern that there be differential levels of protection. Clearly, they are different kinds of workplaces from the kinds of workplaces that are commonly viewed by this legislation and, apparently, by the minister.

It really is of very little consequence that many or most of the school boards, hospitals or day care centres might have smoking policies of some kind. The minister did not detail for us whether those policies required designated smoking areas with external ventilation, or what kind of smoking policies they were, in point of fact. I am quite aware of schools that have a smoking policy, but a smoking policy which permits smoking in the staff room is simply a part of the overall ventilation system, and everybody gets it. Surely that is not good enough.

If the minister is going to provide such a minimal base to work from, then surely he is obligated to find a more acceptable base for those particular institutions where the issue matters much more deeply than it does in a place that produces venetian blinds, car wheels, tires, steering wheels or whatever.

I appeal to the minister to think again about that question. I am sure the member for Carleton and I remember very clearly when we raised this question in the committee. Successively, we eliminated one item after another from this list of items in this amendment until we were down simply to day care centres. The Liberal members and the ministerial representatives who were present at that time were quite obdurate that they were unprepared even to accept that a day care centre ought to be off limits when it comes to a smoking policy. If that is the case, I am not particularly optimistic.

I do appeal to the minister to think again about this question, because I think in one respect it is the critical amendment for the long-term health of our population. If you can move in effectively on the years up to 18 and the institutions where those young people secure their role modelling and are impacted by environmental tobacco smoke in very physical, health-related ways, then surely we have nipped the larger part of the problem in the bud.

I will leave it at that for the moment, and I hope the minister or his parliamentary assistant will respond affirmatively to our request.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this amendment? If not, I will put the question.

Mr Allen moves that section 2 be amended by adding a new subsection:

“(3) notwithstanding anything in subsection (2), no person shall smoke in any hospital, health care facility, child care centre or school attended by minors.”

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr Allen: Mr Chairman, may I ask whether you have made copies of my amendments at this point? The set I sent down to you was the only set of amendments I had.

The Deputy Chairman: Before proceeding with the next amendment, I ask: Shall section 1 stand as part of the bill?

Section I agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: The next amendment, the member for Hamilton West.

Mr Allen: The next amendment that is in either package is that of the member for Carleton, adding subsection 1a to section 3. I think you have yourself a little out of order, if I might observe, for we were on section 2. We had completed section 1; I do not think you called a vote, though, on the complete section. We moved on then, I thought, to section 2 with an amendment which was for -- mine was for subsection 2(3).

The Deputy Chairman: Right. I have not called the question of section 2, because the vote on the amendment has been deferred. The next amendment I have is for section 3, and there are two of them at least. We can take the amendment of the member for Carleton first, as you suggest.

Section 3: Mr Sterling moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(1a) A designated smoking area shall be an enclosed area set aside for smokers to use tobacco, which is clearly identified as such, does not include an area normally occupied by nonsmokers, and meets further criteria as are prescribed.”

Mr Sterling: This is the weakest of all the amendments put forward to try to have the government in some way define what a smoking area and a nonsmoking area are and that they should be separated in some fashion.

As members know, under this bill we have a situation whereby a person can sit at one desk in the workplace and have immediately adjacent to him at the next desk a smoking area, while his area might be a nonsmoking area. An imaginary line can be drawn between the desks and, therefore, the real protection for the nonsmoker is a fallacy.

This amendment says there must be a physical barrier between myself, the nonsmoker, and my workmate who is the smoker. It does not say there must be separate ventilation, but it hopes that in the future there may be separate ventilation for the two areas. We tried in the standing committee that there be separate ventilation in the two areas, but with the knowledge that this government is frightened to take any kind of leap at all, let alone a small step, I have offered this amendment as being the least possible acceptable to the health care groups that have come forward, and I urge the government to accept this particular amendment.

I might also add that it not only provides for a physical barrier between two people who are divided between a smoking and a nonsmoking area, but also provides a guarantee for a nonsmoker to a nonsmoking workplace. Therefore, in one change in the legislation, we can really make Bill 194 a meaningful piece of legislation.


Mr Allen: There is only one essential difference between the member for Carleton’s motion and my own, which I had placed at a later point in this particular section, and that is that my motion does still include a requirement for separate external ventilation.

I think that in order to test the House, I will simply move an amendment to the amendment, if I might, which would take those words “shall be separately externally ventilated” and insert them after the words “normally occupied by nonsmokers” in the amendment that the member for Carleton has just offered, so that his amendment would read:

“A designated smoking area shall be an enclosed area set aside for smokers to use tobacco, which is clearly identified as such, does not include an area normally occupied by nonsmokers, shall be separately externally ventilated and meets further criteria as are prescribed.”

The Deputy Chairman: The member will have to put that in writing and send it to the table, please.

Mr Sterling: In the interests of time, while the member for Hamilton West is doing that, perhaps the minister could respond to the main motion at this time.

Mrs Sullivan: These amendments were quite thoroughly discussed in committee when I believe the same amendments were put forward, if I am correct. At that time we took a look at the bill as it is before us and looked particularly at the fundamental aspect of the bill, which is included in subsection 2(1), “No person shall smoke in an enclosed workplace,” and then looked from there at the kinds of requirements that would be surrounding the employer in terms of designating a working area.

There is an obligation on the employer to consult with the joint health and safety committee, with the health and safety representative, if any, before establishing a designated area for smoking. One of the things that became very apparent and was very much a part of our discussion at that time related to the fact that there are about 233,000 workplaces in the province. They vary enormously in size, in scope, in scale, from the large automobile plant with enormous height and depth of space where ventilation is handled internally to a smaller, one-man office operation, in which case the requirements and the needs are quite different.

In our view, because of the nature of the numbers of workplaces, we believe that the impact on business would be substantial with the inclusion of this amendment. The fact that consultative process is included in the bill means that there will be a reasonable and flexible alternative available to employees. The stringent requirements that the member has put forward are indeed unnecessary.

For those reasons, we will not be supporting this amendment and the subsequent amendment to the amendment.

Mr Allen: I hope that is an acceptable way of entering that amendment, by simply indicating it on the amendment of the member for Carleton. It is an interesting byplay that we are into at the moment, inasmuch as the parliamentary assistant has already spoken to an amendment to an amendment that I have not spoken to myself. In any case, that is the nature of committee of the whole, It is a much more relaxed and informal and a happier situation than some others we find ourselves in.

I simply want to say that it is on precisely this special lack of this legislation that the bulk of the representations were made in the hearings. It was a concern that there was a certain absurdity about allowing smoking anywhere in an enclosed, singly ventilated workplace, regardless of whether you had walls or did not have walls; that eventually the diffusion of the environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace simply becomes uniform and diffused throughout, and that therefore all the persons, all the participants in that workforce, all of the workers in that workplace are similarly and, broadly speaking, equally impacted.

It is true, and I agree, that there are workplaces that it would be very difficult to convert early to meet the requirements of this legislation and this amendment. I would think that it would be possible for the ministry to devise regulations which would apply that requirement in such a way as to allow some grandfathering to establish implementation dates for requirements of this kind in all new buildings, regardless of whether they are sealed-air buildings or what they are, that they be constructed at a certain date to meet the provincial standard which is now in place. But without that kind of a requirement in the legislation, there is going to be nothing in the regulations that will move in that direction at all.

My sense is that the wise course of action would be to put this in the legislation and then use the regulations to apply it in a realistic way. I think that is entirely workable, entirely manageable, and would meet the objectives of all the health groups that came before us, the entire labour movement, which came before us and made a representation to us through the Ontario Federation of Labour, and many of the business groups and those organizations that work on the whole problem of implementing smoke-free environments in workplaces.

The Deputy Chairman: Before we get any further difficulties, let me draw the attention of members to standing order 8(b), which indicates that either the minister or the parliamentary assistant in charge of a bill being considered by committee of the whole House may occupy a seat in the front row. The tradition around here has been that either the minister or the parliamentary assistant has carriage of the bill, but not both at the same time, so we might have that rectified.

Mr Allen moves that the amendment proposed by Mr Sterling to section 3 of the bill be amended by adding after the word “nonsmokers,” the words “shall be separately externally ventilated.”

Is there any further discussion on the amendment to the amendment?

Mr Harris: I wonder if I could just do two things. First, since there has been some speculation on the part of some members and some reports that the member is acting solely as the member for Carleton, I want to assure the House that he has the full support of his caucus and that we indeed, as a caucus, are very supportive of this amendment in particular.

Ms Collins: What caucus? Where’s your caucus?

Hon Mr Sorbara: What section of the bill are you speaking to?

Mr Sterling: You don’t even know what section we’re on, Greg.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Yes I do, section 3.

Mr Harris: I noted the interjections from the minister and the parliamentary assistant over there, and I noted what you said, Mr Chairman, and I wanted to indicate that it probably does take both of them to come anywhere close to matching the member for Carleton. In view of the fact the minister really is talking through his hat, does not understand this legislation, we do not object to the precedent of allowing the parliamentary assistant to try to assist him in some way.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am glad to hear that the Progressive Conservative caucus, sparse as it is right now in these last hours of this session of this Parliament, has finally come to take a position on this bill, It is interesting that we have not heard about that position before.

I am not sure whether this is a changing of minds, but I have had no problem at all with, in my own mind, accepting the fact that the member for Carleton was speaking on behalf of his caucus. I am not sure why my friend the member for Nipissing raises it at this late date. He has done an admirable job carrying this bill through very lengthy sittings of the standing committee on social development and now through committee of the whole.


Just to your ruling, Mr Chairman, we will obviously defer to whatever your judgement is in this matter. I would just say that I plan on being here for as much of this debate in committee of the whole as possible. When I am not here, I am sure you, as chairman, will allow the matter to be carried by my parliamentary assistant who has done a very capable job of the consideration of this bill through the many hours it has been before Parliament.

Mr Laughren: Mr Chairman, I appreciated your intervention in what I regarded as a ruling that the two --

Hon Mr Sorbara: We are a team.

Mr Laughren: If they are a team, I appreciate the fact that they might from time to time need to give one another mutual comfort, but I do not believe it needs both of them to guide this bill, considering the fact that the minister has such incredibly competent people in front of him who can help him, whoever is in the chair. I do think it is a bit much to have the minister and his parliamentary assistant both there dealing with clause-by-clause. I do not think it is appropriate and I certainly concur with the chairman’s ruling.

Mr Sterling: I guess the concern that I have, as well as the health care groups who are here today watching this debate, is the cavalier attitude of this minister towards this piece of legislation. While we are discussing the most important amendment to this bill, he is across the floor talking to a member of the opposition, not listening to the debate of the members in considering the amendment to Bill 194.

Neither the minister nor his parliamentary assistant was present when these public groups came to the standing committee on social development to make their submissions. We have not had a hearing on Bill 194 yet. I had hoped that by bringing attention and focus on this issue, the minister would pay respect to the Legislative Assembly in what he was doing this afternoon. I have not seen evidence of it yet. He stands up and makes specious arguments about why he cannot accept amendments. His arguments lack logic. They are flawed and he does not even have the time or the respect when the member for Hamilton West is making his argument, two rows behind him, to go over to his seat and listen to the argument and maybe change his mind. What the hell do we have this process for?

The Deputy Chairman: Could I get you to centre in on the amendment to the amendment?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Five or more having risen in their seats, a division is required, and divisions are agreed to be deferred until all discussion on the bill is concluded. We will therefore have to stack not only the amendment to the amendment, but the amendment to section 3 itself, as well as section 3.

Do I take it from the member for Hamilton West that his amendment to section 3 then is withdrawn and that he is standing with his amendment to the amendment?

Mr Allen: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairman.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: The next item is section 4. Shall section 4 stand as part of the bill?

Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, prior to that, I had a series of amendments dealing with another part of section 3. Can we not deal with those? They are not contingent on the prior part.

The Deputy Chairman: You have numbered these on the yellow sheets that I have. Are you referring to amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 by your numbering system?

Mr Sterling: Yes It was my intention to put one of those forward.

The Deputy Chairman: May I ask then, are you intending to move the others or withdraw the others?

Mr Sterling: I will withdraw the others.

The Deputy Chairman: Which ones do you --

Mr Sterling: I am going to move amendment 2 as designated.

The Deputy Chairman: We can deal with that now, provided it is not dependent on the other amendment. This is to add a further new subsection.

Mr Sterling: Actually, it probably is subject to the member for Hamilton West’s subsection 2, to the vote that is taken at that time.

The Deputy Chairman: Can I take it then that we will defer that amendment --

Mr Sterling: Yes, until after we vote on his amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: A stacked vote on the amendment to the amendment of your previous motion. You are withdrawing 3, 4 and 5?

Mr Sterling: Yes. I may withdraw 2 as well, if the member for Hamilton West’s amendment on section 2 carries.

The Deputy Chairman: We can deal with that later.

Mr Sterling: I have an amendment to subsection 3(3).

The Deputy Chairman: Mr Sterling moves that subsection 3(3) be amended by adding after the words “shall consult with the” in the first line, the word “employees.”

Mr Sterling: Under this present legislation an employer is required to “consult with the joint health and safety committee or the health and safety representative, if any, at the workplace before establishing a designated smoking area.”

If neither of these bodies or persons exists, there is no requirement in the legislation for the employer to consult with the employees. I just wanted to add “employees.” In terms of the grammatical sense I believe there would be a comma added after that in the legislation. That, therefore, would provide in each and every workplace, no matter how small, the opportunity for employees to be consulted with regard to controlling smoking in the workplace.


Hon Mr Sorbara: I go back to the comments I made earlier on, about how this bill will work in practice. I should perhaps put on the record a few comments about why we have chosen the vehicle for consultation that we have chosen; that is, the joint health and safety committee or the health and safety representative.

It has a specific purpose. That purpose is that the committee or the health and safety representative is specifically schooled in the very areas my friend from Carleton is concerned about; that is, the health and safety of the workforce within that workplace. In fact, in large workplaces, often the health and safety committee spends virtually its full time on those sorts of matters.

Very large workplaces have representatives of the workforce who do nothing else but see to these matters. In the smaller workplaces, of between five and 20 employees, there is a health and safety representative chosen by the workers, so that worker in that capacity has a special interest and a special mandate from the workers in that place of business to carry the concerns of employees to the employer in working out just these very matters.

I am disappointed that my friend the member for Carleton does not realize or acknowledge that. I understand why he would want “employees” brought in there in this amendment. I think part of it is because he would prefer a system, like the city of Toronto has in its bylaw, where one employee can raise the issue and it must be responded to.

Frankly, the years and years of experience within the Ministry of Labour in the regulation of these sorts of standards within the workplace convince us that it is through the mechanism of the joint health and safety committee that these matters are best consulted and best resolved. So we will not be supporting the amendment.

Mr Sterling: Can I just ask the minister what happens if there is not a health and safety committee or a health and safety representative?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I think that as well is contemplated in the bill in practical terms. We are then getting down to such a small workplace, a workplace with under five employees, that for all practical purposes one would not see a designation in that sort of workplace, because, again, we are talking about 25 per cent of the enclosed workplace. I think, as a practical matter, it is not a concern.

Mr Allen: Notwithstanding the correctness of everything the minister has said, we had it borne in upon us very strongly in the course of our hearings that this can be a very contentious issue in the workplace and that those agencies which have worked with workplaces attempting to institute smoking policies have found that broad consultation among the employees is really critically important to maintaining the peace and wellbeing of a workplace as it goes through this transition.

I really wonder, notwithstanding the importance of working in and through the joint health and safety committee and notwithstanding the importance of the status of the health and safety representative, whether this does not call for some requirement for broader consultation to see that in fact this happens the way we want so see it happen. Therefore, I support the proposed amendment the member has made.

The Deputy Chairman: Can I put the question?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr Sterling moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“3a. For buildings or parts of buildings, the construction of which commenced on or after 1 January 1992, designated smoking areas must be independently ventilated to the outside in accordance with the specifications prescribed.”

Mr Sterling: Much of the concern over bringing in restrictions to smoking in the workplace has centred on the cost to employers and to the construction of workplaces. This amendment brings into line a similar amendment which was introduced in the federal Parliament dealing with federal workplaces. They provided in their legislation a provision similar to this, that after a certain date in the future, any designated smoking areas must be ventilated to the outside.

What it means, if this amendment were accepted, is that building owners and developers who were building office buildings would take the separate caution, if you want to put it that way, of building areas where smokers could go, and these would be separately ventilated to the exterior. I think it would be prudent to put this in, notwithstanding any of the other part of the bill. It would at least set the stage for another government to take more progressive action.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I do not want to comment at any length on the federal legislation. What we saw at the federal level is a government which passed a bill sponsored by a private member during the last Parliament, and we see a government now that says, “Oh, well, it wasn’t practical at all and we have to bring in a whole bunch of amendments.”

The difference here in Ontario is that we have a bill that is practical, that is workable, that one would expect is going to be passed and actually implemented, rather than the kind of politicking that is going on at the federal level.

But let me just say a word or two about the practicality of the amendment proposed by my friend from Carleton. Although on the surface it implications in the kind of buildings we build in this province, in this nation, in this part of the century.

Let me give you an example of an office tower that is some 40 storeys when it is built. It is rented out to a variety of different businesses. There are a variety of different employers. Those employers grow and expand and they take over more of the floor, and then they leave. A new tenant comes in and has a different arrangement on that floor space. It is just completely impractical to think that, on a business-per-business basis, from employer to employer, we could build buildings that would comply with these sorts of specifications.

More and more we are finding, in those sorts of facilities, that the smoking areas are not within the building at all, just as we have done in the government of Ontario. One would expect that practically speaking, under Bill 194, once implemented, we would see that there would be no areas designated, so this sort of amendment would not be needed anyway. In terms of what he is suggesting for the building industry, I think his amendment is absolutely impractical, and we will not be supporting it.

Mr Sterling: We create condominiums in this province on a day-to-day basis. We have office condominiums. We have residential condominiums. We have industrial condominiums. When we create a condominium corporation in this province, we set up certain parts of the building which are to be used exclusively by the owner, or the tenant from the owner, and we create other parts of the building which are to be used in common.

We are now creating in some condominiums very progressive things like day care centres, where all of the people who are in the building must contribute to those particular areas , does it stretch the minister’s imagination to think that an arrangement can be made in law or by contract which, in effect, shares the designated smoking area which would be separately ventilated to the outside?


Obviously in the amended bill, Bill C-27 of the federal Parliament, they have included this section. Despite the minister’s protestations about how Bill C-27 was reached, I would rather have Bill C-27 than Bill 194 any day of the week. I do not understand the resistance of the minister to this particular section, sealed-air buildings, which of course are ventilated as a unit and are very difficult at this point to adapt for externally ventilated smoking areas. This, of course, is why I made the comment earlier that regulations would have to be developed to apply my earlier amendment, and this would be one form such a regulation might take. I certainly support this as a part of the bill none the less.

The notion that it is impossible for our engineers to construct buildings in such a way that they have a capacity on each floor for a significant and useful smoking area with external ventilation that would be available to the occupiers of that floor is really quite a stunning proposition. I can see the problem of adapting some existing structures, but surely it is not beyond the bounds of heating and ventilation or structural engineers to devise that kind of arrangement.

Regardless of the fact of who comes in and out of those floors, there are going to be people there. Unless the buildings are massively overhauled, they are presumably going to be used as workplaces and not as residences. They will therefore have a need, under some legislation of any kind of rigour, to have designated smoking areas. If they are to be designated smoking areas that mean anything in the future, even if this bill does not end up providing for them, then they are going to have to be externally ventilated. I do not see that there is an option on that.

If the minister is saying that all designated smoking areas for the Bank of Nova Scotia tower are going to have to be outside the building, that is well and good for me, as long as he passes legislation which says there is going to be no smoking in that building and that that designated area is going to have to be somewhere else, in some little specially constructed shack out in the plaza. That is okay; I do not have any problem with that, but I do not see that in this legislation. I do not see anything that provides for it or anything that points towards it.

All I see is that there is an opportunity in this legislation for any employer inhabiting any part of any of those buildings to say: “Twenty-five per cent of this floor space is a designated smoking area. Forget it, boys, that’s all that’s going to be laid on you.” I do not see anything the minister, the parliamentary assistant or any members from the government said in the hearing as telling us any different, century that would be required of builders, it seems to me entirely reasonable for the member for Carleton to move a motion that would require that we lay this on builders and developers, as well as a criteria for future building construction as of this particular date. I think it is entirely reasonable.

The minister has an argument that perhaps because certain plans are already afoot and they cannot be implemented by that date -- well, let him suggest another date, but I do not see the problem with dating that kind of requirement.

The Chairman: Any other comments? Are we ready to vote? Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5:

The Chairman: Mr Sterling moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(1a) An employer shall publish and, upon the request of an inspector or employee, provide a floor plan showing the designated smoking areas for a workplace.”

Mr Sterling: Under this bill there is no provision, weak as the bill may be, for the employer to provide information to an employee showing where the smoking and nonsmoking areas might be. Therefore, we have a situation where an employer can claim one day that a smoking area is here and the next day it may not be there. All this does is provide an employee with the right to information as to where the smoking and nonsmoking areas are located.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I just point to the fact that subsection 4(1) of the bill states -- and we have just carried that section in this committee -- that “an employer shall post and keep posted such signs as may be prescribed respecting smoking in a workplace.” Subsection 4(2) says, “An employer shall post signs that identify designated smoking areas in a workplace.” In my own view and in the government’s view, those are conclusive of the matter and deal with the problems raised by my friend from Carleton in his amendments to section 5.

Mr Sterling: The minister has legislation which permits employees to get information as to what dangerous substances they are working within the workplace. Why would he not provide an employee with a floor plan, if he requested it, showing where smoking and nonsmoking areas might be. In a large room with desks, if there is a sign on the wall at one end which says, “This is a smoking area,” and on the other end that it is a nonsmoking area, how do you know where the smoking area begins and where it ends? I do not understand the minister’s resistance to telling employees what their rights are under this bill.

Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend from Carleton really goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. I just want to illustrate by way of an example. In Metropolitan Toronto for the past number of years we have had bylaws requiring restaurants to identify and have areas for nonsmokers and, if they wish, areas for smokers. That has worked marvellously well for the dining-out public, without there being published floor plans and designations and all of that stuff. I have no idea why in this matter, under this bill, my friend from Carleton thinks so poorly of the employer community that it is going on a daily basis to rotate smoking areas and move around signs and avoid the order of inspectors.

This bill is subject to the powers of inspection by inspectors under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. There are provisions in it requiring designation; there are powers of enforcement that will reside as well, or at least parenthetically, with joint health and safety committees. Surely to God he can understand that this kind of framework is not going to lead to the kinds of problems he imagines, as we work this bill through the last stages of committee of the whole.

Mr Sterling: I differentiate between going into a restaurant for a meal and making the decision whether or not I stay there for dinner, and having to go to work each day and defining what my rights are in my day-to-day work situation.


I find it absolutely amazing that under this legislation, in section 6, an inspector has the right to that information. Why does an employee calling the inspector have to take the time of the Minister of Labour, get the inspector in, get a confrontation going -- why do we not just provide the employee with a drawing and show him where it is or where it is not?

I do not understand the minister’s argument at all. The minister’s argument is about the good employer. We are not talking about the good employer. Legislation is not for good employers, good unions or whatever. It is for people who do not -- they cannot stand what this minister is doing to this bill, that is the problem, Mr Elston.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I will introduce today -- I mean, after all, the member is on camera, so --

Mr Sterling: I do not understand the minister’s reluctance. Why can an employee not ask to find out whether his desk is in the area? He has to call the minister’s inspector in to get that information. Does that make sense to him?

Mr Allen: I just want to say that I too just do not understand the minister’s reasoning. Of course, a reasonable employer will act in a reasonable way, and an employer who wishes to preserve the peace of his workplace will obviously want to designate very clearly where these smoking and nonsmoking areas reside and the boundaries between them. At the same time, as my colleague the member for Carleton says, legislation is not for the well disposed, the intelligent and the people who are going to do everything exactly the right way in advance and where no problems arise.

The simple requirement of asking that an employer at least post a plan, so that everyone in the workplace will know where the boundaries are and whether he is in or out of the designated smoking area, surely is a way of managing the workplace in a very sensible fashion. The human relations and the human conflicts that are generated in workplaces in transition where smoking policies are being applied surely need that degree of regulation in order to keep things in order. Everybody will know where they stand; whether they are in or out; whether George, who I like to work with, is in or out; whether I want my desk or workstation there, and so on.

Some employers, in relatively small places, are obviously going to be under a lot of pressure from individual workers to shift about their location and so on, in order to provide them with what they consider to be their best option under the smoking policy -- whatever it is. It just seems to make sense to require in the legislation that the simple fact of a floor plan be provided to those workers.

The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Chairman: I have two requests to amend subsection 5(2).

Mr Allen: If I can explain, what I have done on this amendment is to incorporate a housekeeping item at the beginning which is not really necessary, so we can simply stroke that and ignore it. It refers to the possible passage of subsection 2(3), that would have required that all hospitals, health care facilities, child care centres and schools for minors would be passed and be lodged under section 2. So, I will not move that part of this, but I will move the rest of what is on that page.

Mr Allen moves that section 5 be amended by adding a new subsection (2), which will read as follows:

“(2) The employer shall, after consulting with the employees, arrange a smoking cessation program for each employee who desires such a program, the cost of which will be borne equally by the employer and the government.”

The Chairman: Would the member have a clean sheet of that new proposal that he has?

Mr Allen: This is the only one I have.

The Chairman: I agree with my friends. This is out of order because of standing order 15. If I remember well, a motion cannot call for an expenditure from the government.

Mr Allen: In that case I will alter it by excising the word “equally” and the last words “and the government.”

The Chairman: Fair enough. So may I read again the motion?

Mr Allen moves to amend section 5 so that a new subsection (2) is added:

“(2) The employer shall, after consulting with the employees, arrange a smoking cessation program for each employee who desires such a program, the cost of which will be borne by the employer.”

Mr Allen: I realize that order is in place and that I really am not permitted to do that. But I did want to write it that way in the first instance simply to call attention to the fact that this is a piece of legislation that is being laid on the lifestyles of working people by a government in the first instance, secondarily by employers. Notwithstanding the fact that it is, in my point of view, for their own good and that they should all willingly accept it, there will none the less be concerns about the pressure that will place upon them.

Also many of those working people will have that pressure placed upon them as individuals who will find it very difficult to cope with the abandonment of a smoking habit. I think we have to take that seriously and take seriously at the same time the fact that they are being put in this position at this point in their lives by a government and by an employer. That was why I felt that in all honesty the government really ought, from its point of view, to have accepted the responsibility of paying for part of any smoking cessation programs that those workers might be involved in.

I none the less believe, even though it was argued that this might be a costly item to employers, that it is an obligation of the employer and one that in the long run might not be nearly as expensive as the employer might think. I will argue as follows: First of all, in most cases where smoking cessation programs have been offered and where there have been smoking policies instituted in workplaces, there has been a much smaller takeup and need to take up the smoking cessation programs than had been anticipated.

Secondly, there are in fact certain cost benefits to an employer for his employees not to smoke. Environmental tobacco smoke has not only an environmental impact on individuals; it has an impact upon buildings, upon furnishings, upon decorations, upon machinery, electronic and otherwise, and there is a major cost saving over the long run for most employers in having a smoke-free environment.

Therefore, it seems to me that for the two reasons that I have given, such programs should be required. They are an obligation placed upon the worker at a time in his life, as I said, when he was not expecting to have to cope with this crisis at this particular moment and he should be assisted with it. I would, therefore, make this motion and hope that the minister would be prepared to accept it.

The Chairman: Before we go any further, could I bring to your attention that this subsection that you would like to add is actually a third one, a new subsection, is it not?

Mr Allen: Mr Chairman, if we begin adding subsections to section 5 we will have to number the first part there as subsection 1. I was proposing this as a subsection 2 that would follow immediately. The member for Carleton has, I believe, some other proposals in this area and I have a couple as well. How perhaps these all will be woven together ultimately in terms of a sequence, if any of them pass, is perhaps a drafting problem that can be left until later.

The Chairman: So this is a totally new subsection, independent of what is already there?

Mr Allen: This is a whole new subsection in where it fits in?

Mr Allen: No, I am not particular, but I think it is a fairly important obligation and should rank fairly high in the sequence.

The Chairman: Fair enough. So for the purpose of discussion we will call it subsection 3, if you do not mind. Fair enough?

Mr Allen: Fair enough.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Just to respond to the comments of the member for Hamilton West, listening to him, I think there is a faint bit of hope, not that the section will pass but that he is acknowledging that the passage of Bill 194 will have a dramatic impact on the numbers of people who are smoking in workplaces. I think the fact that he puts this section in and suggests that because workers are going to be affected they should have smoking cessation programs gives me some port of hope that he will be celebrating, ultimately, the passage of the bill.

It is classically New Democratic Party rhetoric to say the worker should have something and the employer should pay for it. Surely to goodness under this sort of bill the workplace parties themselves can work out whether there is going to be a smoking cessation program and who is going to pay for it. Surely to God the member would not want to put that burden automatically on the employer.

What about the worker who does not smoke at work but smokes at home and pollutes his house? That is where the real problem is, by the way, in terms of environmental tobacco smoke. The biggest problem is in the private home. Surely to goodness he is not saying that worker has an automatic right to call on his employer to provide a smoking cessation program. I know where the member is coming from and I am glad he acknowledges in here that people will be quitting smoking as a result of Bill 194, but we are not prepared to support the amendment.

The Chairman: Any other comments? Are we ready to vote?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr Sterling: I have an amendment adding a subsection to section 5.

The Chairman: Before you get to subsection 3, I have something here that talks about deleting forward.

The Chairman: Mr Sterling moved that subsection 5(2) be amended by deleting the words “make every reasonable effort to” in the first line.

Mr Sterling: The way the subsection would read if those words were deleted would be, “An employer shall accommodate employees who request that they work in a place separate from a designated smoking area.” I take out the words “make every reasonable effort to” accommodate the employees; I just say that the employer must do that.

Hon Mr Sorbara: This is one of the sections that was amended in the standing committee on social development and I think the committee approved the wording that is in the bill now. The member’s desire to go beyond that and put an absolute obligation in every instance to accommodate in the way he would suggest is simply not practical and I am not prepared to support it.

Mr Sterling: The minister is not willing to support the right of a nonsmoker to a nonsmoking workplace; is that correct?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am willing to move expeditiously to have this bill passed and have a provision like subsection 5(2) in the law, which requires that reasonable efforts be made.

The difference in this debate between my friend the member for Carleton and I is that we are trying to pass reasonable, workable legislation that will make a very significant, important difference and we are the only jurisdiction thus far in Canada that has done this. What my friend from Carleton insists on doing is trying to create such an unreasonable piece of legislation that it just is not practical or reasonable to pass it.

I encourage my friend to look at the word “reasonable” in this section, look at the word “effort” in this section, and understand that what we are doing is using the same sort of approach that we do in a variety of other statutes, saying that efforts have to be made to accommodate and the employer has to act reasonably. That is the whole theme of the bill and that is why we are going to pass it.

Mr Sterling: I just do not think it is reasonable to bring in a piece of legislation which gives no right to a nonsmoking employee to work in a nonsmoking environment. The minister can talk about reasonable. This bill may be reasonable for smokers, and I think that is the sum total of what this legislation is all about. It is reasonable for smokers because, in effect, as some health care groups said this morning, this is a smokers’ protection act.

It has nothing to do with nonsmokers, and it is not reasonable, in my opinion, to ask a nonsmoker to have to work in an environment and breathe somebody else’s smoke all day. That is not reasonable with me. The minister said it is with him. It is not reasonable to me.

The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Chairman: I have two requests to add another subsection.

Mr Allen: Looking at the amendments that are coming ahead, this is perhaps a general one that, if it does not pass, might well be appropriately followed by the amendments the member for Carleton is proposing with regard to specific employees.

I will read it first and explain later.

The Chairman: Mr Allen moves that section 5 be amended by striking subsection 2 and adding thereto:

“(4) An employer shall ensure that nonsmoking employees who so request work in a place separate from a designated smoking area.”

What you are doing is adding a whole new subsection, no matter what the number is.

Mr Allen: Yes, in effect that is the case, although I think perhaps the bill that you may be working from, Mr Chairman, and that certainly I am working from does not include amendments that were passed in committee. I believe there was an amendment to this section passed in committee which proposed that an employer should make an effort -- I have forgotten the language -- to see that nonsmoking employees were accommodated as designated smoking areas were put in place. But there was no clear requirement. Does the minister have that language over there?


Hon Mr Sorbara: That is the section I just read out in the amended bill, the bill that came out of committee. It reads as follows: “An employer shall make every reasonable effort to accommodate employees who request that they work in a place separate from a designated smoking area.” That is the section we just discussed under Mr Sterling’s amendment.

Mr Allen: I am sorry. I was reading the original bill, and I took the “every reasonable effort” language to be from the original bill. In that case, my amendment has already been dealt with.

The Chairman: I still have at least two requests to add a new subsection. As a matter of fact, I have two requests from the member for Hamilton West and two requests from the member for Carleton to move a new subsection to section 5. Is that correct?

Mr Sterling moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) An employer shall, upon request, provide a pregnant employee with a place to work within the workplace that is smoke-free.”

Mr Sterling: We have attempted, through the committee hearings we held in March and April, to provide each and every employee with the right to a nonsmoking work area. All of those attempts during the standing committee hearings and today have gone for naught.

Under this legislation an employee does not have the right to demand of his employer a smoke-free workplace. We have significant evidence that shows there are extremely harmful effects to an unborn foetus from secondhand smoke.

My amendment, which is a last-ditch effort in trying to protect at least the unborn from the hazards of secondhand smoke, is to put at least a very tiny obligation on an employer who is approached by a woman who is pregnant to provide her with a smoke-free area. I find it would be absolutely impossible for the minister to reject such a suggestion or amendment.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I believe the issue my friend raises is dealt with in subsection 5(2).

Mr Sterling: Would the minister elaborate? I do not know how it is dealt with in subsection 5(2). All it says in that area is that the employer must make a reasonable effort. What if he says it is not reasonable to provide for the pregnant woman? Is she expected, then, to work in an environment where there is secondhand smoke Is that what the minister is telling me and the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Once again I tell my friend from Carleton that subsection 5(2) is designed to deal with those very sorts of particular situations, as well as more general ones. I would expect that a woman who is carrying a child, or anyone who is allergic to smoke or who is terribly sensitive or whatever, can rely upon the provisions of subsection 5(2) and make the request. There is an obligation on the employer to make every reasonable effort to accommodate.

I remind my friend from Carleton that under this law, there can be no area greater than 25 per cent of the enclosed workplace where smoking is permitted. I remind my friend that under this law, by and large, we expect that employers will eliminate it entirely. It is eminently reasonable to think that it will be easy or relatively easy to accommodate not only the woman who is carrying a child but other individuals who are perhaps supersensitive. I simply redirect my friend’s attention to subsection 5(2).

Mr Sterling: I find it absolutely amazing that the minister responsible for women’s issues is standing in his place saying to the Legislature today that if a pregnant woman comes forward and the employer says, “It’s not reasonable for me to provide a smoke-free environment,” he is going to force that woman and the unborn foetus into a situation where there is evidence now that that unborn child will be harmed by that secondhand smoke.

Could the minister tell me, under subsection 5(2), what that woman does if the employer says to her, “It’s not reasonable for me to provide you, Mrs X, with a nonsmoking area”? Where does she go? How does she get it remedied? What are her rights?

Mr Allen: I wholeheartedly endorse the position the member for Carleton has taken on this question. It is part of the central illogic of the bill that drives the minister to be denying an absolute requirement for the protection of a pregnant woman in the workplace from environmental tobacco smoke.

The whole proposition that somehow a workplace where the designated smoking areas are part of the enclosed working area and are not separately ventilated puts all of us in a very difficult position vis-à-vis defining anybody’s health and wellbeing in future workplaces under this legislation; most of all, those who are most vulnerable, such as pregnant women and the foetuses they carry.

The illogic has been repeated and repeated and repeated by the member for Carleton and myself and the critics of this legislation, because you cannot provide for that degree of freedom from environmental tobacco smoke required to assure the health and wellbeing of workers as long as the designated working areas have only to meet the minimum requirements the minister has laid down. Within those minimum requirements, he is not even requiring an employer to make more than a reasonable effort with respect to the most vulnerable of the workers in the workforce.

Surely, if one is tackling this legislation from the point of view of the nonsmoker and the wellbeing and welfare of the nonsmoker and his or her rights vis-à-vis a workplace, there has to be something more in this legislation at this point in time with respect, at the very least, to those women in the workforce who are carrying foetuses.

It surely is not enough just to say that an employer must make a reasonable effort. After all, the right that is there must surely take precedence over the reasonableness of an employer insisting that that worker has to stay within the designated smoking area, even though that employee not only vociferously objects to that smoking environment but knows very well, as I read earlier, that the impacts for a pregnancy are going to be the possibilities of miscarriage, still birth, lower foetal birth weight and growth retardation, as demonstrated consequences of the imbibing of environmental tobacco smoke.


Mr Sterling: Dr Michael Goodyear is in the gallery today. He is an assistant professor of medicine at the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre at McMaster University. I read from a document he gave me this morning:

“Two major US government reports released this year have shown that all workers exposed to tobacco smoke develop chemical changes in their bodies similar to those found in smokers, which are associated with mutations to the cellular genetic material and cancer.

“Recent research has shown alarming evidence of similar effects on the tissues of the foetus and an increased cancer incidence in children of mothers exposed to tobacco smoke during pregnancy.”

If the minister cannot accept this particular amendment, which is very minor in terms of the overall effect it might have on the employers of Ontario, I say there is no hope for the nonsmoker working in Ontario for any kind of progressive legislation coming from him as the Minister of Labour.

I do not understand how he could say to a mother carrying a child who is going to come to him and say, “My employer has denied me a nonsmoking area” -- l want him to answer me today, before we leave: What action can she take under the bill Where does she go? How does she get paid the next payday? She has no rights under this piece of legislation to a nonsmoking area. Where does she go?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Just let me point out for I think the fourth time the statutory obligation to reasonably accommodate. The answer to where she goes is under the bill, to enforce her rights for reasonable accommodation under the statute. Those words are not, as the member would suggest, simply devoid of meaning. Those are words that we have incorporated into the Human Rights Code in this province. “Reasonable accommodation” is a legal term we are familiar with, and there is a statutory obligation to reasonably accommodate.

I simply do not accept the notion that whereas all of the world needs to be reasonably accommodated, we need to put the absolute right to a smoke-free workplace of the woman who is pregnant, the woman who is with child. The fact is that under the charter of this great country, it may be that we are violating the rights of other individuals who happen to be supersensitive.

I tell my friend for the final time that the “reasonable accommodation” provisions in subsection 5(2) of the bill respond conclusively to the problems of that very person he has talked about. For him to suggest that I care not about that sort of situation is simply offensive.

Mr Sterling: Why, then, does the minister not produce the absolute right? What is the problem with producing the absolute right? Why does the pregnant woman have to make her case? Why is she not given that right as a right? Why does she not have an absolute right? What is the minister’s objection to giving her an absolute right? The minister does not agree with giving her the absolute right; is that correct?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I have no further comment.

Mr Sterling: Does the minister agree with giving her an absolute right to a smoke-free workplace?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I have no further comments on this section of the bill or the member’s amendment.

Mr Sterling: In other words, the minister is frightened to answer the question. Is that right? I have to shame him into it?


Hon Mr Sorbara: It’s too hot, Norm, honestly.

Mr Sterling: I know it is hot, too. Is the minister unwilling to give a pregnant woman the absolute right to a smoke-free workplace? Is that what he is telling us?

Mr Allen: We have reached a truly astonishing state of affairs. If one were to take this question in its larger aspect, not just simply with reference to pregnant women, and if one were to compare some other carcinogens in the workplace and some other chemical presences that are defined under other legislation that are not as carcinogenic as environmental tobacco smoke and its components can be, the minister would be required to take much more drastic action than he is taking under this piece of legislation, and he knows that very well.

I think it is rather odd that he is not prepared to be somewhat more rigorous than he is this afternoon, particularly with respect to the insistence of the member for Carleton and certainly my insistence that this legislation, at the very minimum, knowing the impact that environmental tobacco smoke has upon foetal development, I find it truly astonishing that he would be unwilling to at least name that particular exception as the one case where he would state that there must be an accommodation of that woman in the workplace.

The Chairman: Mr Sterling moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) An employer shall, upon request, provide a pregnant employee with a place to work within the workplace that is smoke-free.”

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Chairman: The member for Carleton has an amendment that is similar also. What is he doing with that similar amendment?

Mr Sterling: I am not going to put that one forward.

The Chairman: I still have two of the member for Hamilton West’s amendments to section 5.

Mr Allen: There is one that is relevant, Mr Chairman, and I will waive that amendment.

The Chairman: I have a list of two of the amendments to section 5 that the member wanted to make.

Mr Allen: Of the series that I sent you, Mr Chairman, I believe one was an approximation of another one of the member for Carleton. So I have just assumed that does not apply. Then we are left with the section 5 that I planned to add, but I will, under the circumstances, withdraw that.

Sections 6 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 13:

Mr Sterling: I am not going to introduce that amendment.

Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.

Call in the members for the division vote.


The Chairman: Order. Please take your seats. We have a series of proposed amendments.

Mr Allen moves to amend section 2 by adding thereto a new subsection.

Mr Sterling: Read it.

The Chairman: “(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2), no person shall smoke in any hospital, health care facility, child care centre or school attended by minors.”

The committee divided on Mr Allen’s amendment to section 2, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 9; nays 49.

The committee divided on whether section 2 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3:

The Chairman: The next proposed amendment is Mr Allen’s motion to amend the above amendment, which was an amendment to section 3 by Mr Sterling, by adding after the word “nonsmokers,” the words “shall be separately externally ventilated.”

The committee divided on Mr Allen’s amendment, which was negatived on the following• vote:

Ayes 9; nays 49.

The Chairman: Therefore, we move back to Mr Sterling’s proposed amendment to section 3. Mr Sterling moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(1a) A designated smoking area shall be an enclosed area set aside for smokers to use tobacco, which is clearly identified as such, does not include an area normally occupied by nonsmokers, and meets further criteria as are prescribed.”

The committee divided on Mr Sterling’s amendment, which was negatived on the same vote.

Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, before we proceed is it possible to have a recorded vote on the next one?

The Chairman: Not in committee.

Mr Sterling: When we are in a standing committee we can have a recorded vote.

The Chairman: Not in committee of the whole House, I am sorry.

We have another proposed amendment to section 3. Mr Sterling moves that section 3 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“Despite subsection (1), no employer shall designate a smoking area in a day care centre or nursery school.”

The committee divided on Mr Sterling’s amendment to section 3, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on whether section 3 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 5:

The Chairman: The last proposed amendment to section 5:

Mr Sterling moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“An employer shall, upon request, provide a pregnant employee with a place to work within the workplace that is smoke-free.”

The committee divided on Mr Sterling’s amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 9; nays 49.

The committee divided on whether section 5 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Section 5 agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mr Conway, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment and one bill with certain amendments.

À la suite d’une motion présentée par M. Conway, le comité plenier de la Chambre fait rapport d’un projet de loi sans amendement et un projet de loi avec certains amendements.


The following bill was given third reading on motion:

La motion de troisième lecture du projet de loi suivant est adoptee:

Bill 93, An Act to revise the Justices of the Peace Act.

Projet de loi 93, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur les juges de paix.


Mr Sorbara moved third reading of Bill 194, An Act to restrict Smoking in Workplaces.

Mr Sterling: I could not, even at this late hour, let Bill 194 go into history as legislation without saying that I am extremely disappointed in the reaction of the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) to what I thought was a lot of hard work on behalf of the members of the New Democratic Party by the member for Hamilton West (Mr Allen) and other members of the standing committee on social development.

It is extremely hard, when I have been dealing with an issue for some three and a half years, to end it with an amendment which I put forward to section 5 of the bill to provide, at the very least, a guarantee for an unborn child to be unpolluted by secondhand smoke. I find it absolutely amazing that the Minister of Labour --

Mr Jackson: And the minister responsible for women’s issues.

Mr Sterling: -- could sit in his spot and repel such an amendment. He is also the minister responsible for women’s issues. I find it amazing that we go through the legislative process, we try to --

Ms Collins: Go sit behind him.

Mr Sterling: The other members who want to talk now were afraid to talk when the amendments were put forward on this bill, because they could not enter into the debate and support the Minister of Labour. We did not have one Liberal backbencher speak during the committee of the whole House to come to the aid of the Minister of Labour. Many of them, I assume, were ashamed of his stances on some of the amendments that were put forward.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Let’s debate the matter, not the man.

Mr Sterling: If the minister wants to stand behind the policies and the members, then so be it, because that is where he will be. That is where you will be.

The opposition to this bill came not only from the member for Carleton, not only from the member for Hamilton West, but from virtually every health care group in the province. They saw this bill as nothing but a farce, and it remains nothing but a farce. When we cannot even come down to the decision in this Legislature, after debate, that an unborn foetus has protection from secondhand smoke, in the face of all of the evidence, then where are we? Where are we in the legislative process?

I only hope that the people of Ontario understand the insensitivity of this government to perhaps the number one killer in terms of a health risk to our population. Because of their addiction to tobacco, 35 to 40 people have died today, yet we have a minister who is frightened to put upon the employers the obligation to provide a pregnant woman with a smoke-free workplace. I find that amazing.

I will continue to fight this government. I will continue to try to get the public of Ontario behind me and my colleagues in bringing forward meaningful legislation to the floor of this Legislature so that we can protect smokers and nonsmokers in the workplace.

We need meaningful legislation. Bill 194 is a farce, and I am ashamed that the Liberal government has not been willing to listen to the debate, willing to move, willing to amend it to make it what it could have been, Ontario could have been the leader in our country. It has chosen to be a follower, it has chosen to shuffle the issue off into the closets, and it is probably going to be a long time before we see this bunch ever bring this issue to the floor again, because I will fight them as hard as I have this time, maybe harder, the next time and I will ensure that if I ever have the privilege of sitting on the government benches again with my colleagues, we will bring forward meaningful legislation to control smoking in the workplace.


Mr Allen: Let me first of all preface my comments by complimenting the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) for the long and difficult task he has undertaken to try to move this government on this subject. I certainly have been happy to second him in that regard, notwithstanding our party differences and notwithstanding a lot of other things.

I certainly think he has taken an admirable and a careful, well-researched approach to this subject. He has carefully consulted, as indeed the legislative committee consulted, the health groups of this province and country, the labour movement, employers and those agencies that have taken up the task of attempting to facilitate the transitions to a more smoke-free working environment in Ontario.

Universally, all of them have advised him, as they have advised me and as they have advised the legislative committee, that this is an entirely inadequate bill and that this bill could have been the kind of thing the minister described earlier in our committee of the whole; namely, legislation that set model standards for much of the industrialized world in terms of its workplaces.

In point of fact, we have just been outpaced a couple of weeks ago dramatically by New York state. When he says that we are the leader in this country, there are no other provinces that have this kind of general legislation anyway, so what kind of leadership is that? Everybody who was looking towards this minister and towards this government was looking for something that established a somewhat significantly higher level of precedent than this provides the rest of the country as it moves towards defining the problem and its solution to smoking in the workplace.

I think one has to realize the scale of the issue in order to appreciate the significance of what has happened. Those who do research on environmental tobacco smoke tell us two things.

One is that in a normal workplace, with a normal percentage of smokers present, the average worker present who is not a smoker has exactly the same biological test results as the smokers have in that environment.

Second, if you are going to try to do something about it on the basis of normal standards of ventilation, you end up with a lifetime risk for the workers in that workplace which is 250 times the acceptable level and there is no ventilation system on earth that is capable of removing that level to what is defined under biological and chemical tests as an acceptable level. There is no ventilating and heating system that could stand the test. You would literally have to have a gale blowing through your workplace to get anywhere near acceptable levels.

That is the degree of the problem, so when the minister introduces a bill that permits employers to designate smoking areas which have no external ventilation, are part of the enclosed workplace, the absurdity of the bill is patent and obvious. I am just surprised that it has not struck the minister that way, that it has not struck the members of the committee who did the listening that way and that it has not struck the cabinet and the members of the government opposite that way.

One can only conclude, on a rather sad and I think rather tragic note that the member from Carleton ended on, the very minimal condition that one would expect to respect, the right of a woman carrying a child in a workplace, has been repudiated by this minister and this government.

They could have acted; they did not.

The Speaker: Do any other members wish to participate? If not, the minister may wish to complete the debate.

Hon Mr Sorbara: It really is a pleasure to be able to wrap up this debate, I guess the second major piece of legislation I have had the pleasure of winding up this week.

I just have a couple of words to say to the member for Hamilton West and the member for Carleton. Both of them have been very passionate in their desire to make Bill 194, in their terms, much more expansive in terms of its ability to regulate and much more restrictive in terms of its ability to allow, in any situation, smoking in the private workplace.

But I say to my friend from Carleton that I regret a little the tone of bitterness in his final remarks. He carries his political views very passionately. He has argued in this House very passionately on a number of subjects, some in the last Parliament we sat in together, some in this Parliament. I only want to say to him in concluding that one of the reasons this Parliament is finally coming to grips with effective regulation of smoking in the private workplace is because of the kind of crusade and passionate approach he has taken to this issue, not only in this Parliament but around the province.

I have listened to him in this debate. I have met with him privately. I have understood his views in the standing committee on social development and in the committee of the whole House. I understand his disappointment. I just want to tell him and my own caucus members that we really are making dramatic progress with Bill 194. We really are for the first time anywhere in Canada establishing minimum standards. I know he would like the Ministry of Labour to go a lot further, in effect to assume some jurisdiction for health care broadly in the province. That is not within my jurisdiction and it is not within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour.

But I am pretty darned proud that on the last day of this sitting of this session, this Parliament has decided to put in some regulation which I believe, I have said from the beginning of this debate, will provide for the interests of nonsmokers in our workplace in a way that has not been done before. I do not expect that we will not have any amendment to this theme of legislation over the next 10 or 15 years, but we have taken a giant step and I think we have taken a very important step in an area that is not without controversy. I thank members for supporting this piece of legislation.

The Speaker: Mr Sorbara has moved third reading of Bill 194. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Conway: His Honour the Administrator awaits.



His Honour the Administrator of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

Hon Mr Howland: Pray be seated.

The 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.

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

Bill 24, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act;

Bill 93, An Act to revise the Justices of the Peace Act; Projet de loi 93, Loi portant revision de la Loi sur les juges de paix;

Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act;

Bill 194, An Act to restrict Smoking in Workplaces;

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these bills.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur l’administrateur sanctionne ces projets de loi.

His Honour was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon Mr Conway: I would like to seek consent to revert to motions for one last item of business. Agreed to.



Hon Mr Conway: Before putting this last motion, I know all members would want me on this occasion, very late in the month of July, to express our appreciation to this particularly diligent and long-working group of legislative pages. I want to say on the members’ behalf to Carl and his friends that they have served us very well over a long and arduous spring and summer. For that good service, we thank them most heartily.

With that, I move that when this House adjourns today, it stands adjourned until 1:30 pm on the afternoon of Tuesday 10 October 1989.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1825.